I am lodging my objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. This application is essentially a re-work of the previous scheme (DA/80/2023), which was rejected by Randwick Council and subsequently refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court.
The Court concluded that the earlier eight-storey mixed-use proposal represented clear overdevelopment. It was deemed excessive in height, bulk and scale, failed to comply with the building height and storey controls in the development control plan, and would significantly reduce neighbouring residents’ amenity through loss of sunlight, views, privacy and increased overshadowing. Importantly, both the Court and many objectors also raised major concerns about traffic congestion, increased noise, disruption, and inadequate on-site parking, along with the risks associated with basement drainage and de-watering.

This new application fails to remedy any of those issues. Instead, the developer has escalated the intensity by proposing a nine-storey building with even more units, including social housing. These changes do not address the Court’s findings; they simply amplify the negative impacts. It appears the intention is to take advantage of the State Government’s fast-track process, effectively bypassing the earlier refusal.
A nine-storey building will inevitably cause far greater traffic congestion, more traffic-related noise and disruption, and added pressure on already limited parking. It will also worsen overshadowing, privacy loss, drainage concerns, and result in further loss of solar access and views for surrounding households.

A similar development was declined by NSW Planning a few years ago citing concerns for the scale of the developemt and its impace on the envirnment, traffic, noise and natural light. It was turned down on appeal and the report is attached.
This is a similar development proposal and it seems that it try to go in via the affordable hosing pathway and the concerns were not addressed. We do not object a housing development and affordable housing, I am concern about the height and size of this buildingand the proximity to the adjacent block
The adjacent block in Pacific Square will be undergoing a major remediationproject which can last up to 2 and a half years and one can see how disruptive it can be for the surrounding if this is going ahead. I can see another'Mascot Tower' situation coming. Enclosed is the report re the appeal decision and please have careful consideration of the issues before approving is blankly without any modification and satisfactory addresses to the concerns

Submission on behalf of the Pacific Square Building Management Committee (BMC)
SSD-81426710 – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra
Submitted by: Ryan O’Connor, Senior Building Manager, Pacific Square BMC

1. Introduction
The Pacific Square precinct directly adjoins the SSD site and comprises multiple residential buildings, retail tenancies, shared facilities and high-volume pedestrian areas. The BMC is responsible for managing shared infrastructure, building services, operational coordination and statutory compliance across the precinct.
Pacific Square is about to commence a major multi-year program of façade, waterproofing, balcony and structural remediation across multiple buildings. These works involve extensive scaffolding, vibration-sensitive repairs, waterproofing membrane curing, concrete rectification and continuous contractor activity along the boundary shared with 138 Maroubra Road.
In this context, the SSD represents a concurrent construction project immediately adjacent to an active remediation site. This creates important planning, safety, operational and feasibility considerations that require formal assessment and appropriate conditioning.

2. Concurrent Construction Conflict (Primary Issue)
The SSD proposes demolition, excavation and construction of a nine-storey building directly beside an occupied precinct undergoing sensitive external remediation. Without appropriate safeguards, this introduces risks including:

• vibration impacts on curing waterproofing systems, concrete repairs, façade works and balcony rectification
• dust and debris affecting waterproofing and façade integrity
• overlapping crane, hoist and exclusion zones
• competing contractor access requirements
• reduction of safe pedestrian movement and emergency egress
• conflicts between material deliveries, waste collection and loading operations
• potential disruption to the staging of the remedial program

Given the scale of works occurring on both sites, these matters require structured interface planning beyond standard construction management practices.

3. Vibration and Structural Impact Risks
The proposed SSD involves excavation and heavy machinery use.
Pacific Square’s remediation includes:
• new waterproofing membranes requiring stable curing conditions
• concrete repairs susceptible to vibration
• façade rectification work executed from scaffolding
• balcony and cavity flashing works

Vibration from demolition and excavation may compromise the integrity of these works. The EIS does not appear to adequately model or address these adjacent-construction risks.

4. Site Access, Loading and WHS Conflicts
Pacific Square has limited service access, a constrained loading dock, and high daily pedestrian movement associated with both residential and retail activities.

Concurrent construction creates potential risks including:
• congestion of construction vehicles
• obstruction of service vehicle access for either site
• WHS interface risks arising from overlapping construction zones
• increased pedestrian safety risks, including school and retail routes

A coordinated Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan will be essential and must be developed in consultation with Pacific Square management.

5. Impact on Emergency Access and Egress
Remedial works require temporary scaffolding, hoarding and staged changes to access. The SSD will add further constraints. To ensure safety, emergency vehicle access, evacuation routes and fire-safety pathways must be maintained throughout both projects. This requires coordinated staging and joint risk assessment.

6. Operational and Insurance Considerations
While the BMC does not expect DPIE to adjudicate insurance matters, it is noted that major works on an adjoining property can affect:
• contractor sequencing
• environmental conditions required for waterproofing and façade works
• risk management obligations
• responsibilities under the Strata Management Statement

These factors are relevant to construction feasibility and staging requirements.

7. EIS Consideration of Adjacent Construction Interactions
The EIS primarily assesses the SSD in isolation and does not sufficiently address:
• the scale and timing of Pacific Square’s remediation project
• sensitivity of external works to vibration and environmental factors
• staging and operational interactions between two major construction projects
• cumulative impacts on traffic, access, safety and neighbouring buildings

Further clarification and conditioning will be required to ensure safe and feasible delivery of both projects.

8. Requested Conditions of Consent
If the SSD is approved, the BMC respectfully requests that the Department include conditions requiring:
1. Construction Staging Controls
• avoidance of demolition/excavation during critical remedial phases
• agreed coordination of high-impact works

2. Vibration and Structural Monitoring
• installation of appropriate monitoring devices on Pacific Square buildings
• real-time reporting and automatic work-stoppage thresholds

3. Formal Construction Coordination Plan
• joint planning between the SSD contractor, the Pacific Square BMC, the remedial engineers and builders
• regular coordination meetings and communication protocols

4. Protection of Shared Access and Pedestrian Areas
• measures ensuring safe access to the Pacific Square retail precinct, loading dock and residential entries

5. Traffic and Delivery Management
• coordinated scheduling of heavy-vehicle movements
• management of competing access needs

6. Neighbouring Property Safeguards
• temporary protection for scaffolding, hoarding and façade works
• controls on dust, debris and runoff

These conditions are standard for complex urban environments where major construction activities occur in close proximity.

9. Conclusion
The Pacific Square BMC supports responsible development but must ensure that the SSD does not compromise the safety, structural integrity or feasibility of ongoing remedial works, nor the operation of a densely populated residential and retail precinct.
We respectfully request that DPIE assess the interaction between the two construction programs in detail and impose conditions ensuring coordinated staging, monitoring and risk management.

The similar development has been declined by NSW Planning previously given the concern re the scale of the development in a small area, noise, traffic, air quality and lack of natural light. The report suggested that the developement should never be considered.
This current proposal is similar to the earlier one and none of the issues / concerns were addressed properly in the proposal. It seems that the developer is using the 'low ccost housing' pathway to submitt this proposal agian. We do not object developement and low cost housing, however, the scale of current proposal is too big for the area. You may also be aware that Pacific Square apartment block is undergoing a major repair and remediation project which will take two and half years, if this go ahead, one can imagine how disruptive it will be to the structure of this land and I can see another "Mascot Tower" coming.