Toni Wade
Object
Toni Wade
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Toni Wade, I am a resident of Pacific Square complex, Maroubra. This site overlooks the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
I was only recently made aware of the State Significant Development (SSD-81426710) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted, and am concerned that the required time-frame for submissions was not provided.
Together with my neighbours, I previously submitted my objections to Randwick Council and to the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) with regards to the scale and scope of this development, and the considerable impact on the quality of life and traffic congestion generated by this project.
Below are my key points of objections for your consideration.
1. Adverse impact on impact on the surrounding buildings
• A development of this scale would exacerbate existing flooding issues, particularly given that Pacific Square was constructed above the natural water table, and has required extensive remedial works to rectify flooding of our residential carpark, located immediately opposite the proposed development.
• The proposal would worsen traffic congestion which are already under significant pressure especially during peak hours compounding existing transport and accessibility challenges for residents onto Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade.
The proposed carpark access is Piccadilly Place. This small road provides the only access to residential carparking for Pacific Square (more than 600 apartments), in addition to the loading dock for Pacific Square Shopping Centre, containing anchor retailers: Coles, Liquorland, Aldi, Jasmine Supermarket, Bakers Delight, soon to be opened Harris Farm Market, restaurants and food outlets plus a range of speciality retailers.
• The surrounding area is already densely developed, with six existing high-density buildings. The proposed development site is relatively small and narrow, making it unsuitable for accommodating a large number of additional apartments—particularly when doing so would result in significant adverse impacts on the local environment and community.
• The cumulative impact of this development in an already high-density area poses a serious threat to local amenity and infrastructure capacity. While the delivery of affordable housing is important, we must ask: at what cost? Forcing a development of this scale onto a small, narrow block in an already saturated high-rise zone undermines both planning logic and community wellbeing.
2. Excessive Height and visual impact
• The proposed number of storeys has increased from 8 (previously tabled at the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP)) to 9. The inclusion of a rooftop garden on level 9, and with significant planting (trees) and infrastructure, effectively extends the building’s usable height, arguably making it comparable to 9-storey structure. Making it effectively at least 1 storey higher than 140 Maroubra Road and the neighbouring building at 1 Bruce Bennetts, which will result in severe loss of severe loss off amenity. Specifically:
o There are at least 70 units that will have their views fully obstructed by the proposed development of 64 units over 10 storeys (9 storeys plus roof top garden/facilities). These 64 units will also have issues with views and setbacks when the Maroubra Police land get developed. In addition, there are at least 450 other units within Pacific Square alone that will be indirectly impacted negatively due to loss of property value of these 70 units because they will no longer have attributes that are valued by for residential property buyers (i.e. access to views and sunlight).
o The proposed development will overlook a long established childcare facility, jeopardising the privacy and safety of young children.
o Further, the proposed development will also adjoin and overlook the Maroubra Police station holding cells, again raising issues surrounding security and privacy.
• Additionally, the previously proposed 8-storey scheme—which consists of 7 storeys plus a rooftop garden on Level 8—grossly exceeds the development controls prescribed in the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP), which sets a height limit of 6 storeys (25 metres within the DCP envelope). The revised proposal remains non-compliant with these controls, further undermining any justification for its approval.
3. Inadequate Building Separation and Setbacks
• While the amended plans show a minor increase in building setbacks, the overall height of the proposed development has also increased—making it effectively one storey higher than my building (an 8-storey structure). Additionally, the proposed building extends beyond the existing footpath line, further compounding the bulk and visual dominance of the development.
• This is not a minor design issue—it reflects a clear disregard for the expectations of existing residents and Councils planning controls designed to protect neighbourhood amenity.
• The proposed building’s proximity is still too close for comfort and is significantly detrimental to all residents facing this proposed development. Any development of the police station at 136 Maroubra Rd in the future will be presented with similar problems. As it stands is not in the public interests for either for either the current or proposed future community that would reside in this development.
• Therefore, the current proposal, with its insufficient setbacks and excessive height and bulk, is not in the public interest for either the existing community or the prospective residents of the new development.
5. Acoustic impacts
• A thorough and comprehensive acoustic assessment is required. This assessment must address potential noise reverberation from the outdoor rooftop garden, the minimal setback from Pacific Square, and the cumulative noise impact compounded by the adjacent childcare centre. The current proposal does not adequately address these significant acoustic concerns.
6. Conclusion
• This proposal has already been rejected by the SECPP, and the Developer’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor modifications to the design, the fundamental issues remain unresolved—the proposal is still out of scale, non-compliant with planning controls, and out of step with and Randwick Council’s expectations.
• During the SECCP meeting held on 22 June 2024, the Developer made statements suggesting that they could obtain approval for an even taller building through the State Significant Development (SSD) process. They implied that the currently proposed 8-storey design was a more favourable outcome for affected residents and urged the SECCP to approve it on that basis.
• This approach is neither collaborative nor consultative and raises serious concerns about the transparency, intent, and good faith of the Developer’s engagement with both the local community and the planning authorities. I urge you to review the SECCP meeting minutes which was recorded on 22 June 2024 to verify this concerning conduct.
• It is apparent that the Developer was encouraged by the DCP to amalgamate with the neighbouring site based on the height and setback requirements. It would appear that the Developer is seeking to produce a development with the same level of yield however, being unable to acquire the neighbouring lot, is blatantly seeking to disregard Councils planning controls. The impacts of this are clearly the issues of concern I raise above and would surely have far more significant impacts for residents in lower units.
• It is respectfully submitted that, if there were to be any consideration of approving a development on the subject lot, it must strictly adhere to the setback and height requirements, particularly in relation to the Pacific Square site (which was approved based on those clearances being maintained). The Maroubra Junction Centre DCP clearly acknowledges in Section 3.1.1 (Amalgamation), in bold note “The maximum allowable building depth/ height on a block may not be achievable on small allotments.”.
• Approving this development will also have a knock-on effect to the neighbouring Maroubra Police site. The proposed development would isolate or significantly constrain the future development potential of the police land, potentially requiring its own non-compliant scheme to achieve any viable outcome.
Please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected].
Kind regards,
T Wade
Toni Wade
I was only recently made aware of the State Significant Development (SSD-81426710) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted, and am concerned that the required time-frame for submissions was not provided.
Together with my neighbours, I previously submitted my objections to Randwick Council and to the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) with regards to the scale and scope of this development, and the considerable impact on the quality of life and traffic congestion generated by this project.
Below are my key points of objections for your consideration.
1. Adverse impact on impact on the surrounding buildings
• A development of this scale would exacerbate existing flooding issues, particularly given that Pacific Square was constructed above the natural water table, and has required extensive remedial works to rectify flooding of our residential carpark, located immediately opposite the proposed development.
• The proposal would worsen traffic congestion which are already under significant pressure especially during peak hours compounding existing transport and accessibility challenges for residents onto Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade.
The proposed carpark access is Piccadilly Place. This small road provides the only access to residential carparking for Pacific Square (more than 600 apartments), in addition to the loading dock for Pacific Square Shopping Centre, containing anchor retailers: Coles, Liquorland, Aldi, Jasmine Supermarket, Bakers Delight, soon to be opened Harris Farm Market, restaurants and food outlets plus a range of speciality retailers.
• The surrounding area is already densely developed, with six existing high-density buildings. The proposed development site is relatively small and narrow, making it unsuitable for accommodating a large number of additional apartments—particularly when doing so would result in significant adverse impacts on the local environment and community.
• The cumulative impact of this development in an already high-density area poses a serious threat to local amenity and infrastructure capacity. While the delivery of affordable housing is important, we must ask: at what cost? Forcing a development of this scale onto a small, narrow block in an already saturated high-rise zone undermines both planning logic and community wellbeing.
2. Excessive Height and visual impact
• The proposed number of storeys has increased from 8 (previously tabled at the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP)) to 9. The inclusion of a rooftop garden on level 9, and with significant planting (trees) and infrastructure, effectively extends the building’s usable height, arguably making it comparable to 9-storey structure. Making it effectively at least 1 storey higher than 140 Maroubra Road and the neighbouring building at 1 Bruce Bennetts, which will result in severe loss of severe loss off amenity. Specifically:
o There are at least 70 units that will have their views fully obstructed by the proposed development of 64 units over 10 storeys (9 storeys plus roof top garden/facilities). These 64 units will also have issues with views and setbacks when the Maroubra Police land get developed. In addition, there are at least 450 other units within Pacific Square alone that will be indirectly impacted negatively due to loss of property value of these 70 units because they will no longer have attributes that are valued by for residential property buyers (i.e. access to views and sunlight).
o The proposed development will overlook a long established childcare facility, jeopardising the privacy and safety of young children.
o Further, the proposed development will also adjoin and overlook the Maroubra Police station holding cells, again raising issues surrounding security and privacy.
• Additionally, the previously proposed 8-storey scheme—which consists of 7 storeys plus a rooftop garden on Level 8—grossly exceeds the development controls prescribed in the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP), which sets a height limit of 6 storeys (25 metres within the DCP envelope). The revised proposal remains non-compliant with these controls, further undermining any justification for its approval.
3. Inadequate Building Separation and Setbacks
• While the amended plans show a minor increase in building setbacks, the overall height of the proposed development has also increased—making it effectively one storey higher than my building (an 8-storey structure). Additionally, the proposed building extends beyond the existing footpath line, further compounding the bulk and visual dominance of the development.
• This is not a minor design issue—it reflects a clear disregard for the expectations of existing residents and Councils planning controls designed to protect neighbourhood amenity.
• The proposed building’s proximity is still too close for comfort and is significantly detrimental to all residents facing this proposed development. Any development of the police station at 136 Maroubra Rd in the future will be presented with similar problems. As it stands is not in the public interests for either for either the current or proposed future community that would reside in this development.
• Therefore, the current proposal, with its insufficient setbacks and excessive height and bulk, is not in the public interest for either the existing community or the prospective residents of the new development.
5. Acoustic impacts
• A thorough and comprehensive acoustic assessment is required. This assessment must address potential noise reverberation from the outdoor rooftop garden, the minimal setback from Pacific Square, and the cumulative noise impact compounded by the adjacent childcare centre. The current proposal does not adequately address these significant acoustic concerns.
6. Conclusion
• This proposal has already been rejected by the SECPP, and the Developer’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite minor modifications to the design, the fundamental issues remain unresolved—the proposal is still out of scale, non-compliant with planning controls, and out of step with and Randwick Council’s expectations.
• During the SECCP meeting held on 22 June 2024, the Developer made statements suggesting that they could obtain approval for an even taller building through the State Significant Development (SSD) process. They implied that the currently proposed 8-storey design was a more favourable outcome for affected residents and urged the SECCP to approve it on that basis.
• This approach is neither collaborative nor consultative and raises serious concerns about the transparency, intent, and good faith of the Developer’s engagement with both the local community and the planning authorities. I urge you to review the SECCP meeting minutes which was recorded on 22 June 2024 to verify this concerning conduct.
• It is apparent that the Developer was encouraged by the DCP to amalgamate with the neighbouring site based on the height and setback requirements. It would appear that the Developer is seeking to produce a development with the same level of yield however, being unable to acquire the neighbouring lot, is blatantly seeking to disregard Councils planning controls. The impacts of this are clearly the issues of concern I raise above and would surely have far more significant impacts for residents in lower units.
• It is respectfully submitted that, if there were to be any consideration of approving a development on the subject lot, it must strictly adhere to the setback and height requirements, particularly in relation to the Pacific Square site (which was approved based on those clearances being maintained). The Maroubra Junction Centre DCP clearly acknowledges in Section 3.1.1 (Amalgamation), in bold note “The maximum allowable building depth/ height on a block may not be achievable on small allotments.”.
• Approving this development will also have a knock-on effect to the neighbouring Maroubra Police site. The proposed development would isolate or significantly constrain the future development potential of the police land, potentially requiring its own non-compliant scheme to achieve any viable outcome.
Please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected].
Kind regards,
T Wade
Toni Wade
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA SOUTH
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
As a long-term resident of the Pacific Square precinct since 2008, having observed the evolution of the area and its impact on residents, traffic and retail activity, it is clear that a development of this scale will have serious and enduring negative consequences for local residents and the broader community before, during and after the project lifecycle.
My key personal grounds for objection are outlined below and include, but are not limited to: a previous rejection of a similar proposal by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and dismissal of the proponent’s appeal by the Land and Environment Court; significant health, safety and wellbeing concerns for residents; the proponent’s prior breach of political donation laws; and rapidly increasing retail‑related traffic from large supermarket delivery trucks (Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Markets and around 25 other tenancies), which already creates unsustainable congestion around the clock.
## Key grounds for objection
1. Excessive height and density
The proposed 10‑storey building is far beyond what the community reasonably expects for this locality and represents an overdevelopment of the site. Its bulk and scale appear driven primarily by yield maximisation rather than any genuine response to the established character, constraints or needs of the neighbourhood.
2. Loss of privacy and overshadowing
The building’s scale and proximity to existing residences, particularly the Botanica building, will cause substantial overlooking, overshadowing and loss of amenity. This will materially reduce privacy, natural light and overall liveability for many households that currently rely on reasonable setbacks and solar access.
3. Traffic and parking impacts
Maroubra is already experiencing significant congestion and constrained parking capacity, including from frequent deliveries to major supermarkets and other retailers within Pacific Square. Introducing a development of this magnitude without commensurate infrastructure upgrades or robust mitigation measures will further overload local streets, increase safety risks and degrade everyday conditions for residents, pedestrians and drivers.
4. Tokenistic approach to affordable housing
The proposal relies on 15% infill affordable housing to justify greater height and density, yet provides no meaningful detail about how these dwellings will be integrated, their standard, or how they will be managed over the long term. Without clear mechanisms and commitments, this reads as a tactical inclusion to unlock bonus floorspace rather than a sincere, well‑planned contribution to housing equity.
5. Selective and inadequate community consultation
The initial consultation process was seriously deficient and appears to have excluded many of the most directly affected residents. Botanica owners and occupants, who stand to experience the greatest privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts, were not notified during the early community consultation period, while flyers were distributed to other, less affected addresses. The current SSD exhibition has only allowed two weeks for submissions, despite NSW Government guidelines stating a four‑week period for SSD public exhibition (State Significant Development Guidelines, Section 6.1). This discrepancy raises legitimate concern about whether community participation and transparency are being given proper weight.
## IPC referral and probity concerns
Under the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), SSD applications must be referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) where:
- the local council has objected,
- 50 or more public objections are received (with petitions counted as one), or
- the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found to have breached political donation laws in De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments NSWSC 917. This history, combined with the shortened exhibition period and longstanding community unease about the transparency of the process for this site, gives residents legitimate grounds to question whether due process and probity are being rigorously upheld.
This proposal, in substantially similar form, has already been refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and the proponent’s appeal subsequently dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite superficial modifications, the project remains fundamentally out of scale, out of character and out of step with reasonable community expectations. The SSD pathway should not be used as a mechanism to circumvent previous refusals and community concerns.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Department refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected, including Botanica and other Pacific Square residents, are fully considered rather than sidelined.
Yours sincerely,
MT
(As I wish to maintain privacy in this submission process, I request that my name be withheld from the list of submitters published on the NSW Planning Portal.)
Additional references inc:
[1](https://www.mondaq.com/australia/constitutional-administrative-law/489338/nsw-liberal-party-denied-public-funding-because-of-donation-disclosure-breaches)
[2](https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2161132/australia-s-nsw-politicians-businessmen-accused-of-corruption-evading-election-funding-laws)
[3](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F70925501-1175-42e6-9bca-2765dbecf673%2F&sid=0147)
[4](https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/big-australian-corporations-hide-political-do-730254.html)
[5](https://www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au/in_focus/high-court-upholds-the-validity-of-nsw-laws-prohibiting-developers-from-making-political-donations/)
[6](https://kogarahbayprogress.org.au/submissions)
[7](https://www.facebook.com/groups/493816954581634/posts/1701285107168140/)
[8](https://www.submittee.com.au/examples)
[9](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26231%2F&sid=0185)
[10](https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPSSEC-268!20250506T015004.525%20GMT)
[11](https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/house/joint/commttee/J12614_pdf.ashx)
[12](https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/138-maroubra-road-maroubra)
[13](https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/financial_disclosure/transparency-register/)
[14](https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/mixed-use-development-fill-affordable-housing138-maroubra-road-maroubra)
[15](https://www.inkl.com/news/developer-linked-donors-give-more-than-500-000-to-lnp-and-labor-amid-warnings-of-failing-ban)
[16](https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/lindsay-bennelong-maroubra-shoptop-development-application)
[17](https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-lindsay-bennelong-file-maroubra-apartment-plans)
[18](https://townplanningcollective.com.au/2022/11/02/how-to-write-a-council-development-objection-letter-like-a-town-planner/)
[19](https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPSSEC-268!20240625T020110.944%20GMT)
[20](https://dpeeplanningsitbackdata.blob.core.windows.net/pdfmapsdata/assets/262578/230085_Sharks%2520Development%2520re-submission%2520issues_2017Nov01_2220.pdf)
As a long-term resident of the Pacific Square precinct since 2008, having observed the evolution of the area and its impact on residents, traffic and retail activity, it is clear that a development of this scale will have serious and enduring negative consequences for local residents and the broader community before, during and after the project lifecycle.
My key personal grounds for objection are outlined below and include, but are not limited to: a previous rejection of a similar proposal by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and dismissal of the proponent’s appeal by the Land and Environment Court; significant health, safety and wellbeing concerns for residents; the proponent’s prior breach of political donation laws; and rapidly increasing retail‑related traffic from large supermarket delivery trucks (Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Markets and around 25 other tenancies), which already creates unsustainable congestion around the clock.
## Key grounds for objection
1. Excessive height and density
The proposed 10‑storey building is far beyond what the community reasonably expects for this locality and represents an overdevelopment of the site. Its bulk and scale appear driven primarily by yield maximisation rather than any genuine response to the established character, constraints or needs of the neighbourhood.
2. Loss of privacy and overshadowing
The building’s scale and proximity to existing residences, particularly the Botanica building, will cause substantial overlooking, overshadowing and loss of amenity. This will materially reduce privacy, natural light and overall liveability for many households that currently rely on reasonable setbacks and solar access.
3. Traffic and parking impacts
Maroubra is already experiencing significant congestion and constrained parking capacity, including from frequent deliveries to major supermarkets and other retailers within Pacific Square. Introducing a development of this magnitude without commensurate infrastructure upgrades or robust mitigation measures will further overload local streets, increase safety risks and degrade everyday conditions for residents, pedestrians and drivers.
4. Tokenistic approach to affordable housing
The proposal relies on 15% infill affordable housing to justify greater height and density, yet provides no meaningful detail about how these dwellings will be integrated, their standard, or how they will be managed over the long term. Without clear mechanisms and commitments, this reads as a tactical inclusion to unlock bonus floorspace rather than a sincere, well‑planned contribution to housing equity.
5. Selective and inadequate community consultation
The initial consultation process was seriously deficient and appears to have excluded many of the most directly affected residents. Botanica owners and occupants, who stand to experience the greatest privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts, were not notified during the early community consultation period, while flyers were distributed to other, less affected addresses. The current SSD exhibition has only allowed two weeks for submissions, despite NSW Government guidelines stating a four‑week period for SSD public exhibition (State Significant Development Guidelines, Section 6.1). This discrepancy raises legitimate concern about whether community participation and transparency are being given proper weight.
## IPC referral and probity concerns
Under the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), SSD applications must be referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) where:
- the local council has objected,
- 50 or more public objections are received (with petitions counted as one), or
- the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found to have breached political donation laws in De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments NSWSC 917. This history, combined with the shortened exhibition period and longstanding community unease about the transparency of the process for this site, gives residents legitimate grounds to question whether due process and probity are being rigorously upheld.
This proposal, in substantially similar form, has already been refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and the proponent’s appeal subsequently dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite superficial modifications, the project remains fundamentally out of scale, out of character and out of step with reasonable community expectations. The SSD pathway should not be used as a mechanism to circumvent previous refusals and community concerns.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Department refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the voices of those most directly affected, including Botanica and other Pacific Square residents, are fully considered rather than sidelined.
Yours sincerely,
MT
(As I wish to maintain privacy in this submission process, I request that my name be withheld from the list of submitters published on the NSW Planning Portal.)
Additional references inc:
[1](https://www.mondaq.com/australia/constitutional-administrative-law/489338/nsw-liberal-party-denied-public-funding-because-of-donation-disclosure-breaches)
[2](https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2161132/australia-s-nsw-politicians-businessmen-accused-of-corruption-evading-election-funding-laws)
[3](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F70925501-1175-42e6-9bca-2765dbecf673%2F&sid=0147)
[4](https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/big-australian-corporations-hide-political-do-730254.html)
[5](https://www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au/in_focus/high-court-upholds-the-validity-of-nsw-laws-prohibiting-developers-from-making-political-donations/)
[6](https://kogarahbayprogress.org.au/submissions)
[7](https://www.facebook.com/groups/493816954581634/posts/1701285107168140/)
[8](https://www.submittee.com.au/examples)
[9](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26231%2F&sid=0185)
[10](https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPSSEC-268!20250506T015004.525%20GMT)
[11](https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/house/joint/commttee/J12614_pdf.ashx)
[12](https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/138-maroubra-road-maroubra)
[13](https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/financial_disclosure/transparency-register/)
[14](https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/mixed-use-development-fill-affordable-housing138-maroubra-road-maroubra)
[15](https://www.inkl.com/news/developer-linked-donors-give-more-than-500-000-to-lnp-and-labor-amid-warnings-of-failing-ban)
[16](https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/lindsay-bennelong-maroubra-shoptop-development-application)
[17](https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-lindsay-bennelong-file-maroubra-apartment-plans)
[18](https://townplanningcollective.com.au/2022/11/02/how-to-write-a-council-development-objection-letter-like-a-town-planner/)
[19](https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPSSEC-268!20240625T020110.944%20GMT)
[20](https://dpeeplanningsitbackdata.blob.core.windows.net/pdfmapsdata/assets/262578/230085_Sharks%2520Development%2520re-submission%2520issues_2017Nov01_2220.pdf)
Jay Hull
Object
Jay Hull
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Jay Hull and I am a resident of the Pacific Square apartment complex. I object to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road. Ref: SSD-81426710.
My objection relates specifically to the impact that an additional 70 car spaces will have on the accessibility of Piccadilly Place - a single-lane no-through road - which is already quite busy due to its use by residents (incl commercial) of and shoppers at Pacific Square.
The addition of a 70 space car park entrance on Piccadilly Place - as opposed to Maroubra Road - lacks any careful consideration for the impact this will have on traffic flow, and lacks thorough scrutiny by government.
My objection relates specifically to the impact that an additional 70 car spaces will have on the accessibility of Piccadilly Place - a single-lane no-through road - which is already quite busy due to its use by residents (incl commercial) of and shoppers at Pacific Square.
The addition of a 70 space car park entrance on Piccadilly Place - as opposed to Maroubra Road - lacks any careful consideration for the impact this will have on traffic flow, and lacks thorough scrutiny by government.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
Same as what my husband has mentioned, as an owner-occupier of property in 140 Maroubra Road (Pacific Square - SP81311) with a young child in the family, I strongly object/opposed to the Application no SSD-81426710, State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
No 1 is by far the most important one, it is about the Safety aspect of the development, as the distance between one building to another is way too minimal that it raises numerous concerns/issues. With the current water table situation in our building, with this way too close proximity & digging down 3 basement levels down underneath on 138 Maroubra Road, it will impact our building condition definitely - 100% it will impact on structural integrity of our building and ongoing remediation works. Not only that, but the neighbours also who are on the West facing side, they won't have any privacy nor the quality of life by losing their sights from the Sunlight and Overshadowing issues.
I am sure you have received the email from our building management as well, in regards to the big project that will be undertaken for the whole sites of 5x Pacific Square apartments, where hoarding, scaffolding, etc2 will need to be put in the surrounding area.
1 of the amenities I used in this precinct is the Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre, for my 4 years old girl. With this development, it will totally diminish the natural sunlight that goes to the centre. This is very concerning for the whole children who are attending to this childcare. In addition to this would be my concern on development pollution- construction noise, dust, vibrations, and site-lighting that will impact not only the child care but also us as the residents.
Another main issue I want to raise is the Piccadilly Place-situation for the traffic on cars, delivery trucks, etc2. At the moment, the long trailer of the Coles delivery truck for example, it has already occupied the small road in Piccadilly Place sometimes when they come to do the stock delivery to the Coles in Pacific Square. Once you have the increased congestion from the new building, it will create a bottle-neck, not only for the incoming vehicles to Piccadilly Place (cars, delivery vans etc), but also for other vehicles trying to exit from it (Note: occasionally the roundabout itself already getting congested/blocked due to the exiting cars from the Pacific Square retail area that are close to the roundabout-exit, but also the “stopping cars” that tries to go to the right hand side from the roundabout to the Maroubra Road heading to Eastgardens direction).
Please also note that this proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and their appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court.
I would hope that the our concerns will be heard, and can be investigated again for the possible damages or downsides of the proposed application, and truly act in the interest of the community in terms of safety and consumer protection.
Thank you for your consideration.
No 1 is by far the most important one, it is about the Safety aspect of the development, as the distance between one building to another is way too minimal that it raises numerous concerns/issues. With the current water table situation in our building, with this way too close proximity & digging down 3 basement levels down underneath on 138 Maroubra Road, it will impact our building condition definitely - 100% it will impact on structural integrity of our building and ongoing remediation works. Not only that, but the neighbours also who are on the West facing side, they won't have any privacy nor the quality of life by losing their sights from the Sunlight and Overshadowing issues.
I am sure you have received the email from our building management as well, in regards to the big project that will be undertaken for the whole sites of 5x Pacific Square apartments, where hoarding, scaffolding, etc2 will need to be put in the surrounding area.
1 of the amenities I used in this precinct is the Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre, for my 4 years old girl. With this development, it will totally diminish the natural sunlight that goes to the centre. This is very concerning for the whole children who are attending to this childcare. In addition to this would be my concern on development pollution- construction noise, dust, vibrations, and site-lighting that will impact not only the child care but also us as the residents.
Another main issue I want to raise is the Piccadilly Place-situation for the traffic on cars, delivery trucks, etc2. At the moment, the long trailer of the Coles delivery truck for example, it has already occupied the small road in Piccadilly Place sometimes when they come to do the stock delivery to the Coles in Pacific Square. Once you have the increased congestion from the new building, it will create a bottle-neck, not only for the incoming vehicles to Piccadilly Place (cars, delivery vans etc), but also for other vehicles trying to exit from it (Note: occasionally the roundabout itself already getting congested/blocked due to the exiting cars from the Pacific Square retail area that are close to the roundabout-exit, but also the “stopping cars” that tries to go to the right hand side from the roundabout to the Maroubra Road heading to Eastgardens direction).
Please also note that this proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and their appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court.
I would hope that the our concerns will be heard, and can be investigated again for the possible damages or downsides of the proposed application, and truly act in the interest of the community in terms of safety and consumer protection.
Thank you for your consideration.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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
Save Our Surroundings Riverina
Object
Save Our Surroundings Riverina
Object
Lake Albert
,
New South Wales
Message
WE DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS LIFE THREATENING, HIGHLY TOXIC, CCP RELIANT RUBBISH!
**’Forever chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment
**Coastal Wetland Deposition of Cathode Metals from the World’s Largest Lithium-ion Battery Fire" (Moss Landing BESS FIRE)
According to independent Experts this is actually worse than a radioactivity spill.
A lot of this very toxic stuff is not easily located. Whereas, with radioactivity, one needs just a hand-held Geiger counter to locate the pollutant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25972-8#Tab1
**Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems
“The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services.
BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems
**Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf
**Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E
**https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/
**https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/
**https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals-around-20163514.php
**https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough-lithium-battery-facility-fire/
**Battery recycling plant explodes - twice. (What it means for you.) | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nzOJ01Fkc
**Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks & Extinguisher Limitations
1.CSIRO ActivFire® Advisory Note AN‑004
CSIRO explicitly states it "has not and will not certify … that any fire extinguisher can effectively extinguish a Li‑Ion battery fire."
Verification Services
**”There is a general lack of guidance and provisions in building codes, standards, and legislation in relation to safety to address the potential risks from these emerging technologies. Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.”
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9402
“PFAS Contamination is a Serious Issue that Needs Immediate Attention”.
**COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN
Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025.
(21 Feb 2024)
**’Forever chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment
**Coastal Wetland Deposition of Cathode Metals from the World’s Largest Lithium-ion Battery Fire" (Moss Landing BESS FIRE)
According to independent Experts this is actually worse than a radioactivity spill.
A lot of this very toxic stuff is not easily located. Whereas, with radioactivity, one needs just a hand-held Geiger counter to locate the pollutant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25972-8#Tab1
**Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems
“The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services.
BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems
**Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf
**Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E
**https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/
**https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/
**https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals-around-20163514.php
**https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough-lithium-battery-facility-fire/
**Battery recycling plant explodes - twice. (What it means for you.) | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nzOJ01Fkc
**Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks & Extinguisher Limitations
1.CSIRO ActivFire® Advisory Note AN‑004
CSIRO explicitly states it "has not and will not certify … that any fire extinguisher can effectively extinguish a Li‑Ion battery fire."
Verification Services
**”There is a general lack of guidance and provisions in building codes, standards, and legislation in relation to safety to address the potential risks from these emerging technologies. Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.”
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9402
“PFAS Contamination is a Serious Issue that Needs Immediate Attention”.
**COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN
Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025.
(21 Feb 2024)
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
COONABARABRAN
,
New South Wales
Message
BESS factories are destroying the landscapes and significantly devaluing residential, agricultural and commercial properties within rural communities. Nobody would want to live anywhere near this heap of fire-causing garbage.
Nuclear MUST be explored. I OBJECT to the BESS and ALL renewable projects that are proposed for Australia I object to the Griffith BESS. Leave rural Australia ALONE!
Nuclear MUST be explored. I OBJECT to the BESS and ALL renewable projects that are proposed for Australia I object to the Griffith BESS. Leave rural Australia ALONE!