THIS IS my OBJECTION FOR 251-257 MAROUBRA ROAD
This is my Objection submission re  251-257 Maroubra Road and 133-135 Garden Street SSD 87865706

We own 2 investment apartments on Maroubra Road, 2 doors from this proposed Development site.   
I am not only concerned as a local resident but for the value of our nearby properties.   

Parking is already severely tight at this location due to many Commercial low rise businesses in the adjoining blocks with an extremely busy Chemist Warehouse among them, 2 Churches, a School and several childcare businesses. It is not unusual to need to drive around this section 2 or 3 times to find a park currently.   
With hundreds more residents, visitors and tradesmen attending this new development things will progress from bad to worse.  Garden St is very narrow and difficult to navigate at the best of times.

Overshadowing of our units which face West will be drastic and make them less attractive in the rental market and possibly affect our rental income.
Removing established gardens will also affect the current green ambience of this area.
Zoning and height requirements should not be changed - there has been a lot of planning and research attached to this and many other properties and they have been placed because it is what is the best outcome for that land for the residents and the overall community.
This will push the Maroubra Junction envelope and encourage expansion of Hi Rise Developments in our friendly neighbourhood streets, something that we have already fought against and is unwanted and very unpopular with the residents of Maroubra.  The traffic, public transport, Drs/Dentists, shopping hub, schools, parks are all overloaded and far too busy already.

 The Plan that has been lodged for a 10-storey residential and childcare development in the heart of Maroubra, with the developer seeking approval to build 120 apartments and a 120-place childcare centre on Maroubra Road and 4 levels of underground parking, IS A MASSIVE OVER KILL - AGAINST THE CURRENT GUIDELINES, UNPOPULAR, OUT OF CHARACTER, UGLY AND TOO BULKY and will set an unacceptable precedent.
The State Significant Development application, filed through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway by Bridgewell Capital, covers an amalgamated 3,270-square-metre site at 251-257 Maroubra Road and 133-135 Garden Street, roughly 200 metres east of the Maroubra Junction intersection with Anzac Parade.
Photo credit: NSW Planning Portal
The DA is lodged concurrently with a rezoning request that would lift the maximum building height on the site from 12 metres to 35.6 metres and increase the floor space ratio to 4.02:1, aaccording to the NSW Planning Portal.


Photo credit: BKA Architecture /NSW Planning Portal
Of the 120 apartments proposed, 27 would be designated as affordable housing units, to be managed by a community housing provider for a period of 15 years.   AS THE RENTAL COSTS ARE SO HIGH IN THE AREA THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WILL STILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE FOR MOST ON LOW INCOMES AND 15 YEARS IS TOO SHORT A PERIOD AS WELL.
Mrs Mary Richard NFP
269 Maroubra Road  and   Amour Ave Maroubra

My name is Hai Soon of 1 Bruce Bennetts Pl, Maroubra 2035(Panaroma Building).
I submitted my objections in the 6 December 2025 submission.
Below are my current objections to the State Significant Development(SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra submitted by Maroubra Property Developments Pty Ltd(Lindsay Bennelong Developments).
The original development proposal for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/80/2023) was refused in June 2024 after significant objections. Key concerns included excessive height, poor design quality, conflicts with local planning controls, inadequate landscaping, and traffic/parking impacts.
My Key points for Objection – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (2035)
1. Planning & Height Issues
• Non-compliance with height limits under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and dismissed by the Land and Environment Court.
• The proposed 10-storey mixed-use building exceeded acceptable height and bulk by the inclusion of 20% infill affordable housing , more likely to get around approval objections and to maximise monetary returns. The Department should not permit the SSD framework to function as a back door to circumvent a clear refusal and court dismissal. The affordable housing component (13 units, or 20%) is instrumentally included to trigger the height bonus — there is no detail on quality, management, or long-term delivery of the affordable dwellings
• Limited deep soil planting and landscaping, reducing amenity and environmental contribution with this amended proposal.
2. Traffic & Parking
• Maroubra Junction already suffers from severe traffic congestions and this problem will only get worse.
• Vehicle access via Piccadilly Place and egress to Maroubra Road was considered problematic for safety and traffic flow. Commercial Logistics traffic use Piccadilly Lane to access the Loading docks . This new development only exacerbates the traffic congestion problems. The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same lane. Semi-trailers already queue and create serious congestion in Piccadilly Place during loading dock deliveries, and the roundabout at the entry regularly becomes gridlocked. Adding a 70-space car park entrance without any road upgrades creates a genuine risk to emergency vehicle access.
The traffic impact assessment evaluated peak hours that do not reflect the actual peak congestion pattern in this. The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same area, which is weekend-driven due to Pacific Square Mall traffic — not the standard weekday AM/PM peaks used in the study.
The traffic assessment is methodologically deficient. A proper study must model weekend peak conditions. No joint Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan has been provided to address simultaneous operation of a major development site and the existing traffic environment. Emergency access must be independently assessed.

3. Overshadowing and loss of Privacy
• The close proximity of this new development(10 storeys high) and the Panaroma Building creates a significant Overshadowing effect over the many units immediately facing the new large structure.
• Severe impact on the privacy of many units in the Panaroma Building facing the new Building.

4. Pacific Square Remediation
The EIS is deficient in failing to assess the interface with the Pacific Square remediation program. Under WHS legislation, simultaneous high-impact construction along a shared boundary requires a coordinated methodology that has not been provided. This is grounds for refusal or, at minimum, conditions requiring sequencing controls and real-time vibration monitoring with automatic stop-work thresholds.

My name is Liviana Soon of 1 Bruce Bennetts Pl, Maroubra 2035(Panaroma Building).
I have lodged my objection in my 6 Dec 2025 submission.
I am writing to further lodge my objection to the application for 138 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra submitted by Maroubra Property Developments Pty Ltd( Lindsay Bennelong Developments) to the State Significant Development(SSD) on display.
The original development proposal for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/80/2023) was refused in June 2024 after significant objections. Key concerns included excessive height, poor design quality, conflicts with local planning controls, inadequate landscaping, and traffic/parking impacts.
Below are my Key points for Objection – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (2035)
1. Planning & Height Issues
• The original proposal was rejected for non-compliance with height limits under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP).
• The new application with the SSD proposed a 10-storey mixed-use building. This exceeded the acceptable height and higher than the Panaroma Building behind this proposed development. By including 20% infill affordable Housing , the proposed development is now 10-storey mixed-use development. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing to justify scale and to maximise monetary returns. The affordable housing SEPP bonus is being used as an instrument to circumvent a clear court dismissal — not to deliver genuine housing outcomes.
• Insufficient deep soil planting and landscaping, reducing amenity and environmental contribution with this amended proposal.
2. Impact on Sunlight and Overshadowing issues and loss of Privacy and Livabilty.
• The close proximity of this new development(10 storeys high) and the Panaroma Building creates a significant Overshadowing effect over the many units immediately facing the new large structure development. Sunlight into these units will be severely affected.
• Severe impact on the privacy and livabilty of many units in the Panaroma Building facing the new development.

3. Traffic & Parking
• Maroubra Junction already suffers from heavy traffic congestions and limited parking facilities. This development will only exacebate these issues.
Piccadilly Place is a single-lane no-through-road that currently serves:
• The only residential car park access and exit for 609 apartments in Pacific Square
• The loading dock for Pacific Square Shopping Centre, which includes Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Markets, Liquorland, Bakers Delight, and approximately 25 other tenancies — operating 7 days a week from 6am to 10pm
• Council garbage and recycling vehicles
• Fire apparatus for emergency response to Pacific Square's five residential buildings, the Newington complex, and the retail centre
• Police station vehicles operating 24 hours a day from Bruce Bennetts Place
• The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same lane. Semi-trailers already queue and create serious congestion in Piccadilly Place during loading dock deliveries, and the roundabout at the entry regularly becomes gridlocked. Adding a 70-space car park entrance without any road upgrades creates a genuine risk to emergency vehicle access
• Critically, the traffic impact assessment evaluated peak hours that do not reflect the actual peak congestion pattern in this area, which is weekend-driven due to Pacific Square Mall traffic — not the standard weekday AM/PM peaks used in the study
• The traffic assessment is methodologically deficient. A proper study must model weekend peak conditions. No joint Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan has been provided to address simultaneous operation of a major development site and the existing traffic environment. Emergency access must be independently assessed.


4. Concurrent Construction Conflict — Pacific Square Remediation
Pacific Square precinct is commencing a multi-year façade, waterproofing, balcony, and structural remediation program along the shared boundary with 138 Maroubra Road. Running SSD demolition, excavation, and construction immediately adjacent to these sensitive works poses significant risks including vibration impacts on curing waterproofing membranes, dust contamination, overlapping crane and hoist exclusion zones, constrained contractor access, and compromised pedestrian and emergency egress. The EIS does not meaningfully address these adjacent-construction risks or the cumulative impacts of two major projects operating concurrently. Under WHS legislation, simultaneous high-impact construction along a shared boundary requires a coordinated methodology that has not been provided.

My name is Liviana Soon of 1 Bruce Bennetts Pl, Maroubra 2035(Panaroma Building).
I have lodged my objection in my 6 Dec 2025 submission.
I am writing to further lodge my objection to the application for 138 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra submitted by Maroubra Property Developments Pty Ltd( Lindsay Bennelong Developments) to the State Significant Development(SSD) on display.
The original development proposal for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/80/2023) was refused in June 2024 after significant objections. Key concerns included excessive height, poor design quality, conflicts with local planning controls, inadequate landscaping, and traffic/parking impacts.
Below are my Key points for Objection – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (2035)
1. Planning & Height Issues
• The original proposal was rejected for non-compliance with height limits under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP).
• The new application with the SSD proposed a 10-storey mixed-use building. This exceeded the acceptable height and higher than the Panaroma Building behind this proposed development. By including 20% infill affordable Housing , the proposed development is now 10-storey mixed-use development. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing to justify scale and to maximise monetary returns. The affordable housing SEPP bonus is being used as an instrument to circumvent a clear court dismissal — not to deliver genuine housing outcomes.
• Insufficient deep soil planting and landscaping, reducing amenity and environmental contribution with this amended proposal.
2. Impact on Sunlight and Overshadowing issues and loss of Privacy and Livabilty.
• The close proximity of this new development(10 storeys high) and the Panaroma Building creates a significant Overshadowing effect over the many units immediately facing the new large structure development. Sunlight into these units will be severely affected.
• Severe impact on the privacy and livabilty of many units in the Panaroma Building facing the new development.

3. Traffic & Parking
• Maroubra Junction already suffers from heavy traffic congestions and limited parking facilities. This development will only exacebate these issues.
Piccadilly Place is a single-lane no-through-road that currently serves:
• The only residential car park access and exit for 609 apartments in Pacific Square
• The loading dock for Pacific Square Shopping Centre, which includes Coles, Aldi, Harris Farm Markets, Liquorland, Bakers Delight, and approximately 25 other tenancies — operating 7 days a week from 6am to 10pm
• Council garbage and recycling vehicles
• Fire apparatus for emergency response to Pacific Square's five residential buildings, the Newington complex, and the retail centre
• Police station vehicles operating 24 hours a day from Bruce Bennetts Place
• The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same lane. Semi-trailers already queue and create serious congestion in Piccadilly Place during loading dock deliveries, and the roundabout at the entry regularly becomes gridlocked. Adding a 70-space car park entrance without any road upgrades creates a genuine risk to emergency vehicle access
• Critically, the traffic impact assessment evaluated peak hours that do not reflect the actual peak congestion pattern in this area, which is weekend-driven due to Pacific Square Mall traffic — not the standard weekday AM/PM peaks used in the study
• The traffic assessment is methodologically deficient. A proper study must model weekend peak conditions. No joint Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan has been provided to address simultaneous operation of a major development site and the existing traffic environment. Emergency access must be independently assessed.


4. Concurrent Construction Conflict — Pacific Square Remediation
Pacific Square precinct is commencing a multi-year façade, waterproofing, balcony, and structural remediation program along the shared boundary with 138 Maroubra Road. Running SSD demolition, excavation, and construction immediately adjacent to these sensitive works poses significant risks including vibration impacts on curing waterproofing membranes, dust contamination, overlapping crane and hoist exclusion zones, constrained contractor access, and compromised pedestrian and emergency egress. The EIS does not meaningfully address these adjacent-construction risks or the cumulative impacts of two major projects operating concurrently. Under WHS legislation, simultaneous high-impact construction along a shared boundary requires a coordinated methodology that has not been provided.

I write to formally object to the above State Significant Development application, currently on re-exhibition following the lodgement of amendments and a Response to Submissions. I am a resident of the adjoining Pacific Square complex and am directly affected by the proposed development.
This is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that has already been:
• Refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) on 25 June 2024 (DA/80/2023);
• Dismissed on appeal by the Land and Environment Court on 7 November 2024 (Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1716); and
• The subject of 78 negative submissions (out of 81 total) during the initial SSD exhibition in late 2025.
The amendments do not resolve the fundamental issues that led to the earlier refusals. Rather, they repackage many of the same concerns and introduce new risks — particularly regarding the construction interface with the ongoing Pacific Square remediation program. My grounds of objection are set out below.
1. Building Height — Compliance Remains Contested
The applicant presents the development as height-compliant, relying on the 30% bonus under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP). However, their own legal advice acknowledges more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law. The difference is not academic — it materially changes the compliance outcome:
• Under the Bettar methodology, the building is assessed as compliant.
• Under the Merman methodology — an equally accepted approach — the building exceeds the maximum permissible height by a meaningful margin.
The site is fully excavated, with basement construction across the entire footprint and no undisturbed natural ground reference. Reliance on a single favourable interpretation is insufficient. Height compliance is uncertain and contested, and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.
2. Overdevelopment of the Site
The proposal exhibits every recognised indicator of overdevelopment:
• Full excavation across the entire 1,518 sqm footprint to accommodate three basement levels.
• Minimal setbacks to adjoining development, particularly along the shared boundary with Pacific Square.
• Zero deep soil planting — all 392 sqm of landscaping is proposed on structure.
• Reliance on the maximum height uplift under the Housing SEPP to achieve nine storeys.
• A yield of 64 apartments on a site already found overdeveloped at 56 units by both the SECPP and the Land and Environment Court.
This is not a balanced design response. It is a scheme pushed to the absolute limits of what is technically arguable, rather than what is contextually appropriate for this site.
3. Bulk, Scale and Privacy Impacts
Across every iteration — the original DA, the Court appeal, and now the SSD — the same core issue persists: the building is too large for the site. What has changed is the increasing reliance on mitigation measures — privacy screening, louvres, façade articulation, and devices to manage overlooking into Pacific Square.
These measures do not resolve the problem — they confirm it. If a building requires extensive mitigation to be tolerable for its neighbours, the fundamental issue is one of scale, not detail. The appropriate response is to reduce the building envelope, not to screen its consequences.
4. Compromised Amenity Outcomes
The applicant's own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no direct solar access. This sits alongside limited communal open space (reliant on rooftop and Level 2 podium areas), the explicit rejection of DCP-compliant building envelopes on the basis they constrain yield, and zero deep soil planting. Internal amenity has been marginally improved while external impacts on adjoining properties have materially increased. This is not an acceptable trade-off under the Apartment Design Guide or the objectives of the Randwick LEP 2012.
5. Traffic, Noise and Environmental Impacts
The application acknowledges significant traffic, construction and noise impacts but defers their resolution to post-consent management plans (Construction Management Plan, Traffic Management Plan, Noise and Vibration Management Plan). Acknowledging impacts without resolving them through design is not sufficient for a development of this scale, on a site with known constraints and active adjoining construction. Impacts must be assessed and resolved at the design stage, not delegated to conditions of consent.
6. Construction Interface with Pacific Square Remediation
This is the most serious issue in the current application and was not present in the earlier DA. The proposal must now be assessed in the context of:
• The Pacific Square remediation program — a major multi-building program of remedial works (façade repairs, balcony replacements, roof replacements, ACP cladding removal) delivered by CJ Duncan across five buildings at 717 Anzac Parade, immediately adjacent to the site.
• Scaffolding on the western elevation of the Botanica building, which directly borders 138 Maroubra Road.
• Shared access routes, crane operations, loading dock access, and the upper podium — the only safe access point for courtyard scaffolding.
Both CJ Duncan and the project superintendent (The Project Studio Services Pty Ltd) have formally raised concerns with the Department, identifying vibration interference with waterproofing membrane curing, dust contamination of façade treatments, access congestion, and WHS obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).
The applicant's staging assumptions are based on incomplete third-party information, are not agreed with neighbouring landowners or the remediation contractor, and are explicitly subject to revision. There is no integrated assessment of concurrent construction, access constraints, or cumulative impacts. This deferral is not appropriate for a State Significant Development.
7. The Housing SEPP Height Bonus Does Not Justify the Same Refused Outcome
The applicant has repackaged the proposal under the Housing SEPP, leveraging the 30% height bonus to achieve a greater yield (64 units) than the scheme previously refused at 56 units. While the provision of 13 affordable housing units is welcome, it does not overcome site-specific constraints. Clause 21(3) of the Housing SEPP requires compatibility with local character — this has not been demonstrated. The affordable housing commitment is for a minimum of 15 years; the bulk, scale and amenity impacts of the building are permanent.
8. Impact on Future Development Potential of Adjoining Sites
The SEARs Covering Letter specifically required the applicant to address whether the proposal borrows amenity from 136 Maroubra Road (the police station site) and impacts its future development potential. Reduced setbacks and boundary-to-boundary construction at lower levels effectively constrain the adjoining landowner's options. A development that appropriates its neighbours' amenity does not satisfy Clause 6.11(4) of the Randwick LEP 2012 or the Apartment Design Guide.
9. Adequacy of the Re-Exhibition Period
The re-exhibition period is 14 calendar days for 20 amended documents, 29 EIS documents, a Response to Submissions, and three items of Agency Advice. This volume is substantial, and the period is inadequate for meaningful community review. The Department should extend the exhibition period or, at a minimum, afford full weight to submissions lodged shortly after the closing date.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that this application be refused.
This site has been the subject of sustained community opposition across three iterations. The consistent message from residents, Randwick City Council, the SECPP, and the Land and Environment Court is that this site cannot accommodate a development of this scale without unacceptable impacts. The current application does not change that conclusion.
I trust this submission will be given due consideration in the assessment of SSD-81426710.
Yours faithfully,
Ignacio Reboto

Dear Sir or Madam

I object the project because of the following reasons :

1. 9 storeys is significantly taller than surrounding buildings, creating visual dominance. The heigh of the building has already been stated as a concern during previous hearings/considerations. The project applicant has evidently not changed the approach.
2. significant additional number of residents will worsen traffic on Maroubra Road and nearby streets. Notably, there is no train connection in the area. More traffic and more more pressure on bus service is unavoidable. Parking availability on the streets will worsen respectively.
3. Construction impacts – noise, dust, and disruption during the contraction will materially impact the daily life of neighboring buildings for long period of time.

Thank you for attention to the above concerns

Best regards
Maroubra Road resident

This is not a meaningfully revised proposal. It is the third iteration of a fundamentally similar scheme that has already been:

Refused at SECPP, and

subsequently dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and

received 78 negative submission from the community (out of a total of 81 in the first SSD Exhibition phase.

The amendments do not resolve the issues that led to its earlier refusals  it repackages them, and in doing so introduces new and more serious risks.


1. Height is not settled — it is contested

The applicant presents the development as compliant with height controls. That position is not robust.

Their own legal advice confirms that there is more than one accepted method for determining building height under NSW law.

The difference between those methods is not academic — it materially changes the outcome:

Under one approach, the building is compliant (Bettar)

Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman)

The site is fully excavated, with basement construction extending across the entire footprint. There is no clear natural ground reference.

In this context, reliance on a single favourable interpretation is not sufficient.

The correct position is that height compliance is uncertain and contested — and that uncertainty must weigh against approval.


2. This remains an overdevelopment of the site

The proposal exhibits every recognised indicator of overdevelopment:

excavation across the full site

minimal setbacks to adjoining development

negligible opportunity for deep soil planting

reliance on the full height uplift available

This is not a balanced or moderated design response.

It is a scheme that has been pushed to the limits of what is technically arguable rather than what is appropriate.


3. Bulk, scale and privacy impacts remain fundamentally unchanged

Across every iteration of this proposal, the same issue has persisted — the building is too large for the site.

That has not changed.

What has changed is the increasing reliance on mitigation measures:

screening

façade articulation

design devices intended to manage overlooking

Those measures do not resolve the problem.

They confirm it.

If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, the issue is not detail — it is scale.


4. Amenity outcomes remain compromised

The applicant’s own material confirms that a proportion of apartments receive no solar access at all. [Appendix G...ertificate | PDF]

This sits alongside limited communal open space outcomes and the rejection of DCP-compliant envelopes on the basis that they constrain yield.

The consequence is clear:

internal outcomes are marginally improved

external impacts are materially increased

This is not an appropriate trade-off.


5. Traffic, noise and environmental impacts remain unresolved

The application identifies a number of impacts:

traffic constraints

construction impacts

cumulative noise

However, these are largely deferred to post-consent management plans.

This approach runs consistently through the application:

construction staging

traffic management

acoustic control

Impacts are acknowledged, but not resolved through design.


6. The SSD introduces a new and significant failure — construction interface

This is the most serious issue in the current application.

For the first time, the proposal must be assessed in the context of:

the Pacific Square remediation program

concurrent construction activity in immediate proximity

and shared infrastructure constraints

The applicant has attempted to address this through staging assumptions.

However those assumptions are:

based on incomplete third-party information

not agreed with neighbouring landowners

and explicitly subject to revision

This is illustrated in their own staging material:

The interaction of these works is further complicated by the substation staging required to support the site:

There is no integrated assessment of:

concurrent construction

access constraints

construction safety

or cumulative impacts

Instead, this issue is deferred.

That is not appropriate.

Where a risk is known and foreseeable, it must be assessed — not postponed.


7. The Housing SEPP bonus is being used to justify, not moderate, impact

Affordable housing is important.

However, the framework is explicit — additional height must not produce unreasonable impacts.

Here, the bonus has been used to:

increase height

increase bulk

reduce separation

and intensify development

all while previously identified impacts remain.


8. The proposal fails in the public interest

There are three key reasons:

It repeats a scheme that has already failed on planning merit

It relies on contested technical interpretation rather than clear compliance

It introduces unresolved risks that are deferred to later stages

Community opposition has been overwhelming, and concerns raised by agencies — including in relation to bulk and scale — remain relevant.

9. 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


Conclusion

This proposal does not represent a materially improved outcome.

It is:

a continuation of an over-scaled design

supported by selective interpretation

and reliant on deferred resolution of critical issues

It should not be approved.

Thank you.

This is not a revised proposal in any meaningful sense. It is the third attempt to proceed with essentially the same scheme that has already been refused by SECPP, dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, and overwhelmingly rejected by the community.
The amendments do not address the reasons for those refusals. They simply repackage the same issues while introducing new and more serious risks.
1. Height Compliance Is Not Resolved — It Is Disputed
The claim that the development complies with height controls is not credible.
The applicant’s own advice confirms that multiple accepted methodologies exist for determining height under NSW law, and they produce conflicting outcomes. Under one method the building complies; under another it clearly breaches the maximum height.
The site’s full excavation removes any clear natural ground reference, making reliance on a single favourable interpretation inappropriate.
Height compliance is therefore uncertain and contested. That uncertainty should weigh strongly against approval.

2. This Is a Clear Overdevelopment
Every recognised indicator of overdevelopment is present:
- Full-site excavation
- Minimal setbacks
- Negligible deep soil capacity
- Full exploitation of allowable height bonuses

This is not a balanced design. It is a proposal pushed to the absolute limits of what might be technically arguable, not what is appropriate for the site.

3. Bulk, Scale and Privacy Impacts Remain Unacceptable
The central issue has never changed: the building is too large for the site.
Repeated design iterations have not reduced bulk or scale. Instead, they have increased reliance on mitigation measures such as screening and façade treatments.
These measures do not resolve the problem—they confirm it.
If a building requires extensive mitigation to make it tolerable, it is fundamentally oversized.

4. Amenity Outcomes Are Compromised
The applicant’s own material confirms that some apartments will receive no solar access.
At the same time, communal open space is limited, and compliant DCP envelopes have been rejected because they reduce yield.
The trade-off is explicit: marginal internal gains at the expense of materially worse external impacts.
That is not an acceptable outcome.

5. Key Impacts Are Not Resolved
Traffic, construction impacts and cumulative noise are acknowledged but not addressed through design.
Instead, they are deferred to post-consent management plans.
This is a consistent pattern: known impacts are identified but left unresolved.
That is not an adequate basis for approval.

6. The Proposal Introduces a Major New Risk — Construction Interface
This is the most serious flaw in the current application.
For the first time, the development must be assessed alongside the Pacific Square remediation and concurrent nearby construction.
The applicant’s staging assumptions are unreliable:
- based on incomplete third-party information
- not agreed with adjoining landowners
- explicitly subject to change

There is no integrated assessment of concurrent construction, access constraints, safety risks, or cumulative impacts.
This issue has been deferred rather than resolved. That is unacceptable.
Known and foreseeable risks must be assessed upfront, not postponed.

7. The Housing SEPP Bonus Is Being Misused
The height bonus is being used to justify increased impacts—not to manage or mitigate them.
It has enabled greater height, bulk, reduced separation and intensified development, despite unresolved impacts.
That is contrary to the intent of the framework.

8. The Proposal Fails the Public Interest Test
This proposal fails for three fundamental reasons:
- It repeats a scheme already rejected on planning merit.
- It relies on contested interpretations rather than clear compliance.
- It introduces unresolved and deferred risks.
Community opposition has been overwhelming, and agency concerns remain unresolved.

Conclusion
This is not a materially improved proposal. It is an over-scaled development supported by selective interpretation and dependent on deferring critical issues.
It should be refused.

I am amazed we are still talking about this.
It is very concerning that the staggeringly obvious deteriorating future living conditions, wellbeing & general health (both mental & physical) of residents affected by this development, should it go ahead, appear to have been completely overlooked by whomever is handling this approval process. Plus it demonstrates a woefully obvious example of fraudulent developer tactics to continue to try and claw back their initial sunk investment.

When the Land and Environment Court (LEC) dismissed the developer's appeal on 7 November 2024 in *Maroubra Property Development Pty Limited v Randwick City Council* [2024] NSWLEC 1716, it affirmed Council's refusal of the proposed eight-storey development.

The developer's newly amended ten-storey State Significant Development (SSD) proposal, which seeks to utilise the 15% affordable housing bonus to further increase the building envelope, fails to address—and in several respects worsens—the key deficiencies identified by the Court.

**Unresolved Rear Laneway Constraints and Access Impacts**

A significant issue examined during the 2024 LEC proceedings was the limited capacity of the rear laneway, including the right of carriageway and easement arrangements servicing neighbouring properties. The revised proposal disregards these findings by removing vehicle egress from Maroubra Road and directing all vehicle movements through Piccadilly Place. This approach will intensify traffic congestion, reduce pedestrian safety and amenity, and place unsustainable pressure on an already constrained rear access corridor.

**Failure to Achieve Orderly Site Planning and Development**

The Court previously recognised that the developer had been unable to secure key adjoining parcels, including the Police Site, which could have facilitated a broader, lower-scale, and more appropriately integrated development outcome. Rather than redesigning the project to reflect these site limitations, the developer has responded by increasing the building height to ten storeys. This approach is contrary to the planning rationale acknowledged by the Court and significantly increases visual bulk, overshadowing, and adverse impacts along adjoining property boundaries.

**Inappropriate Reliance on Planning Bonuses to Increase Development Yield**

The Court's dismissal of the previous appeal was grounded in findings that the proposal's bulk and scale were inconsistent with the character and capacity of the surrounding area. The revised proposal continues this pattern by relying on statutory floor space and height incentives as a mechanism to maximise development yield. Rather than resolving the fundamental concerns regarding excessive density, overdevelopment, and incompatibility with the local context, the proposal uses planning bonuses to further expand an already inappropriate building form. As a result, the underlying issues identified by the Court remain unresolved and are, in several respects, exacerbated.

Finally, 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

This proposal isn’t meaningfully revised. It’s the third version of essentially the same scheme that’s already been refused by SECPP, dismissed in the Land and Environment Court, and met with strong community opposition—78 out of 81 submissions it during the first SSD Exhibition phase. The changes don’t fix the problems that led to earlier refusals; instead, they repackage and add new, more serious risks.

1. Height remains unresolved and disputed
The applicant claims the design meets height controls, but that’s not a solid position. Their own legal advice shows there’s more than one accepted way to measure building height under NSW law, and the isn’t trivial—it changes the result. One method (Bettar) finds it compliant, another equally valid method (Merman) shows it exceeds the height limit significantly. With the site fully excavated and no clear natural ground reference, relying on just one favorable interpretation isn enough. Height compliance is uncertain and contested, and that uncertainty should count against approval.

2. Still an overdevelopment
The proposal ticks the boxes for overdevelopment: full-site excavation, minimal setbacks, almost no deep soil planting, and use of the maximum height uplift possible This isn’t a balanced or considerate design—it’s been pushed to the limits of what can be argued, rather than what’s appropriate.

. Bulk, scale, and privacy impacts unchanged
Through every version of this proposal, these issues have essentially stayed the same.

3. Bulk, scale, and privacy impacts remain unchanged. Throughout every version of this proposal, the core problem persists — the building is simply too big for the site. That hasn changed. What has changed is an increasing reliance on mitigation measures like screening, façade articulation, and design tricks to limit overlooking. These don solve the problem — they highlight it. If a building needs heavy mitigation just to be acceptable, the issue isn’t in the details,’s in the scale.

4. Amenity outcomes are still compromised. The applicant’s own documents admit that some apartments get no solar access at all. This comes alongside minimal communal open space and a refusal to adopt DCP-compliant envelopes, claiming they limit yield. The result straightforward: slight internal improvements, but significantly greater external impacts. That’s not a fair trade-off.

5. Traffic, noise, and impacts remain unaddressed. The application notes issues like traffic constraints, construction disruptions, and cumulative noise, but pushes them to post-cons management plans. This pattern runs through the proposal: construction staging, traffic control, acoustic measures — impacts are acknowledged but not fixed through design6. The SSD brings a new and serious flaw — the construction interface. This is the most critical concern yet. For the first time the proposal must be considered alongside the Pacific Square remediation program, nearby concurrent construction, and shared infrastructure pressures. The applicant tries to manage this staging assumptions, but those are based on incomplete third-party information.

6. The SSD brings a major new problem — the construction interface. This is the most serious flaw in the current application and, for the first time, must be considered alongside the Pacific Square remediation program, nearby concurrent construction, and shared infrastructure limitations. the applicant tries to address this with staging assumptions, those are based on incomplete third-party data, lack agreement with neighboring landowners, and subject to change. Their own staging material shows further complications from substation staging needed for the site. There’s no integrated review of overlapping, access limits, safety issues, or cumulative impacts. Instead, the matter is pushed to later, which isn’t acceptable — known and risks should be assessed now.

7. The Housing SEPP bonus is being used to excuse, not limit, impacts. Affordable housing, but rules clearly state that extra height must not cause unreasonable effects. Here, the bonus has been used to make the development taller,ier, closer together, and more intense — without addressing earlier identified issues.

8. The proposal is not in the public interest for three main reasons: it repeats a previously rejected scheme, depends on disputed technical interpretations instead of clear compliance, and defers unresolved risks to later. Strong community opposition continues, and agency concerns — especially around bulk and scale — remain.

In conclusion, this proposal doesn’t offer a significantly better outcome. It continues with an oversized design, is backed by selective interpretation, and depends on putting off the resolution of key issues. It should not be approved. Thank you.