Ignacio Reboto
Object
Ignacio Reboto
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Ignacio Reboto Escribano and I am a resident in the 1 Bruce Bennetts Place Building. 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 (SSD-81426710)
Key Grounds for objections
1) Overview and primary concerns
I am lodging this objection because the proposal’s scale and cumulative impacts are unacceptable for our neighbourhood, and because the timing and method of construction pose serious and avoidable risks to the safety, amenity, and structural integrity of adjacent buildings.
2) Height, bulk, density and amenity
• The application seeks approval for a 10 storey mixed use building including in fill affordable housing (15%). The height and massing are out of character with the immediate context and will significantly reduce privacy and increase overshadowing for homes directly adjoining the site
• The proposal also risks intensifying traffic and parking pressures already experienced locally, without clear, commensurate mitigation or upgrades. Additionally, the traffic impacts have been assessed for usual peak hours. This is not aligned with the traffic peak times in this area, which are more aligned with weekend times due to the traffic attracted by the Pacific Square Mall.
3) Concurrent construction risks to neighbouring properties
The Pacific Square precinct (immediately next to the SSD site) is commencing a multi year remediation program across several buildings. These works are vibration and dust sensitive, require extensive scaffolding, and rely on carefully managed access, loading and staging. Running the SSD demolition/excavation/construction at the same time presents high risk conflicts and cumulative impacts that have not been adequately assessed in the EIS. Key risks include:
• Vibration impacts on curing waterproofing membranes, concrete repairs, façade rectification and balcony works.
• Dust and debris contamination undermining façade treatments and waterproofing integrity.
• Overlapping exclusion zones (cranes/hoists), competing contractor access needs, and congested loading operations, directly affecting safe pedestrian movement, emergency egress and my everyday access to and from home.
• Scaffolding stability and safety interface hazards during adjacent demolition/excavation near boundaries, due to ground conditions and falling debris risks.
4) Work Health & Safety (WHS) obligations
Under WHS laws, parties must consult, cooperate and coordinate where activities may impact the health and safety of others. For this site interface, that demands clear methodology, sequencing, and protective measures. A reasonable and practicable control is to avoid simultaneous high impact construction along the shared boundary, especially during critical phases of the remediation program.
5) Traffic, pedestrian safety, emergency access
The area has limited service access and high pedestrian volumes (residential and retail). Without a joint Construction Traffic & Pedestrian Management Plan and coordinated scheduling of heavy vehicle movements, the SSD will materially increase risks to neighbours and the public, and compromise emergency access/egress routes that are already constrained by remediation staging.
6) Consultation and exhibition concerns
• Residents most affected were selectively or inadequately informed during early consultation, and the public exhibition window has been shorter than the NSW SSD guideline expectation (four weeks, per Section 6.1) — reducing community capacity to properly review and respond.
• Given transparency concerns raised by residents, the Department should ensure independent scrutiny and robust public input in line with policy intent (including referral thresholds).
7) Requested outcome
Refusal to be warranted due to scale, amenity impacts, and unresolved interface risks. If the Department is minded to approve, then (at minimum) robust conditions of consent must be imposed to protect neighbouring residents and ensure safe, feasible delivery of both projects:
a) Construction staging controls: No demolition/excavation or other high impact SSD works during critical remediation phases; implement agreed interface staging with the adjacent remediation project team.
b) Vibration & structural monitoring: Install real time monitoring on affected neighbouring buildings with defined automatic stop work thresholds and reporting.
c) Formal construction coordination plan: Require a joint plan between the SSD contractor, Pacific Square BMC, remedial engineers/builders; hold regular coordination meetings with transparent communication protocols.
d) Protection of neighbouring works: Provide temporary protection for scaffolding/hoarding/façade works; strict dust/debris/runoff controls along the boundary.
e) Traffic & delivery management: Coordinate heavy vehicle schedules, loading dock use, and site access to avoid peak conflicts and maintain safe pedestrian flows.
f) Boundary safety controls: Adopt excavation methodologies/sequencing that maintain scaffolding stability and clear physical separations at the interface; share method statements and risk assessments with neighbouring managers before commencing boundary adjacent works.
8) IPC referral thresholds
Should the proposal proceed notwithstanding these concerns, I ask the Department to ensure Independent Planning Commission (IPC) referral occurs where statutory triggers are met (including 50+ public objections, a council objection, or reportable political donations) so the community’s voice is not sidelined.
9) Conclusion
As a resident living directly next to the site, I seek a decision that prioritises safety, amenity, and good planning, not expediency. This SSD, in its current form and timing, creates avoidable risks and unacceptable impacts on neighbours. Please refuse the application or impose the above conditions to guarantee safe, coordinated delivery and protect the community.
Key Grounds for objections
1) Overview and primary concerns
I am lodging this objection because the proposal’s scale and cumulative impacts are unacceptable for our neighbourhood, and because the timing and method of construction pose serious and avoidable risks to the safety, amenity, and structural integrity of adjacent buildings.
2) Height, bulk, density and amenity
• The application seeks approval for a 10 storey mixed use building including in fill affordable housing (15%). The height and massing are out of character with the immediate context and will significantly reduce privacy and increase overshadowing for homes directly adjoining the site
• The proposal also risks intensifying traffic and parking pressures already experienced locally, without clear, commensurate mitigation or upgrades. Additionally, the traffic impacts have been assessed for usual peak hours. This is not aligned with the traffic peak times in this area, which are more aligned with weekend times due to the traffic attracted by the Pacific Square Mall.
3) Concurrent construction risks to neighbouring properties
The Pacific Square precinct (immediately next to the SSD site) is commencing a multi year remediation program across several buildings. These works are vibration and dust sensitive, require extensive scaffolding, and rely on carefully managed access, loading and staging. Running the SSD demolition/excavation/construction at the same time presents high risk conflicts and cumulative impacts that have not been adequately assessed in the EIS. Key risks include:
• Vibration impacts on curing waterproofing membranes, concrete repairs, façade rectification and balcony works.
• Dust and debris contamination undermining façade treatments and waterproofing integrity.
• Overlapping exclusion zones (cranes/hoists), competing contractor access needs, and congested loading operations, directly affecting safe pedestrian movement, emergency egress and my everyday access to and from home.
• Scaffolding stability and safety interface hazards during adjacent demolition/excavation near boundaries, due to ground conditions and falling debris risks.
4) Work Health & Safety (WHS) obligations
Under WHS laws, parties must consult, cooperate and coordinate where activities may impact the health and safety of others. For this site interface, that demands clear methodology, sequencing, and protective measures. A reasonable and practicable control is to avoid simultaneous high impact construction along the shared boundary, especially during critical phases of the remediation program.
5) Traffic, pedestrian safety, emergency access
The area has limited service access and high pedestrian volumes (residential and retail). Without a joint Construction Traffic & Pedestrian Management Plan and coordinated scheduling of heavy vehicle movements, the SSD will materially increase risks to neighbours and the public, and compromise emergency access/egress routes that are already constrained by remediation staging.
6) Consultation and exhibition concerns
• Residents most affected were selectively or inadequately informed during early consultation, and the public exhibition window has been shorter than the NSW SSD guideline expectation (four weeks, per Section 6.1) — reducing community capacity to properly review and respond.
• Given transparency concerns raised by residents, the Department should ensure independent scrutiny and robust public input in line with policy intent (including referral thresholds).
7) Requested outcome
Refusal to be warranted due to scale, amenity impacts, and unresolved interface risks. If the Department is minded to approve, then (at minimum) robust conditions of consent must be imposed to protect neighbouring residents and ensure safe, feasible delivery of both projects:
a) Construction staging controls: No demolition/excavation or other high impact SSD works during critical remediation phases; implement agreed interface staging with the adjacent remediation project team.
b) Vibration & structural monitoring: Install real time monitoring on affected neighbouring buildings with defined automatic stop work thresholds and reporting.
c) Formal construction coordination plan: Require a joint plan between the SSD contractor, Pacific Square BMC, remedial engineers/builders; hold regular coordination meetings with transparent communication protocols.
d) Protection of neighbouring works: Provide temporary protection for scaffolding/hoarding/façade works; strict dust/debris/runoff controls along the boundary.
e) Traffic & delivery management: Coordinate heavy vehicle schedules, loading dock use, and site access to avoid peak conflicts and maintain safe pedestrian flows.
f) Boundary safety controls: Adopt excavation methodologies/sequencing that maintain scaffolding stability and clear physical separations at the interface; share method statements and risk assessments with neighbouring managers before commencing boundary adjacent works.
8) IPC referral thresholds
Should the proposal proceed notwithstanding these concerns, I ask the Department to ensure Independent Planning Commission (IPC) referral occurs where statutory triggers are met (including 50+ public objections, a council objection, or reportable political donations) so the community’s voice is not sidelined.
9) Conclusion
As a resident living directly next to the site, I seek a decision that prioritises safety, amenity, and good planning, not expediency. This SSD, in its current form and timing, creates avoidable risks and unacceptable impacts on neighbours. Please refuse the application or impose the above conditions to guarantee safe, coordinated delivery and protect the community.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
Previous development project was rejected. I don't understand why they resubmitted without any significant changes apart from the affordable housing. The area is already heavily populated with too many big complex. We're very concerned about the traffic footprint and noise pollution going to be with that number of apartment. Not to mention noise and dust pollution while construction. The traffic in and out will be a huge problem for anyone living around.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KINGSFORD
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Yun-Feng Lo, and I am an owner 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 an owner 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. My unit is on level 2 and will be directly face the proposed new building with no privacy and severe overshadowing.
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.
Yours sincerely,
YF Lo
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 an owner 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. My unit is on level 2 and will be directly face the proposed new building with no privacy and severe overshadowing.
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.
Yours sincerely,
YF Lo