Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to object to the Development Application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra on the grounds that it represents excessive high-density development in an already over-populated area, provides only minimal affordable housing, and will significantly worsen traffic congestion on an already overburdened arterial road.

Maroubra Junction has seen a rapid increase in large developments in recent years, placing growing strain on roads, public transport, pedestrian networks, and local services. Despite this, the proposal offers only a token amount of affordable housing, which does not meaningfully contribute to addressing community needs or supporting local key workers. A development of this scale should provide a substantial affordable housing contribution to justify its density and minimise community impact.
In addition, the proposal will further overload Maroubra Road, which is already heavily congested during peak periods. Increased vehicle movements from new residents, visitors, and service vehicles will intensify bottlenecks at nearby intersections and create additional safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. The cumulative traffic impacts of recent developments clearly show that the local road network is operating at capacity.
For these reasons, I respectfully request the application is refused in its current form or require significant amendments that address density concerns, meaningfully increase the affordable housing contribution, and mitigate traffic impacts.
Yours faithfully,
Jon Jelicic

I am a local resident and object to the current proposal on the grounds that the roads surrounding Maroubra Junction are already overloaded. Existing traffic conditions are problematic, and resident parking is already beyond capacity. Introducing another residential apartment block with insufficient access and parking will only worsen these issues.

The surveys conducted were not taken during peak times on Bruce Bennetts Place. In the early mornings and at nearly any time on Saturdays, it can take up to 10 minutes just to exit our car park and reach the nearest lights on Maroubra Road due to current traffic volumes and the loading docks on Bruce Bennetts Place. There is no capacity for an additional car park entry or exit in this location.

During the week, when returning home from work, it can take up to 30 minutes of circling nearby streets to find a parking space—often as far as three large blocks away.

The proposed development provides fewer parking spaces than recommended and will further overcrowd street parking.

Access, traffic, and parking are already major issues. If this proposal proceeds, it will make the area increasingly unliveable for current residents as well as for any future residents moving into the vicinity.

Objection to Proposed Submission – Mixed Use Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing, 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

I am writing as a resident of the Panorama building at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra, to formally object to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road. While the structure itself will not impede the outlook from my apartment, the impacts on access, traffic, and parking will be significant and detrimental to residents in the immediate area.
Traffic and Access Concerns
- The traffic report accompanying the proposal is misleading, as it only measures volumes between 8–9am and 5–6pm. These are not peak periods for the loading dock and surrounding streets.
- The loading dock does not open until 6:00am. Prior to this, Piccadilly Place is fully blocked by three incoming lanes of traffic: trucks on the left, vans in the middle, and garbage vehicles on the right. This congestion often extends back to the Panorama carpark entry, partially blocking access and taking over an hour to clear.
- Weekend traffic has not been adequately considered. On Saturdays, traffic on Maroubra Road and Bruce Bennetts Place is frequently at a standstill. It can take up to 10 minutes just to exit our carpark and access Piccadilly Place.
- With the addition of Harris Farms in December 2025, the loading dock has increased traffic and queuing.
Parking Capacity Issues
- Parking in the area is already at full capacity. As a resident with two vehicles but only one allocated space for a two-bedroom apartment, it regularly takes 30 minutes to find evening parking, often two to three blocks away.
- The proposal fails to acknowledge the Development Application for Pacific Square residential visitor parking. Spaces in the retail parking lot are already allocated for residential visitor usage, further reducing available capacity.
Conclusion
The proposed development will exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking shortages, creating unsafe and impractical conditions for residents. The traffic study provided does not reflect the true impact on local access and fails to account for weekend conditions or existing parking allocations.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the approval of this submission.

The proposed structure’s sheer scale and proximity to established residential buildings, most critically the Botanica, will inflict profound and irreversible harm on the living conditions of countless residents. The resultant loss of privacy, overshadowing, and visual bulk will not simply inconvenience those affected; it will fundamentally degrade their quality of life. Homes that were purchased and lived in on the basis of reasonable expectations for sunlight, outlook, and privacy will suddenly be rendered darker, more enclosed, and noticeably less habitable.

I am a resident in the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra 2035.
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138
Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
As a resident of the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Road—directly adjoining the proposed
development—I have deep concerns not only about the project’s unacceptable scale and impact, but also
the questionable process by which the proponent has approached community consultation.
Key Grounds for Objection:
1. Excessive Height and Density
The proposed 10-storey building grossly exceeds local planning expectations for the area. The
scale and bulk are inappropriate for the location and appear designed to maximise yield rather
than reflect the character or needs of the community.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing
The close proximity of this large structure to existing residences, particularly the Botanica
Building, will result in severe loss of privacy and overshadowing, significantly affecting the
amenity and livability of dozens of homes.
3. Traffic and Parking Impacts
Maroubra already suffers from congestion and limited parking infrastructure. This development
will only exacerbate these issues without any corresponding upgrades or mitigation strategies.
4. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing
While the development seeks to justify its increased scale by including 15% infill affordable
housing, there is no clarity around the integration, quality, or long-term management of these
dwellings. Such gestures often serve as a lever to secure bonus floors, rather than a genuine
contribution to housing equity.

5. Selective and Inadequate Community Consultation
The early consultation process was deeply flawed. All Botanica residents (arguably the most
directly impacted by this developed) were not notified of the proposal during the community
consultation period. This selective distribution of information via flyer to other, less impacted
addresses appeared strategic, aimed at minimising dissent rather than inviting genuine
community feedback. Most recently, we have only been given 2 weeks opportunity to make a
submission on this SSD via the planning portal when the NSW Government’s own guidelines
state that the exhibition period should be 4 weeks (see Section 6.1 of the State Significant
Development Guidelines). It makes one wonder what type of relationship our public servants are
having with this developer?
IPC Referral Triggers
As per the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), I respectfully draw your attention to the
relevant thresholds for automatic referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), namely:
• Where the local council has objected,
• Where 50 or more public objections are received (with petitions and similar submissions counted
as one), or
• Where the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
In this context, I urge the Department to consider that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously
been found guilty of breaching political donation laws:
De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a638593004de94513d9dd5
Given this precedent, and ongoing transparency issues and incongruence with the public exhibition period
timeframe with the SSD Guidelines the community has reason to be concerned about transparency and
due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and their appeal
dismissed by the Land and Environment Court
(file:///Users/louise/Downloads/Court%20Judgment%207%20November%202024.pdf).Despite minor
modifications, the substance of the application remains out of scale and out of touch with community
expectations. The Department must not permit the SSD framework to be used as a back door to push
through previously rejected developments.
I urge you to ensure this matter is referred to the IPC, and that the community's voice, particularly that of
the most directly affected residents, is not sidelined.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to provide feedback regarding the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

As a local resident (and have a family member living in Pacific Square Building adjacent to the proposed development), I urge you to consider the existing infrastructure challenges this development poses.

My primary concerns relate to the existing traffic network capacity and parking limitations:

• Existing Traffic Congestion and Access: Our local road network, particularly the intersection of Maroubra Road and Boyce Road, and Piccadilly Road and Boyce Road, and Boyce Road and Anzac Parade. Current access to the nearby Pacific Square shopping centre is already constrained by existing traffic volumes. The proposed development, in its current form, appears likely to increase vehicle movements and exacerbate these existing bottlenecks.
• Road Safety and Large Vehicle Access: The current infrastructure already presents access difficulties for large service vehicles. I have observed situations where delivery trucks and emergency service vehicles struggle to navigate narrow streets or are forced to double-park, impeding traffic flow and compromising emergency response efficiency. An increase in density must be supported by improved access solutions to maintain public safety.
• Parking Infrastructure Deficit: There is presently no off-street parking at the proposed site, and existing on-street parking (albeit limited) is fully utilised by current residents and visitors. Currently I must utilise the Pacific Square shopping centre car park whenever visiting my family members. Even a brief drop-off often requires navigating the shopping centre car park just to find temporary space. The proposed development parking provision is inadequate for the development's scale and risks significant overspill into already congested local streets.

Integrating essential amendments, such as comprehensive traffic management plans, adequate on-site parking provision, and dedicated loading zones, would significantly benefit the entire community and ensure a sustainable development outcome.
Thank you for your consideration of these material issues.

Yours sincerely,
Jenny Khamphet

- Reduced daylight and sunlight into our courtyard and unit
- Increased traffic (DA proposes 64 units and 70 car spaces)
- Increased noise (cars, people)
- People looking into our unit
* from balconies/terraces
* from communal rooftop

I would like to object this application as I believe it will strongly blocking the view from my balcony.

My name is Angela Lim and I am resident in Panorama Building at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra 2035.
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSD application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
As a resident of the Panorama building, I have the following concerns:
1) The surrounding traffic flow is not the best especially during peak hours. The small lanes and round about behind the Maroubra Police Station has heavy traffic that blocks efficient flow and causes congestion. As it is, the small lane at Picaddilly Place is a bottleneck of heavy vehicles (loading dock for supermarkets) and constant flow cars and illegal parking (at No stop signs) plus the parking of 2 fire engines when there is an emergency evacuation. I cannot fathom the worsening traffic situation should more traffic is expected from the new DA.
2) This new development will exacerbate the privacy and daylight exposure into our building . As it is, the amount of daylight exposure into my unit is limited and the impending overshadowing of this building will impact on livability of all units in my building.
3) The affordable housing planning has no clarification and comprehensive approach and I question the feasability of true affordable housing in our suburb which is known to be up-market in terms of pricing.
4) This new DA will add to an already congested neighbourhood given the expected increase in human and traffic flow which local authorities have not made any plans to improve road infrastructure and amenities. This significantly impacts on Maroubra's character and charm.

Lindsay Bennelong Developments have been found guilty of breaching political donation laws and they have not been transparent in their approach with this new DA.
Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel had rejected this DA and their appeal had been dismissed by Land and Environment Court.

I strongly urge you to refer this matter to the IPC.

Yours sincerely,
Angela Lim

I am submitting this objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. Although presented as a new application, it is effectively a continuation of DA/80/2023, which was previously rejected by Randwick Council and dismissed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The most pressing issue is the significant traffic and road-safety impact this development would create. Maroubra Road already operates at heavy capacity, with constant congestion, difficult turning movements, and steady pedestrian flow to nearby shops, schools and bus stops. Adding a larger residential and commercial building on this site will substantially increase vehicle trips in and out of the property. The proposal also fails to provide adequate on-site parking, meaning that overflow parking will inevitably spill into neighbouring streets, worsening congestion and heightening risks for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

Equally concerning is the construction impact. A nine-storey build will involve long periods of heavy truck movements, excavation works, machinery noise and repeated road occupation. These activities will cause major disruption for surrounding residents, impede access, and create both safety hazards and ongoing noise disturbances throughout the construction period.

The Land and Environment Court previously found that the earlier eight-storey design constituted overdevelopment due to excessive height, bulk and scale, non-compliance with planning controls, and negative impacts on neighbouring amenity including overshadowing, loss of views, and privacy intrusion. Instead of addressing any of these issues, the developer now seeks to increase the proposal to nine storeys and add more units, including social housing, which only amplifies the impacts that were already deemed unacceptable.

It appears that the developer intends to rely on the State Government’s fast-track assessment process to bypass the prior refusal. However, the core problems remain unchanged: the development is too large for this area, will worsen traffic congestion, introduce additional road-safety risks, generate prolonged construction noise and disruption, and diminish the living conditions of nearby residents.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose this revised application.