Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,
This is not a meaningfully revised proposal. It is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that has already been:
• Refused at SECPP, and
• subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
• received 78 negative submission from the community (out of a total of 81 in the first SSD Exhibition phase.
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 — it is contested
The applicant presents the development as compliant with height controls. That position is not robust.
Their own legal advice confirms that there is more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law.
The difference between those methods is not academic — it materially changes the outcome:
• Under one approach, the building is compliant (Bettar)
• Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman)
The site is fully excavated, with basement construction extending across the entire footprint. There is no clear natural ground reference.
In this context, reliance on a single favourable interpretation is not sufficient.
The correct position is that height compliance is uncertain and contested — and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.
2. 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.
3. 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.
They confirm it.
If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, the issue is not detail — it is scale.
4. Amenity outcomes remain compromised
The applicant’s own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no solar access at all. [Appendix G...ertificate | PDF]
This sits alongside limited communal open space outcomes and the rejection of DCP-compliant envelopes on the basis that they constrain yield.
The consequence is clear:
• internal outcomes are marginally improved
• external impacts are materially increased
This is not an appropriate trade-off.
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.
That is not appropriate.
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. 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
It should not be approved.
Further, 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
Thank you.
This is not a meaningfully revised proposal. It is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that has already been:
• Refused at SECPP, and
• subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
• received 78 negative submission from the community (out of a total of 81 in the first SSD Exhibition phase.
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 — it is contested
The applicant presents the development as compliant with height controls. That position is not robust.
Their own legal advice confirms that there is more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law.
The difference between those methods is not academic — it materially changes the outcome:
• Under one approach, the building is compliant (Bettar)
• Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman)
The site is fully excavated, with basement construction extending across the entire footprint. There is no clear natural ground reference.
In this context, reliance on a single favourable interpretation is not sufficient.
The correct position is that height compliance is uncertain and contested — and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.
2. 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.
3. 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.
They confirm it.
If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, the issue is not detail — it is scale.
4. Amenity outcomes remain compromised
The applicant’s own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no solar access at all. [Appendix G...ertificate | PDF]
This sits alongside limited communal open space outcomes and the rejection of DCP-compliant envelopes on the basis that they constrain yield.
The consequence is clear:
• internal outcomes are marginally improved
• external impacts are materially increased
This is not an appropriate trade-off.
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.
That is not appropriate.
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. 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
It should not be approved.
Further, 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
Thank you.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
I have considered the amendments made by the developer and this is not a meaningfully revised proposal. It is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that has already been:
Refused at SECPP, and
subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
received 78 negative submission from the community (out of a total of 81 in the first SSD Exhibition phase.
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 — it is contested
The applicant presents the development as compliant with height controls. That position is not robust.
Their own legal advice confirms that there is more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law.
The difference between those methods is not academic — it materially changes the outcome:
Under one approach, the building is compliant (Bettar)
Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman)
The site is fully excavated, with basement construction extending across the entire footprint. There is no clear natural ground reference.
In this context, reliance on a single favourable interpretation is not sufficient.
The correct position is that height compliance is uncertain and contested — and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.
2. 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.
3. 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.
They confirm it.
If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, the issue is not detail — it is scale.
4. Amenity outcomes remain compromised
The applicant’s own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no solar access at all. [Appendix G...ertificate | PDF]
This sits alongside limited communal open space outcomes and the rejection of DCP-compliant envelopes on the basis that they constrain yield.
The consequence is clear:
internal outcomes are marginally improved
external impacts are materially increased
This is not an appropriate trade-off.
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.
That is not appropriate.
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. The proposal fails in the public interest
There are three key reasons:
It repeats a scheme that has already failed on planning merit
It relies on contested technical interpretation rather than clear compliance
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
It should not be approved.
NB: 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
Thank you.
Refused at SECPP, and
subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
received 78 negative submission from the community (out of a total of 81 in the first SSD Exhibition phase.
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 — it is contested
The applicant presents the development as compliant with height controls. That position is not robust.
Their own legal advice confirms that there is more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law.
The difference between those methods is not academic — it materially changes the outcome:
Under one approach, the building is compliant (Bettar)
Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman)
The site is fully excavated, with basement construction extending across the entire footprint. There is no clear natural ground reference.
In this context, reliance on a single favourable interpretation is not sufficient.
The correct position is that height compliance is uncertain and contested — and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.
2. 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.
3. 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.
They confirm it.
If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, the issue is not detail — it is scale.
4. Amenity outcomes remain compromised
The applicant’s own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no solar access at all. [Appendix G...ertificate | PDF]
This sits alongside limited communal open space outcomes and the rejection of DCP-compliant envelopes on the basis that they constrain yield.
The consequence is clear:
internal outcomes are marginally improved
external impacts are materially increased
This is not an appropriate trade-off.
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.
That is not appropriate.
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. The proposal fails in the public interest
There are three key reasons:
It repeats a scheme that has already failed on planning merit
It relies on contested technical interpretation rather than clear compliance
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
It should not be approved.
NB: 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
Thank you.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
The current proposal is not a meaningful proposal. It is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that :
Refused at SECPP, and
subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
received 78 negative submissions from the community. The amendment do not resolve the issues that led to its earlier refusals, it repackages them ,and introduces ne and more serious risks, using 'affording housing' as a way to try to get through the back door.
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.
When the Land and Environment Court (LEC) dismissed the developer's appeal on November 7, 2024 (Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1716), it upheld the outright refusal of the 8-storey iteration of this development.
The developer’s newly amended 10-storey State Significant Development (SSD) design—which inappropriately leverages the 15% affordable housing bonus to expand the building's envelope even further—completely fails to address, and in fact exacerbates, several core flaws highlighted in that judgment:
Unresolved Rear Laneway Bottlenecking & Access Issues: In the 2024 LEC proceedings, critical attention was given to the constraints of the rear laneway, the right of carriageway, and the easement providing access to adjoining developments. By removing vehicle egress from Maroubra Road and funneling 100% of the traffic into Piccadilly Place, the new design fundamentally ignores the Court’s findings. This will severely compromise traffic safety, pedestrian amenity, and create unprecedented congestion on a restricted rear thoroughfare.
Failure of Site Acquisition & Orderly Development: The Court previously noted that the developer had failed to acquire key adjacent parcels (such as the Police Site) which would have allowed for a broader, lower-scale, and more orderly footprint. Instead of restructuring the layout to respect this constraint, the developer has simply gone vertical—scaling up to 10 storeys. This directly defies the Court's rationale and amplifies the visual bulk and overshadowing right against our boundary line.
Exploitation of Building Envelopes to Force Inappropriate Yield: The Court dismissed the previous appeal because the bulk and scale were fundamentally incompatible with the local context. The current design treats statutory bonuses as a blunt instrument to force yield, using numbers to bypass local character constraints while entirely failing to resolve the underlying urban density and overdevelopment issues highlighted by the Court; namely
. excavation across the full site
. minimal setbacks to adjoining development
. negligible opportunity for deep soil planting
. reliance on the full heughly uplife available
Refused at SECPP, and
subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and
received 78 negative submissions from the community. The amendment do not resolve the issues that led to its earlier refusals, it repackages them ,and introduces ne and more serious risks, using 'affording housing' as a way to try to get through the back door.
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.
When the Land and Environment Court (LEC) dismissed the developer's appeal on November 7, 2024 (Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1716), it upheld the outright refusal of the 8-storey iteration of this development.
The developer’s newly amended 10-storey State Significant Development (SSD) design—which inappropriately leverages the 15% affordable housing bonus to expand the building's envelope even further—completely fails to address, and in fact exacerbates, several core flaws highlighted in that judgment:
Unresolved Rear Laneway Bottlenecking & Access Issues: In the 2024 LEC proceedings, critical attention was given to the constraints of the rear laneway, the right of carriageway, and the easement providing access to adjoining developments. By removing vehicle egress from Maroubra Road and funneling 100% of the traffic into Piccadilly Place, the new design fundamentally ignores the Court’s findings. This will severely compromise traffic safety, pedestrian amenity, and create unprecedented congestion on a restricted rear thoroughfare.
Failure of Site Acquisition & Orderly Development: The Court previously noted that the developer had failed to acquire key adjacent parcels (such as the Police Site) which would have allowed for a broader, lower-scale, and more orderly footprint. Instead of restructuring the layout to respect this constraint, the developer has simply gone vertical—scaling up to 10 storeys. This directly defies the Court's rationale and amplifies the visual bulk and overshadowing right against our boundary line.
Exploitation of Building Envelopes to Force Inappropriate Yield: The Court dismissed the previous appeal because the bulk and scale were fundamentally incompatible with the local context. The current design treats statutory bonuses as a blunt instrument to force yield, using numbers to bypass local character constraints while entirely failing to resolve the underlying urban density and overdevelopment issues highlighted by the Court; namely
. excavation across the full site
. minimal setbacks to adjoining development
. negligible opportunity for deep soil planting
. reliance on the full heughly uplife available
Jo Bowen
Object
Jo Bowen
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My reason for objecting to the project is due to the grave concerns I have regarding the impact of the increased traffic load in Picadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road all of which surround the proposed development of 138 Maroubra Road. There is only one entrance into Picadilly Place and it ends at the commercial loading dock. The same lane way is also used to exit Picadilly Place , which means vehicles have to turn around in the loading dock or reverse out onto the small roundabout on Bruce Bennetts Place.
Currently, Picadilly Place provides access for 609 parking places for the five residential buildings above the Pacific Square retail centre and the commercial loading dock which services two major supermarkets, Harris Farm, Bakers Delight, Priceline and a number of eateries and other small businesses. The loading dock is also the site of the retail garbage compactors and the residential garbage bins which means large waste management trucks drive through Picadilly Place to pick up the bins and deliver to the council pick up area. The loading dock is also used for the collection of shopping trolleys by trailers and by removal vans for residents moving in and out of their apartments.
The latest response from Lindsay Bennelong Developments fails to address any of the traffic concerns which have been submitted to each of the forums and hearings so far. In fact in this latest response they have failed to mention the current residential parking for 609 places. It is not even depicted on the diagrams, neither are the two exit drive ways onto Boyce Road from the shopping precinct.
They also fail to mention the emergency access to a huge fire fighting system by the Fire Service which is installed on the corner of Picadilly Place and Bruce Bennetts Place. This is the first port of call by fire trucks when they respond to an emergency in any part of Pacific Square commercial or residential and also the Newington residences across Bruce Bennetts Place.
This was highlighted just today - Kings Birthday public holiday when there was a fire in the chicken shop and the very full shopping centre needed to be evacuated. There was a huge volume of vehicles all trying to leave the retail parking from under the building at the same time as Picadilly Place was being used by the fire trucks.
The amended plans heighten my concerns because they indicate that ALL vehicle access to the new development at 138 Maroubra Road will be from Picadilly Place, including the traffic for the additional commercial loading dock which is part of the development plans.
This means that this small laneway will be the only access for all residential parking in Pacific Square (609) and 138 Maroubra Road, commercial deliveries by semi trailers to two loading docks, waste management trucks and emergency Fire Service vehicles.
Traffic congestion is an ingoing issue for Picadilly Place and Bruce Bennetts Place especially during busy times in the shopping centre. In addition , major renovation work has commenced at the site of the five residential buildings at Pacific Square and Picadilly Place is the only way for the heavy machinery and work trucks to access the work sites. This has already had a major impact on regular traffic using Picadilly Place.
My concerns are not about amenity or inconvenience but around safety issues for all of us who have to access Picadilly Place both motorists and pedestrians. The plans for 138 Maroubra Road by Lindsay Bennelong Developments will severely compromise traffic safety and create unprecedented congestion on a restricted rear thoroughfare. I therefore strongly object to the development plans for 138 Maroubra Road because of all the reasons mentioned above.
Yours sincerely
Jo Bowen
104/1 Bruce Bennetts Place
MAROUBRA
0411487800
Currently, Picadilly Place provides access for 609 parking places for the five residential buildings above the Pacific Square retail centre and the commercial loading dock which services two major supermarkets, Harris Farm, Bakers Delight, Priceline and a number of eateries and other small businesses. The loading dock is also the site of the retail garbage compactors and the residential garbage bins which means large waste management trucks drive through Picadilly Place to pick up the bins and deliver to the council pick up area. The loading dock is also used for the collection of shopping trolleys by trailers and by removal vans for residents moving in and out of their apartments.
The latest response from Lindsay Bennelong Developments fails to address any of the traffic concerns which have been submitted to each of the forums and hearings so far. In fact in this latest response they have failed to mention the current residential parking for 609 places. It is not even depicted on the diagrams, neither are the two exit drive ways onto Boyce Road from the shopping precinct.
They also fail to mention the emergency access to a huge fire fighting system by the Fire Service which is installed on the corner of Picadilly Place and Bruce Bennetts Place. This is the first port of call by fire trucks when they respond to an emergency in any part of Pacific Square commercial or residential and also the Newington residences across Bruce Bennetts Place.
This was highlighted just today - Kings Birthday public holiday when there was a fire in the chicken shop and the very full shopping centre needed to be evacuated. There was a huge volume of vehicles all trying to leave the retail parking from under the building at the same time as Picadilly Place was being used by the fire trucks.
The amended plans heighten my concerns because they indicate that ALL vehicle access to the new development at 138 Maroubra Road will be from Picadilly Place, including the traffic for the additional commercial loading dock which is part of the development plans.
This means that this small laneway will be the only access for all residential parking in Pacific Square (609) and 138 Maroubra Road, commercial deliveries by semi trailers to two loading docks, waste management trucks and emergency Fire Service vehicles.
Traffic congestion is an ingoing issue for Picadilly Place and Bruce Bennetts Place especially during busy times in the shopping centre. In addition , major renovation work has commenced at the site of the five residential buildings at Pacific Square and Picadilly Place is the only way for the heavy machinery and work trucks to access the work sites. This has already had a major impact on regular traffic using Picadilly Place.
My concerns are not about amenity or inconvenience but around safety issues for all of us who have to access Picadilly Place both motorists and pedestrians. The plans for 138 Maroubra Road by Lindsay Bennelong Developments will severely compromise traffic safety and create unprecedented congestion on a restricted rear thoroughfare. I therefore strongly object to the development plans for 138 Maroubra Road because of all the reasons mentioned above.
Yours sincerely
Jo Bowen
104/1 Bruce Bennetts Place
MAROUBRA
0411487800
Louise Dunn
Object
Louise Dunn
Object
MAroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to this proposal.
Having reviewed the amended application, I do not consider it to be a meaningful improvement on the versions that have already been assessed and rejected. In my view, this remains fundamentally the same development proposal that was:
• refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel; • subsequently dismissed by the Land and Environment Court; and • overwhelmingly opposed by the community, with 78 objections received during the original exhibition period when the developer resubmitted through the SSD.
While the applicant has made changes to aspects of the design, those changes do not resolve the core planning concerns that led to the earlier refusals. For example, the revised SSD proposal has moved carpark access exclusively to Piccadilly Place (rather than entry from Piccadilly Pl, and exit to Maroubra Rd in the first SSD iteration) - yet this was cited as a major issue at the SECPP etc. and will cause severe traffic problems for residents of all buildings and commercial use of the loading dock.
Impacts on traffic, noise and the environment also appear be deferred to post-consent. However, impacts that are already known should be addressed through the design and assessment of the development itself, rather than postponed to later stages. What is the point of this exhibition period if the developer is actively deferring solutions or mitigations on impacts - how can the department properly assess the application when this information is not fully at hand?
Moreover, the developer continues to refuse meaningful engagement with affected residents of neighbouring Pacific Square. The developer’s attempt at engagement involved obtaining our site mediation plans (without the resident’s awareness or permission) so they could start planning their own staging and interfacing. Our site remediation plans are not current and are under revision - so any plans they have are not correct. It beggars belief that the developer is so confident they will be approved by the department, which makes one wonder what sort of collusion may be going on.
The developer has been previously found guilty in the NSW Supreme Court of not disclosing donations to councillors in another local government area. 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
In general, the amendments repackage existing issues rather than address them, while also creating new uncertainties that warrant careful scrutiny. These are detailed below.
1. Building Height Remains Uncertain
The applicant presents the development as complying with applicable height controls. However, the position is not as straightforward as suggested.
The applicant's own legal advice acknowledges that more than one accepted methodology exists for determining building height under NSW planning law.
Depending on which methodology is applied, very different outcomes arise:
• Under one interpretation, the proposal complies (Bettar method) • Under another accepted interpretation, the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height (Merman method)
Given the extensive excavation of the site and the absence of a clear natural ground reference across much of the footprint, I do not believe it is appropriate to simply adopt the interpretation most favourable to the applicant.
At the very least, height compliance remains contested and uncertain, and that uncertainty should weigh against approval.
2. This Continues to be an Overdevelopment of the Site
Despite the amendments, the proposal still exhibits many of the characteristics commonly associated with overdevelopment:
• excavation across virtually the entire site; • minimal setbacks; • very limited opportunities for meaningful deep soil planting; and • reliance on the maximum height bonus available under the planning framework.
To me, this does not represent a balanced response to the site's constraints. Rather, it appears to be a proposal that has been pushed to the absolute limits of what may be argued as permissible, rather than what is appropriate for the location and surrounding neighbourhood.
3. Bulk, Scale and Privacy Impacts Remain
One issue has persisted throughout every version of this proposal: the overall bulk and scale of the building.
While additional screening and architectural treatments have been introduced, these measures do not eliminate the underlying problem. They are mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts created by the building's size.
In my view, if extensive screening is required to make a development acceptable, that suggests the fundamental issue is not the detailing of the design but the scale of the development itself.
4. Amenity Outcomes Remain Compromised
The applicant's own material acknowledges that some apartments will receive no solar access.
At the same time, the proposal departs from DCP-compliant building envelopes because those controls would reduce the development yield.
The result appears to be a proposal where development intensity has been prioritised over both resident amenity and the protection of neighbouring properties. I do not consider this to be an appropriate planning outcome.
5. Traffic, Noise and Environmental Impacts
A recurring theme throughout the application is the reliance on future management plans to address impacts. Traffic management, construction impacts, acoustic treatment and staging arrangements are largely deferred to post-consent processes.
Impacts that are already known should be addressed through the design and assessment of the development itself, rather than postponed to later stages.
6. Construction Interface Risks Have Not Been Properly Assessed
This is, in my opinion, one of the most concerning aspects of the current proposal.
Unlike previous iterations, this application must now be considered alongside the Pacific Square remediation works and other significant construction activity occurring in close proximity.
The applicant's assumptions regarding staging and interaction between projects relies on incomplete information and in accurate information, and arrangements that have not been agreed with neighbouring stakeholders.
Despite this, there does not appear to be a comprehensive assessment of:
• concurrent construction impacts; • site access constraints; • construction safety risks; or • cumulative impacts on surrounding residents and businesses.
These issues are foreseeable and should be fully assessed now, rather than deferred until after approval.
7. Housing SEPP Bonus
I support the objective of increasing affordable housing supply.
However, the Housing SEPP does not provide a blanket justification for additional impacts. The planning framework makes it clear that bonus height and floor space should not result in unreasonable adverse outcomes.
In this case, the bonus provisions appear to have been used primarily to increase height, bulk and development intensity while longstanding concerns about scale and impacts remain unresolved.
8. Public Interest
Ultimately, I do not believe approval of this proposal would be in the public interest.
My reasons are straightforward:
1. It is substantially the same proposal that has already been found wanting on planning merit.
2. It relies on contested technical interpretations rather than clear and unequivocal compliance.
3. It introduces new risks and uncertainties that remain unresolved.
4. The provision of the minimal amount of social housing is token and only included to maximise height and profit for the developer
The strong level of community concern expressed throughout previous assessment processes should not be dismissed, particularly when many of the issues raised by both residents and assessment bodies remain relevant today.
I remain unconvinced that it represents a genuinely improved planning outcome and strongly object to the proposal.
Having reviewed the amended application, I do not consider it to be a meaningful improvement on the versions that have already been assessed and rejected. In my view, this remains fundamentally the same development proposal that was:
• refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel; • subsequently dismissed by the Land and Environment Court; and • overwhelmingly opposed by the community, with 78 objections received during the original exhibition period when the developer resubmitted through the SSD.
While the applicant has made changes to aspects of the design, those changes do not resolve the core planning concerns that led to the earlier refusals. For example, the revised SSD proposal has moved carpark access exclusively to Piccadilly Place (rather than entry from Piccadilly Pl, and exit to Maroubra Rd in the first SSD iteration) - yet this was cited as a major issue at the SECPP etc. and will cause severe traffic problems for residents of all buildings and commercial use of the loading dock.
Impacts on traffic, noise and the environment also appear be deferred to post-consent. However, impacts that are already known should be addressed through the design and assessment of the development itself, rather than postponed to later stages. What is the point of this exhibition period if the developer is actively deferring solutions or mitigations on impacts - how can the department properly assess the application when this information is not fully at hand?
Moreover, the developer continues to refuse meaningful engagement with affected residents of neighbouring Pacific Square. The developer’s attempt at engagement involved obtaining our site mediation plans (without the resident’s awareness or permission) so they could start planning their own staging and interfacing. Our site remediation plans are not current and are under revision - so any plans they have are not correct. It beggars belief that the developer is so confident they will be approved by the department, which makes one wonder what sort of collusion may be going on.
The developer has been previously found guilty in the NSW Supreme Court of not disclosing donations to councillors in another local government area. 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
In general, the amendments repackage existing issues rather than address them, while also creating new uncertainties that warrant careful scrutiny. These are detailed below.
1. Building Height Remains Uncertain
The applicant presents the development as complying with applicable height controls. However, the position is not as straightforward as suggested.
The applicant's own legal advice acknowledges that more than one accepted methodology exists for determining building height under NSW planning law.
Depending on which methodology is applied, very different outcomes arise:
• Under one interpretation, the proposal complies (Bettar method) • Under another accepted interpretation, the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height (Merman method)
Given the extensive excavation of the site and the absence of a clear natural ground reference across much of the footprint, I do not believe it is appropriate to simply adopt the interpretation most favourable to the applicant.
At the very least, height compliance remains contested and uncertain, and that uncertainty should weigh against approval.
2. This Continues to be an Overdevelopment of the Site
Despite the amendments, the proposal still exhibits many of the characteristics commonly associated with overdevelopment:
• excavation across virtually the entire site; • minimal setbacks; • very limited opportunities for meaningful deep soil planting; and • reliance on the maximum height bonus available under the planning framework.
To me, this does not represent a balanced response to the site's constraints. Rather, it appears to be a proposal that has been pushed to the absolute limits of what may be argued as permissible, rather than what is appropriate for the location and surrounding neighbourhood.
3. Bulk, Scale and Privacy Impacts Remain
One issue has persisted throughout every version of this proposal: the overall bulk and scale of the building.
While additional screening and architectural treatments have been introduced, these measures do not eliminate the underlying problem. They are mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts created by the building's size.
In my view, if extensive screening is required to make a development acceptable, that suggests the fundamental issue is not the detailing of the design but the scale of the development itself.
4. Amenity Outcomes Remain Compromised
The applicant's own material acknowledges that some apartments will receive no solar access.
At the same time, the proposal departs from DCP-compliant building envelopes because those controls would reduce the development yield.
The result appears to be a proposal where development intensity has been prioritised over both resident amenity and the protection of neighbouring properties. I do not consider this to be an appropriate planning outcome.
5. Traffic, Noise and Environmental Impacts
A recurring theme throughout the application is the reliance on future management plans to address impacts. Traffic management, construction impacts, acoustic treatment and staging arrangements are largely deferred to post-consent processes.
Impacts that are already known should be addressed through the design and assessment of the development itself, rather than postponed to later stages.
6. Construction Interface Risks Have Not Been Properly Assessed
This is, in my opinion, one of the most concerning aspects of the current proposal.
Unlike previous iterations, this application must now be considered alongside the Pacific Square remediation works and other significant construction activity occurring in close proximity.
The applicant's assumptions regarding staging and interaction between projects relies on incomplete information and in accurate information, and arrangements that have not been agreed with neighbouring stakeholders.
Despite this, there does not appear to be a comprehensive assessment of:
• concurrent construction impacts; • site access constraints; • construction safety risks; or • cumulative impacts on surrounding residents and businesses.
These issues are foreseeable and should be fully assessed now, rather than deferred until after approval.
7. Housing SEPP Bonus
I support the objective of increasing affordable housing supply.
However, the Housing SEPP does not provide a blanket justification for additional impacts. The planning framework makes it clear that bonus height and floor space should not result in unreasonable adverse outcomes.
In this case, the bonus provisions appear to have been used primarily to increase height, bulk and development intensity while longstanding concerns about scale and impacts remain unresolved.
8. Public Interest
Ultimately, I do not believe approval of this proposal would be in the public interest.
My reasons are straightforward:
1. It is substantially the same proposal that has already been found wanting on planning merit.
2. It relies on contested technical interpretations rather than clear and unequivocal compliance.
3. It introduces new risks and uncertainties that remain unresolved.
4. The provision of the minimal amount of social housing is token and only included to maximise height and profit for the developer
The strong level of community concern expressed throughout previous assessment processes should not be dismissed, particularly when many of the issues raised by both residents and assessment bodies remain relevant today.
I remain unconvinced that it represents a genuinely improved planning outcome and strongly object to the proposal.
Toni Wade
Object
Toni Wade
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the amended design t submitted for the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
As the owner of an apartment on the adjoining property my objection relates to the amendments proposed as they fail to address the core planning, traffic, and structural issues that led to the dismissal of their previous appeal by the Land and Environment Court on November 7, 2024 (Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1716).
I believe that the developer has utilised the 15% infill affordable housing provisions primarily as a tactical lever to demand an even larger, more intrusive 10-storey building development. This strategy directly impacts the exact urban density, amenity, and streetscape, the subject of the Court and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel’s rationale for the previous rejection.
I urge the Department to refuse consent to the current State Significant Development (SSD) application on the following grounds:
View Loss & High Wall Impact
The developer’s Amendment Report asserts that the complete loss of expansive western and southern horizon views from Level 3 and upper-level units at 140 Maroubra Road is acceptable because such views are "inherently susceptible to change" in a dense town centre. This completely dismisses the planning principles reinforced by the Land and Environment Court regarding view sharing, visual amenity, and the requirement for reasonable design alternatives.
The developer has entirely refused to reduce the 32.5-meter building height or increase structural setbacks along the eastern boundary. The result is an uncompromising, raw 10-storey vertical massing located just 10 to 20 meters from residence windows and balcony, leading to both loss of light and privacy. The proposed design creates an unconscionable "high wall" effect, subjecting adjoining eastern residences into a permanent visual eyesore, eliminating natural light and views. An alternate stepped design would be considered by residents.
Failure of Site Amalgamation and Orderly Development
The Land and Environment Court previously highlighted that the subject site is a narrow allotment where the maximum allowable height and floor space index cannot be reasonably achieved without consolidation. The Court noted that the developer failed to acquire or amalgamate key adjacent parcels (such as the Maroubra Police Station site) to allow for an integrated block form with lower scale footprints.
Instead of restructuring the layout to respect this physical constraint, the developer has responded by simply going vertical, scaling the building up to 10 storeys. This layout completely bypasses the Court’s explicit expectations for orderly and economic use of land, opting to squeeze excessive density and structural volume directly against our shared eastern boundary line.
Strategic Abuse of Building Envelopes to Maximise Yield
The Court dismissed the previous local development appeal because the proposed bulk, scale, and building depth were fundamentally inappropriate for the precinct character. Rather than addressing this core architectural flaw, the developer’s new Major Project submission relies heavily on statutory affordable housing as a lever to secure additional floors.
This approach exploits planning regulation as a mathematical mechanism to bypass local character controls while failing to resolve the underlying urban density and overdevelopment issues highlighted by the Court. The tokenistic provision of affordable housing should not be accepted as a valid justification for creating severe, irreversible technical, architectural and spatial failures across adjacent boundaries.
Extreme Overshadowing & Loss of Natural Daylight
The submitted shadow modelling relies strictly on generic compliance with broad statutory margins under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), completely failing to account for the localised microclimate reality of our site. By stacking a deep, unarticulated, 10-storey block directly to our west, our afternoon solar access is effectively decimated.
The natural light that residents rely on for basic health, psychological well-being, and internal temperature management will be cut off hours early. The developer's argument—that a rapid-moving shadow from a taller, narrower building is preferable to a standard 6-storey envelope—is an architectural sophistry designed to maximise commercial floor area at the direct, daily expense of existing neighbours' standard of living.
Traffic and Acoustic Safety: Disregarding Rear Laneway Constraints
In a major design pivot to address state road limitations on Maroubra Road, the developer has modified the layout to consolidate 100% of residential, visitor, loading dock, and car-share vehicle movements to the rear via Piccadilly Place. This change directly ignores the physical constraints, pedestrian sightlines, and easement limitations of the rear thoroughfare that were heavily scrutinised during the 2024 Land and Environment Court appeal.
Piccadilly Place and the Bruce Bennetts Place are already severely congested bottlenecks, containing high volume commercial loading docks, receiving delivery trucks, and high-volume retail traffic for Pacific Square shopping centre (semi-trailers and other commercial transport vehicles deliver to Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Market and other specialty retailers and food venues), in addition to emergency services (Fire Brigade and Police) and the resident access and egress parking for our site.
Funnelling an entire additional high-density development’s vehicle access through this single lane will create constant traffic standstills onto busy Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade, generate severe low frequency acoustic pollution from idling vehicles right beneath living spaces, and dangerously exacerbate pedestrian safety risks for the numerous elderly residents navigating this specific precinct.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the nature of this amended application remains out of scale and proportion to the site’s physical constraints (narrow block, heavily congested streets). The developer’s amendments effectively relocate the severe traffic bottlenecks from Maroubra Road to Piccadilly Place (the narrow rear laneway), while using affordable housing incentives to bypass established Council height restrictions.
I request that the Department of Planning uphold its previous recommendations, the Randwick City Council’s LEP guidelines and the Land and Environment Court’s ruling and refuse this amended application in its current form.
Best regards
Toni Wade
Property Owner Pacific Square
Unit 611/717 Anzac Parade,
MAROUBRA NSW 2035
As the owner of an apartment on the adjoining property my objection relates to the amendments proposed as they fail to address the core planning, traffic, and structural issues that led to the dismissal of their previous appeal by the Land and Environment Court on November 7, 2024 (Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1716).
I believe that the developer has utilised the 15% infill affordable housing provisions primarily as a tactical lever to demand an even larger, more intrusive 10-storey building development. This strategy directly impacts the exact urban density, amenity, and streetscape, the subject of the Court and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel’s rationale for the previous rejection.
I urge the Department to refuse consent to the current State Significant Development (SSD) application on the following grounds:
View Loss & High Wall Impact
The developer’s Amendment Report asserts that the complete loss of expansive western and southern horizon views from Level 3 and upper-level units at 140 Maroubra Road is acceptable because such views are "inherently susceptible to change" in a dense town centre. This completely dismisses the planning principles reinforced by the Land and Environment Court regarding view sharing, visual amenity, and the requirement for reasonable design alternatives.
The developer has entirely refused to reduce the 32.5-meter building height or increase structural setbacks along the eastern boundary. The result is an uncompromising, raw 10-storey vertical massing located just 10 to 20 meters from residence windows and balcony, leading to both loss of light and privacy. The proposed design creates an unconscionable "high wall" effect, subjecting adjoining eastern residences into a permanent visual eyesore, eliminating natural light and views. An alternate stepped design would be considered by residents.
Failure of Site Amalgamation and Orderly Development
The Land and Environment Court previously highlighted that the subject site is a narrow allotment where the maximum allowable height and floor space index cannot be reasonably achieved without consolidation. The Court noted that the developer failed to acquire or amalgamate key adjacent parcels (such as the Maroubra Police Station site) to allow for an integrated block form with lower scale footprints.
Instead of restructuring the layout to respect this physical constraint, the developer has responded by simply going vertical, scaling the building up to 10 storeys. This layout completely bypasses the Court’s explicit expectations for orderly and economic use of land, opting to squeeze excessive density and structural volume directly against our shared eastern boundary line.
Strategic Abuse of Building Envelopes to Maximise Yield
The Court dismissed the previous local development appeal because the proposed bulk, scale, and building depth were fundamentally inappropriate for the precinct character. Rather than addressing this core architectural flaw, the developer’s new Major Project submission relies heavily on statutory affordable housing as a lever to secure additional floors.
This approach exploits planning regulation as a mathematical mechanism to bypass local character controls while failing to resolve the underlying urban density and overdevelopment issues highlighted by the Court. The tokenistic provision of affordable housing should not be accepted as a valid justification for creating severe, irreversible technical, architectural and spatial failures across adjacent boundaries.
Extreme Overshadowing & Loss of Natural Daylight
The submitted shadow modelling relies strictly on generic compliance with broad statutory margins under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), completely failing to account for the localised microclimate reality of our site. By stacking a deep, unarticulated, 10-storey block directly to our west, our afternoon solar access is effectively decimated.
The natural light that residents rely on for basic health, psychological well-being, and internal temperature management will be cut off hours early. The developer's argument—that a rapid-moving shadow from a taller, narrower building is preferable to a standard 6-storey envelope—is an architectural sophistry designed to maximise commercial floor area at the direct, daily expense of existing neighbours' standard of living.
Traffic and Acoustic Safety: Disregarding Rear Laneway Constraints
In a major design pivot to address state road limitations on Maroubra Road, the developer has modified the layout to consolidate 100% of residential, visitor, loading dock, and car-share vehicle movements to the rear via Piccadilly Place. This change directly ignores the physical constraints, pedestrian sightlines, and easement limitations of the rear thoroughfare that were heavily scrutinised during the 2024 Land and Environment Court appeal.
Piccadilly Place and the Bruce Bennetts Place are already severely congested bottlenecks, containing high volume commercial loading docks, receiving delivery trucks, and high-volume retail traffic for Pacific Square shopping centre (semi-trailers and other commercial transport vehicles deliver to Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Market and other specialty retailers and food venues), in addition to emergency services (Fire Brigade and Police) and the resident access and egress parking for our site.
Funnelling an entire additional high-density development’s vehicle access through this single lane will create constant traffic standstills onto busy Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade, generate severe low frequency acoustic pollution from idling vehicles right beneath living spaces, and dangerously exacerbate pedestrian safety risks for the numerous elderly residents navigating this specific precinct.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the nature of this amended application remains out of scale and proportion to the site’s physical constraints (narrow block, heavily congested streets). The developer’s amendments effectively relocate the severe traffic bottlenecks from Maroubra Road to Piccadilly Place (the narrow rear laneway), while using affordable housing incentives to bypass established Council height restrictions.
I request that the Department of Planning uphold its previous recommendations, the Randwick City Council’s LEP guidelines and the Land and Environment Court’s ruling and refuse this amended application in its current form.
Best regards
Toni Wade
Property Owner Pacific Square
Unit 611/717 Anzac Parade,
MAROUBRA NSW 2035
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of 140 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 2035, and I strongly oppose the proposed development due to:
- Its significant and direct impacts on all residents within my building.
- The poor and disingenuous approach to community consultation.
Key issues of the proposal that directly affect my residence include:
Excessive Height and Density:
The proposed building substantially exceeds local planning controls and the established character of the area. The planning approach disregards feedback previously provided by residents.
Loss of Privacy, Overshadowing, and Visual Impact:
The development’s close proximity to six existing high-density buildings will result in serious privacy breaches and overshadowing. Natural light and views for many units will be compromised, diminishing amenity and property value.
Traffic and Parking Congestion:
Local roads and parking facilities are already heavily burdened by existing high-density housing and the activity surrounding Pacific Square. The proposed development will worsen congestion and increase the likelihood of road damage from heavy-vehicle movements, which is already evident from the impact of current supply trucks.
Affordable Housing Concerns:
The proposed affordable housing provision appears unrealistic and fails to address the concerns raised by local residents and the broader community.
Inadequate Building Separation and Setbacks:
The proposed setbacks remain insufficient, increasing visual bulk and reducing amenity. The design does not comply with Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) requirements relating to height and setbacks.
Impact on Local Infrastructure and Environment:
The area has a history of flooding, and additional density and road strain will likely worsen flood risk and affect groundwater conditions.
Privacy Risks for Childcare Facility:
The design allows direct visual access into a neighbouring childcare centre, creating serious safety and privacy concerns. There has been no meaningful consultation with the childcare operator.
Overshadowing and Sunlight Access:
The shadow diagrams provided are inadequate, and current plans indicate that many apartments—including those on upper levels—will receive little to no sunlight.
Acoustic Impacts:
The rooftop garden and minimal setbacks may contribute to elevated noise levels. No comprehensive acoustic assessment has been undertaken to evaluate cumulative impacts.
Community Consultation and Transparency:
The developer has been uncooperative and dismissive, offering proposals that directly contradict residents’ expressed concerns. Previous refusals by planning authorities and the courts indicate that fundamental issues with the proposal remain unresolved.
- Its significant and direct impacts on all residents within my building.
- The poor and disingenuous approach to community consultation.
Key issues of the proposal that directly affect my residence include:
Excessive Height and Density:
The proposed building substantially exceeds local planning controls and the established character of the area. The planning approach disregards feedback previously provided by residents.
Loss of Privacy, Overshadowing, and Visual Impact:
The development’s close proximity to six existing high-density buildings will result in serious privacy breaches and overshadowing. Natural light and views for many units will be compromised, diminishing amenity and property value.
Traffic and Parking Congestion:
Local roads and parking facilities are already heavily burdened by existing high-density housing and the activity surrounding Pacific Square. The proposed development will worsen congestion and increase the likelihood of road damage from heavy-vehicle movements, which is already evident from the impact of current supply trucks.
Affordable Housing Concerns:
The proposed affordable housing provision appears unrealistic and fails to address the concerns raised by local residents and the broader community.
Inadequate Building Separation and Setbacks:
The proposed setbacks remain insufficient, increasing visual bulk and reducing amenity. The design does not comply with Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) requirements relating to height and setbacks.
Impact on Local Infrastructure and Environment:
The area has a history of flooding, and additional density and road strain will likely worsen flood risk and affect groundwater conditions.
Privacy Risks for Childcare Facility:
The design allows direct visual access into a neighbouring childcare centre, creating serious safety and privacy concerns. There has been no meaningful consultation with the childcare operator.
Overshadowing and Sunlight Access:
The shadow diagrams provided are inadequate, and current plans indicate that many apartments—including those on upper levels—will receive little to no sunlight.
Acoustic Impacts:
The rooftop garden and minimal setbacks may contribute to elevated noise levels. No comprehensive acoustic assessment has been undertaken to evaluate cumulative impacts.
Community Consultation and Transparency:
The developer has been uncooperative and dismissive, offering proposals that directly contradict residents’ expressed concerns. Previous refusals by planning authorities and the courts indicate that fundamental issues with the proposal remain unresolved.
Nadia Lee
Object
Nadia Lee
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Nadia Lee, 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.
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 9-storey structure is wholly incompatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and massing appear driven by development yield rather than careful planning or community need, and would set an inappropriate precedent for the area.
**2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing**
Given the close proximity to existing homes, particularly the Botanica Building, this development would cause significant loss of privacy and extensive overshadowing. These impacts would materially diminish the amenity and livability of a large number of established residences.
**3. Traffic and Parking Impacts**
Maroubra already experiences substantial traffic congestion and ongoing parking shortages. Introducing a development of this size—without any meaningful upgrades or mitigation measures—would place even further strain on already stretched local infrastructure.
**4. Superficial Approach to Affordable Housing**
While 15% infill affordable housing is cited as justification for increased height, there is no transparency regarding how these dwellings would be incorporated, maintained, or managed in the long term. Too often such provisions function as a tool for obtaining bonus floors rather than delivering genuine social benefit.
**5. Selective and Insufficient Community Consultation**
The initial consultation process was deeply inadequate. Botanica residents, despite being the most directly affected, were not informed during the consultation window, while information was selectively distributed to other, less impacted locations. This approach gives the appearance of minimising dissent rather than encouraging authentic community participation.
Additionally, the public exhibition period for this SSD was limited to **two weeks**, despite the NSW Government's own SSD Guidelines (Section 6.1) stipulating a **four-week** minimum. Such inconsistency raises understandable concerns about the transparency and integrity of the process.
IPC Referral Triggers
Under Schedule 1, Clause 26 of the NSW Planning System SEPP, referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is required where:
* The local council objects,
* 50 or more public objections are lodged (with petitions counted as one), or
* The applicant has made a reportable political donation.
It is relevant to highlight that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws, as established in “De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917”. Coupled with the irregularities surrounding the exhibition timeframe, this history reinforces the community’s concerns regarding transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor amendments, the proposal remains grossly out of scale and misaligned with community expectations. The SSD process must not become a mechanism to advance developments that have already failed to satisfy planning and legal scrutiny.
I strongly urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected are given proper consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Nadia Lee
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 9-storey structure is wholly incompatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and massing appear driven by development yield rather than careful planning or community need, and would set an inappropriate precedent for the area.
**2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing**
Given the close proximity to existing homes, particularly the Botanica Building, this development would cause significant loss of privacy and extensive overshadowing. These impacts would materially diminish the amenity and livability of a large number of established residences.
**3. Traffic and Parking Impacts**
Maroubra already experiences substantial traffic congestion and ongoing parking shortages. Introducing a development of this size—without any meaningful upgrades or mitigation measures—would place even further strain on already stretched local infrastructure.
**4. Superficial Approach to Affordable Housing**
While 15% infill affordable housing is cited as justification for increased height, there is no transparency regarding how these dwellings would be incorporated, maintained, or managed in the long term. Too often such provisions function as a tool for obtaining bonus floors rather than delivering genuine social benefit.
**5. Selective and Insufficient Community Consultation**
The initial consultation process was deeply inadequate. Botanica residents, despite being the most directly affected, were not informed during the consultation window, while information was selectively distributed to other, less impacted locations. This approach gives the appearance of minimising dissent rather than encouraging authentic community participation.
Additionally, the public exhibition period for this SSD was limited to **two weeks**, despite the NSW Government's own SSD Guidelines (Section 6.1) stipulating a **four-week** minimum. Such inconsistency raises understandable concerns about the transparency and integrity of the process.
IPC Referral Triggers
Under Schedule 1, Clause 26 of the NSW Planning System SEPP, referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is required where:
* The local council objects,
* 50 or more public objections are lodged (with petitions counted as one), or
* The applicant has made a reportable political donation.
It is relevant to highlight that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws, as established in “De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917”. Coupled with the irregularities surrounding the exhibition timeframe, this history reinforces the community’s concerns regarding transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor amendments, the proposal remains grossly out of scale and misaligned with community expectations. The SSD process must not become a mechanism to advance developments that have already failed to satisfy planning and legal scrutiny.
I strongly urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected are given proper consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Nadia Lee
Nadia Lee
Object
Nadia Lee
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Nadia Lee, 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.
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 9-storey structure is wholly incompatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and massing appear driven by development yield rather than careful planning or community need, and would set an inappropriate precedent for the area.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing
Given the close proximity to existing homes, particularly the Botanica Building, this development would cause significant loss of privacy and extensive overshadowing. These impacts would materially diminish the amenity and livability of a large number of established residences.
3. Traffic and Parking Impacts
Maroubra already experiences substantial traffic congestion and ongoing parking shortages. Introducing a development of this size - without any meaningful upgrades or mitigation measures - would place even further strain on already stretched local infrastructure.
4. Superficial Approach to Affordable Housing
While 15% infill affordable housing is cited as justification for increased height, there is no transparency regarding how these dwellings would be incorporated, maintained, or managed in the long term. Too often such provisions function as a tool for obtaining bonus floors rather than delivering genuine social benefit.
5. Selective and Insufficient Community Consultation
The initial consultation process was deeply inadequate. Botanica residents, despite being the most directly affected, were not informed during the consultation window, while information was selectively distributed to other, less impacted locations. This approach gives the appearance of minimising dissent rather than encouraging authentic community participation.
Additionally, the public exhibition period for this SSD was limited to two weeks, despite the NSW Government's own SSD Guidelines (Section 6.1) stipulating a “four-week” minimum. Such inconsistency raises understandable concerns about the transparency and integrity of the process.
IPC Referral Triggers
Under Schedule 1, Clause 26 of the NSW Planning System SEPP, referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is required where:
* The local council objects,
* 50 or more public objections are lodged (with petitions counted as one), or
* The applicant has made a reportable political donation.
It is relevant to highlight that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws, as established in “De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917”. Coupled with the irregularities surrounding the exhibition timeframe, this history reinforces the community’s concerns regarding transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor amendments, the proposal remains grossly out of scale and misaligned with community expectations. The SSD process must not become a mechanism to advance developments that have already failed to satisfy planning and legal scrutiny.
I strongly urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected are given proper consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Nadia Lee
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 9-storey structure is wholly incompatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and massing appear driven by development yield rather than careful planning or community need, and would set an inappropriate precedent for the area.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing
Given the close proximity to existing homes, particularly the Botanica Building, this development would cause significant loss of privacy and extensive overshadowing. These impacts would materially diminish the amenity and livability of a large number of established residences.
3. Traffic and Parking Impacts
Maroubra already experiences substantial traffic congestion and ongoing parking shortages. Introducing a development of this size - without any meaningful upgrades or mitigation measures - would place even further strain on already stretched local infrastructure.
4. Superficial Approach to Affordable Housing
While 15% infill affordable housing is cited as justification for increased height, there is no transparency regarding how these dwellings would be incorporated, maintained, or managed in the long term. Too often such provisions function as a tool for obtaining bonus floors rather than delivering genuine social benefit.
5. Selective and Insufficient Community Consultation
The initial consultation process was deeply inadequate. Botanica residents, despite being the most directly affected, were not informed during the consultation window, while information was selectively distributed to other, less impacted locations. This approach gives the appearance of minimising dissent rather than encouraging authentic community participation.
Additionally, the public exhibition period for this SSD was limited to two weeks, despite the NSW Government's own SSD Guidelines (Section 6.1) stipulating a “four-week” minimum. Such inconsistency raises understandable concerns about the transparency and integrity of the process.
IPC Referral Triggers
Under Schedule 1, Clause 26 of the NSW Planning System SEPP, referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is required where:
* The local council objects,
* 50 or more public objections are lodged (with petitions counted as one), or
* The applicant has made a reportable political donation.
It is relevant to highlight that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws, as established in “De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917”. Coupled with the irregularities surrounding the exhibition timeframe, this history reinforces the community’s concerns regarding transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor amendments, the proposal remains grossly out of scale and misaligned with community expectations. The SSD process must not become a mechanism to advance developments that have already failed to satisfy planning and legal scrutiny.
I strongly urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected are given proper consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Nadia Lee
Jo Bowen
Object
Jo Bowen
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
Thank you for notice of SSD-81426710. I wish to submit my concerns regarding this development because of the access on Picadilly Place.
This is a dead end small road which commences at a small roundabout on Bruce Bennetts Place and ends in the loading dock which is used by the retail in Pacific Square, which includes Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm and various small businesses. The loading dock is also used for both commercial and residential garbage disposal and has to accommodate council garbage and recycle trucks. This loading dock operates 7days per week from 6 am to 10 pm.
Picadilly Place is also the only access and exit for 609 residential parking places in Pacific Square. In addition to this, there is an exit onto Bruce Bennetts Place for customers from Pacific Square shopping centre. The retail carpark operates until 12 midnight. The Police Station vehicles also enter and exit onto Bruce Bennetts Place, twenty four hours a day.
On the corner of Bruce Bennetts Place and Picadilly Place is the built in fire apparatus for any fire trucks which respond to alarms in Pacific Square retail, the five Pacific Square residential buildings and the Newington complex across Bruce Bennetts Place.
Needless to say, frequently there is very heavy traffic congestion caused by semi trailers lined up and waiting their turn for the loading dock, semi trailers who are exiting the loading dock , two lanes of traffic entering and exiting the residential car park and the retail customers exiting onto Bruce Bennetts Place. And of course at other times, the council garbage vehicles. This can become a crisis situation if there has been a fire emergency at any of the seven sites which are serviced by the fire apparatus on the corner of Picadilly Place.
I was surprised to see in the plans submitted that the developers of 138 Maroubra Road did not include any mention of the current loading dock at the end of the lane nor the residential car park entrances and exits on the same site. My understanding is they have included a commercial loading dock , adjacent to the current Pacific Square loading dock as well as a number of residential car places which will also enter and exit onto the same narrow, short lane. There is only one way into and out of Picadilly Place and this transit is complicated by the semi tailers, garbage trucks and fire engines all using the small lane along with the regular traffic from the 609 residential car spaces, the customers from Pacific Square Shopping Centre and the vehicles connected to the Police Station.
This is a very serious concern which I believes need to be seriously investigated before any decision is made regarding this development application.
An onsite visit by the panel of decision makers would very quickly confirm the above information.
I am happy to be part of any ongong conversation, consultation or request for further information.
Kind regards
Jo Bowen
104/1 Bruce Bennetts Place MAROUBRA
0411487800
This is a dead end small road which commences at a small roundabout on Bruce Bennetts Place and ends in the loading dock which is used by the retail in Pacific Square, which includes Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm and various small businesses. The loading dock is also used for both commercial and residential garbage disposal and has to accommodate council garbage and recycle trucks. This loading dock operates 7days per week from 6 am to 10 pm.
Picadilly Place is also the only access and exit for 609 residential parking places in Pacific Square. In addition to this, there is an exit onto Bruce Bennetts Place for customers from Pacific Square shopping centre. The retail carpark operates until 12 midnight. The Police Station vehicles also enter and exit onto Bruce Bennetts Place, twenty four hours a day.
On the corner of Bruce Bennetts Place and Picadilly Place is the built in fire apparatus for any fire trucks which respond to alarms in Pacific Square retail, the five Pacific Square residential buildings and the Newington complex across Bruce Bennetts Place.
Needless to say, frequently there is very heavy traffic congestion caused by semi trailers lined up and waiting their turn for the loading dock, semi trailers who are exiting the loading dock , two lanes of traffic entering and exiting the residential car park and the retail customers exiting onto Bruce Bennetts Place. And of course at other times, the council garbage vehicles. This can become a crisis situation if there has been a fire emergency at any of the seven sites which are serviced by the fire apparatus on the corner of Picadilly Place.
I was surprised to see in the plans submitted that the developers of 138 Maroubra Road did not include any mention of the current loading dock at the end of the lane nor the residential car park entrances and exits on the same site. My understanding is they have included a commercial loading dock , adjacent to the current Pacific Square loading dock as well as a number of residential car places which will also enter and exit onto the same narrow, short lane. There is only one way into and out of Picadilly Place and this transit is complicated by the semi tailers, garbage trucks and fire engines all using the small lane along with the regular traffic from the 609 residential car spaces, the customers from Pacific Square Shopping Centre and the vehicles connected to the Police Station.
This is a very serious concern which I believes need to be seriously investigated before any decision is made regarding this development application.
An onsite visit by the panel of decision makers would very quickly confirm the above information.
I am happy to be part of any ongong conversation, consultation or request for further information.
Kind regards
Jo Bowen
104/1 Bruce Bennetts Place MAROUBRA
0411487800