481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra

481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels, reference 2018SCL066 DA)

14 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. David Pyett commented

    This land was donated in perpetuity to the RSL years ago, probably just after the second world war. It should have remained in public hands and should never have been sold by the RSL. The RSL at the time of the closure of the bowling club and the "sale" of the land was looking very dodgy indeed, at the top levels. The developer is, in reality, the Roman Catholic Church, and again this is public money being diverted into private coffers. Worse still, being a "church" they will probably pay very little in rates or taxes. However they will sell the units and accommodation for a lovely sum, to wealthy Roman Catholics probably.
    This development should be refused in total, and the land re-dedicated to the public.

  2. Greg Dolgopolov commented

    I support David Pyett's position. This land should be public land not subdivided into apartments in an area already heavily developed and without the infrastructure to support multiple residences. Public land should not be privatised through underhanded means and the RC should pay full rates and taxes

  3. Jonathan Milford commented

    Council made the Comment under the heading of Sustainability that there should have been 'considerations of energy generation and conservation'. There was no Response to this suggestion. Since roof gardens are not envisaged, there is an Opportunity to design the buildings to be solar active as well as solar passive. Aged people use a lot of air conditioning in summer to keep cool and heating in winter to keep warm, so the power bills will be considerable, unless the buildings generate most of what is needed. With battery storage and a central controller this power can be dispatched on demand to where and when it is needed. Moreover, this is clean energy and reduces the demand on the grid for centrally produced power, most of which is still dirty and causing damage to other peoples' health and the environment. The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has now recognised this as one of the major problems in the world, so Catholic Healthcare should be both morally and economically obliged to act where they can to reduce fossil fuel emissions. With help from Randwick CC, this could be classed as a Solar Gardens project and could be nominated by them under the Cities Power Partnership.

  4. Peter Smith commented

    Traffic from the site (93 parking spaces) will flow into Mons Ave, directly opposite the entrance of the primary school. Already a narrow street,this is a recipe for a tragedy.
    The RSL has already sold the tennis courts for the neighbouring development. Consider the safety of the school children.

  5. John Bellamy commented

    This will totally destroy the character of Maroubra forever. I totally agree with Dave. How the RSL, the Centennial Park 'trust' could have allowed the trees on ANZAC Parade to be killed is unforgivable.

    This situation is really no different. The site is ideal for a community centre. Maroubra has no community centre. Sometimes the lifesaving club allow people to use their hall, but a community centre is needed, without the massive density.

    Who will profit from this development? (Please answer this question)

    Certainly not the citizens of Maroubra. Maroubra is the last bastion of the Eastern beaches that has kept its character, and low density. This will be the end of Maroubra forever.

    Please post up explicitly exactly WHO will benefit financially from this disgrace, and, what their relationships are to the community and/or council.

    Sydney cannot keep on growing forever. In a drought our water system will only support 5.3 Million people, perhaps even with the desalination plant working, yet we are on track for a population of 10 million. Is there any maximum on this?

    We now have the highest immigration rate in the world.

    The only beneficiaries of this are developers in the short term. This project just looks like another one of these. We need to stop immigration, until we have housed every homeless person living on our streets.

    We are the 19th richest country in the world by GDP and the 2nd richest country in the world after Switzerland per adult, yet we have 100,000 homeless living on our streets.

    Let's stop this continued destruction of our environment now, with this hideous blight, give the site back to the community, with a proper community centre.

    John Bellamy
    The Animal, Tree and Homeless Campaign
    0414 755 621
    john@johnbellamy.biz

  6. TPP commented

    All,

    Details of this application can be seen at the below link.

    The application seeks approval to develop

    Construction and occupation of building envelopes of predominantly 3-5 storeys in height for the purposes of seniors housing including:
    − A 108 bed Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF); and
    − 70 Independent Living Units (ILU’s);
    ○ 11 x1 bedroom apartments;
    ○ 49 x 2-bedroom apartments;
    ○ 10 x 3-bedroom apartments;
     Basement level car parking accommodating 85 vehicles;
     A new community ‘hub’ in a central location within the site;
     Associated landscaping and public domain improvements; and
     Extension and augmentation of physical infrastructure utilities as required.

    http://planning.randwick.nsw.gov.au/pages/xc.track.advanced/SearchApplication.aspx?id=627291

    This is an obvious loss of community amenity with a change of use from a public accessible open space to a private developed space.

    Review the plan and have your say.

  7. Nicole Sokol commented

    I am a resident of 64 Mons Ave, Maroubra and have seen the future plans for the development in the Bowlo. I must express my concern. This development is way too big and completely out of the character that Maroubra is so wonderfully known for. It is big and bulky and too high as well as will demand for alot of on street parking which will affect all of us residents here in Maroubra. I don't know if this will make any difference at all but I feel like of course you would be interested in what us Maroubra residents feel regarding this project and hope our concerns will be kept in mind.
    Best regards,

  8. simon corbett commented

    I fiercely oppose this development. Maroubra is already suffering from enormous over development and this gargantuan development is completely unnecessary and not at all in line with the general landscape and 'feel' of Maroubra. This plot of land must be used 0 as it always has been - as a place for the general public and somewhere that can be enjoyed by the Maroubra community. This development serves no one but the developers. It is completely incongruous to the locale and must be stopped.

  9. KATE CORBETT commented

    This is devastating. Maroubra is a suburb with a strong community which is in danger of being eradicated through the greed of developers. The land should never have been sold off for this use. The impact on the community of the additional population, will be enormous. I am so strongly against this development that will not only ruin the landscape but have a serious impact on the quality of life in Maroubra for its existing residents. It needs to be stopped now.

  10. diane Hunter commented

    Its too late to stop the development but it is not too late to reconsider aspects and enable it to fit in with the community it is about to overtake

    1) roof height is too high ~ it should be no higher than the building next to it (150? Mons Ave)
    2) it is too large ~ housing too many people suddenly arriving in a small plot of land, parking is inadequate. That corner will be chaos at school drop off and pick up especially. Parking in summer already at a premium. Do we need 3 bedroom units in a aged care facility or are we just looking at the premium the units can sell for?
    3) there is no green space or area for residents and visitors to sit relax or enjoy. There should be a green area or park designated preferably on the corner which will enhance the look of the street, provide a green area and if possible allow public access with benches for people to sit on. It will soften the harshness of the brick and render.
    4) the buildings should be set back so it does not make the street crowded, and allow better vision on that corner hopefully preventing a tragedy.
    5) It is a commercial concern and not there for the community, the community needs to feel part of it, listened too.
    it needs to be
    lower
    smaller
    set back
    green space included

  11. Jack T commented

    No plans sighted but the building visually surely can’t be worse than what is there currently.

    However adding the two 3 bedroom ‘penthouses’ level takes the building well above its current height.

    Obviously, as the estimated cost shown on the Council DA is over $8 million, the individual owners have had to take out huge loans and the addition of two 3 bedroom apartments/penthouses, in a building which currently contains only 1 bedroom with sunroom units, is perhaps an attempt to recoup the huge cost?

  12. Therese Weiss commented

    Others have already eloquently and accurately described our concerns about excessive height, bulk, appearance, overall size, out of character with the area, overshadowing, overlooking of adjacent homes, traffic and parking problems, and so on. It’s an ugly, chunky looking design which looks like an office block. There is also the question of why the land was sold in the first place to be lost to the community, and the questionable rezoning.

    The likelihood of excessive runoff and flooding is a serious concern, as the permeable grassed areas will be replaced with buildings and hard surfaces. Sustainability of any new building must be a priority, with rainwater tanks, stormwater harvesting, passive solar design and solar panels.

    As for ageing in your own area, it’s not as if the RACF has a catchment area like the local public school, Maroubra Bay, on the next block. People will live in a RACF where they can afford to, where there is a vacancy at the time they need it, and where it is convenient for their family to visit. I can’t see the point of independent living units: downsizers would be better off in a normal strata plan apartment complex built, or one built according to seniors’ SEPP. Local RACF beds for current Maroubra residents don’t need to be specifically in Maroubra; surely the surrounding suburbs qualify as local, such as Mark Moran at Little Bay.

    The “myagedcare” website provides information on Commonwealth Home Support Programmes. This is being promoted as way to age in our own homes which is more economical for all parties.

    I would like to point out that the people in the aged care beds or in the dementia unit are unlikely to get out much, so one would think that a top beachside location is more suitable for those who can benefit from it.

    Leave the bowling club as a community centre. Leave some public green space, as population pressures on beachside land are only increasing. Build a low rise village which addresses everyone’s concerns, if it is impossible to avoid such a development.
    I am a senior myself and have thought about my future, and that of my children, so feel qualified to comment.

  13. diane Hunter commented

    Lets think about this carefully those who have the power
    This is not just something to agree to.
    Its not a part time thing like a school that will be built and impacting just between 9-3 pm school days.
    This is a tall building, a ridiculous amount of residents suddenly on that plot of land living every hour of every day of every week every year for ...... maybe 100 years plus.
    It completely changes the area in looks, in demographic in everything.
    If the company owning it goes bust, the units maybe sold off privately to families. There are 3 bedroom units in this complex, prime real estate million dollar price tags. Would the council actually allow that many buildings and residencies and families if this wasnyt under the deguise of an old aged care facility...

    Lower building , lower roof levels
    Less residencies,less people, less parking required
    More green space, some community space would be great but probably impossible with a private concern now owning it
    Minimise the impact on the community.
    more thought for the present community is required.

    This area is not a place for such commercial businesses. I have failed to find one local person who supports this construction.
    Hopefully the council will do their job and work for the community

  14. Local Resident commented

    All,

    The developers of this site have lodged amended plans. If you object to the development please reiterate your objection to council by tomorrow COB.

    Reasons for objection include.

    - The density is not conforming with local controls and is out of context. The FSR is not complaint and is excessive.

    - The Primary School next door will have its playground placed in shade in the morning.

    - The proposed site through links are not usable community space. The extent of the site through links needs expansion with improved amenities, free and open access and rights assured via registered easements.

    - The common facilities are not for public benefit. The prior use as a Bowlo was Private Recreation that was publicly accessible. The proposed use is not in the community interest.

    - The statement in the Social Impact Statement, 23 April by Cred that the site was able to be purchased for private recreation purposes fails to acknowledge that the site was marketed by agents as a development opportunity that had greater commercial opportunity. By virtue of their use type Private Recreation uses can not compete commercially with for profit private development uses.

    - The extent of open space is not sufficient and does not enable community activity.

    - The schools either side of the development will be adversely effected by dust, noise and vibration. The two years of disruption will significantly affect hundreds of school children’s formative years. The wider community of Maroubra do not support the development

    - Sufficient notification of the amended plans has not been provided at the property.

    - The LEP does not permit the type of development proposed. Residents have based their purchase decisions on the prevailing LEP.

    - The architects plans do not reflect the statements made in the SIA that a community hub, cafe, swimming pool, cinema and multifunction rooms will be available for public community use.

    - The SIA comment that there is other open space in proximity to the site is not a valid reason for reducing the open space in Maroubra. Maroubras population has increased in recent times. More open space is needed to provide that needed by the local community and the visitors that flock to the beach each day.

    - The use will not provide public benefit, only commercial benefit to the developer and private benefit for those that can afford its product offering.

    - The SIA comment that the area is well serviced with comparable clubs, p23, is erroneous.

    - The SIA comments that the there is more than enough open space. This comment is subjective and local residents disagree

    - The declining economic viability of the Bowlo is due to mismanagement and not sufficient argument against a change of use at the detriment of local residents amenity. If the site was sold at a price that acknowledged the RE2 zoning exclusively then operators of private recreation facilities could have competed on a fair basis. Instead the site was sold on the speculation it would be rezoned.

    - The existing aged care locations should be densified prior to absorbing open space

    - The open space audit, Appendix 1, SIA by Cred p 24, lists places well beyond that considered a reasonable walking distance. All parks over 800m away should be removed from consideration

    - Offensively the SIA states that facilities such as Centrelink and the Ambulance station are sufficient community facilities to justify the Bowlos destruction

    - The traffic management study fails to acknowledge the school pick up peak period at 3pm. Two primary schools sit each side of the site.

    - Employees car parking is not sufficient and car parking for the facility will spill over onto the already crowded roads.

    - Visitation traffic has not be given due consideration in the traffic report

    - The local road network and parking bays are not sufficient to hold existing uses that parents of local school children require plus the load from the over development of the site.

    - The traffic management plan suggests that bicycle will be a reasonable alternative means of transport for aged car and dementia suffering attendees

    - No date is supplied for when the traffic audit was undertaken. Was it completed at a time and date when the school was operating?

    - The prior mistakes allowing 4 Storey Development, noted in GSAs Urban Design Report p12, are not justification for extra ordinary allowance of the GFA and density that are not compliant with the LEP or local character

    - There are not sufficient setbacks from the boundaries

    - Local residents disagree with the flippant statements by GSA that the Bowlo makes no contribution to the street scape. The visual impact of the proposed development will be substantial and detrimental to sight lines. The photos provided in GSAs design statement are conveniently positioned to enhance their claims and not entirely and truthfully descriptive of the impact

    - The medium density site used as justification on p19 is under investigation. It’s approval came after political donations by the developers

    - School operations and future uses of open space may be effected by complaints from the elderly residents

    - Privacy of local residents will be impacted by overcrowding

    - The scale and urban grain of existing development has not been respected in the proposed design

    - Gates are shown on the plans for communal space. This space is not for public access or may be restricted by the operator post OC

    - The dementia courtyard will be dark from the surrounding density and height of the buildings

    - Building separation is not sufficient or inline with the width of Rossiter Ave

    - No meaningful sustainably initiatives or VPA that benefit the community are proposed

    - The GSA statement that the facility will not place additional burden on existing community facilities is false. Should the development proceed then enhancements to the local open space are desirable.

    - Should this development proceed it will set a dangerous precedent and will encourage the sell off of all bowling clubs and all Private Recreation lands to private developers

    - Sufficient detail of materials is not provided. Ensuring against combustion and provision of a materiality that is of a good standard is required

    - The current site through link receives constant sun. This will reduce to 2 hours per day. Not an inviting space that invites crime.

    - Visual impact study is self serving and by its own admission limited in scope.

    - Increased visual impact, restricted sight lines and reflection of the building will increase danger of traffic to students.

    - The current community are not supportive and we trust those charged with ensuring land is used in accordance with those outlined in the LEP and by the natural laws of merit. This site is not appropriate for the proposed use.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts