32 Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach NSW 2026

I strongly oppose this DA. The proposal to increase the site to 5 storeys will negatively impact surrounding property owners and erode the unique beachside character of Bondi. The scale and height are completely out of step with the “beach feel” that makes this area special, and will contribute to over-development along Campbell Parade and Bondi.

Bondi is already super congested, with no new roads or transport links to support the constant increase in residents. There are no additional public amenities proposed, yet the density keeps going up. Bondi already feels overcrowded, and this will only make it worse.

The reality is that developments of this nature don’t benefit the community. The only people who profit are developers and the ultra-wealthy who can afford absolute beachfront housing, while the rest of the community pays the price through reduced amenity, overcrowding, and loss of character.

I urge Council to reject this DA, limit it to 3 storeys on the beachfront

I strongly approve this DA.
This proposal is smaller than the 6 storey building next door so completely within the scale of the surroundings - The demand to live in Bondi Beach is much higher than the supply of housing causing rents to be becoming way too high, as a Bondi Beach local I would love more housing to help alleviate this issue.
A development of this nature will significantly benefit the community with more people being able to enjoy the beautiful place we call home, with people who want to live in the area benefitting from the fairer housing prices.
Limiting the development to 3 storeys will mean that only extremely luxurious apartments could be built which is exactly what the people opposing this proposal want - we need more young people and more essential workers to be able to live in bondi and without the increase in housing this wont be possible!

6 Storeys is lower than what you'd see walking around what most people consider to be the most beautiful cities in the world in Paris and Barcelona which are all mostly 8-10 storeys
I urge the Council to approve this DA and any other similar developments within 500m of the beach!

We must be careful in not creating precedents that turn Bondi Beach into the Gold Coast with high-rises and windtunnels. We must preserve the character of Bondi Beach for cultural and heritage purposes, and for this reason this building should be approved to be no higher than surrounding buildings of similar character. It appears Ravesi's next door is 5 or 6 levels, so this should be the maximum level approved.
It is time for Waverley Council to start planning ahead and having a long term vision for the ideal streetscape of Campbell Pde and surrounding streets - a streetscape where heritage facades are protected, where the maximum height is no more than 5 or 6 levels, and that horrible anomalies like The Pacific and The Bondi are ignored and not used as points of reference. This would enable the neighbourhood to strike the right balance between increasing housing availability whilst preserving neighbourhood character which is essential to tourism and local visitors which the local economy is dependent on. To approve anything higher is to jeopardise character and therefore the long term viability of the local economy.
Furthermore, Waverley Council should endeavour to strike an agreement with state government to ensure that Bondi Beach be excluded from heavy development due to this unique cultural character. This needs to be declared publically, so developers will back off and put their focus on high rise development in other areas. There are precedents in other global cities where this has happened, and it is time for Waverley Council to champion that one of the most famous beaches in the world must be protected. Time for some courage, Waverley Council, to advocate for this!

I strongly oppose this DA. The proposal to increase the site to 5 storeys will negatively impact surrounding property owners and erode the unique beachside character of Bondi. The scale and height are completely out of step with the “beach feel” that makes this area special.

The council really need to consider not over-developing Bondi and the surrounding areas, as the current infrastructure already cannot cope with the increasing density and amount of congestion.

Bondi already feels overcrowded, and this will only make it worse.

The reality is that developments of this nature don’t benefit the community. The only people who profit are developers, and the ultra-wealthy who can afford absolute beachfront housing, while the rest of the community pays the price through reduced amenity, overcrowding, and loss of character.

I urge Council to reject this DA and limit the number of developments on the beach front as well as the maximum heights to 3 storeys.

I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. Excessive scale and bulk: The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site and is not contextually appropriate for this part of South Bondi.

2. Heritage context: The site is within a heritage conservation area, and the proposed height and design are inconsistent with the established character and built form of the locality.

3. Amenity impacts: The development will significantly affect surrounding residents through overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk, and acoustic impacts.

4. Inconsistent with previous decisions: It is my understanding that the neighbouring property was refused approval by the Land and Environment Court for a building of similar height, which highlights the inappropriateness of the current proposal.

5. Misuse of ‘affordable housing’ provisions: The developer is claiming the project provides affordable housing but is only offering one 'affordable' apartment. This provides no genuine benefit to the community or local housing supply and appears to be used purely to gain planning advantages for private benefit.

As other residents have expressed, this development raises serious concerns on multiple fronts. Of note, it appears to game government subsidies and planning loopholes for developer profiteering, at the expense of the local community.

While affordable housing is a very, very important and worthy initiative, unless that one so called “affordable” unit comes in under $838 a week, the absolute ceiling for affordability under the State and your own Council housing affordability guidelines, it’s hard to see this as anything other than developers cashing in under the guise of social good. I also question whether only ONE “affordably” priced apartment is genuinely considered to be enough to justify building a high rise development not in keeping with the surrounding area.

I urge Council to scrutinise this commitment closely and ensure housing policy is genuinely upheld before rubber stamping this one. It would frankly be outrageous to see yet another case of profiteering at our community’s expense.

I oppose this development for a number of reasons:
1. It is well above the council approved height of 12.5M and is using the "affordable housing" loophole to gain significant height. Any "affordable housing" apartment on beach front will not be affordable to the majority of the community so it is not adding any benefit to the community. The extra height will only benefits the developer in additional profit from building 3 multimillion dollar apartments. I can't even understand how they can claim that they are developing an "affordable apartment" when there are only 3 in the building and they would all have a minimum value of $10-20M.
2. This excessive height will block long held beach views and sunlight from apartments on behind Francis street, Edward street and Bondi Road as well as the next door retirement complex Astra.
3. If this is approved, will create precedence along the front for all the apartments to the left side all the way up to Noahs backpackers to go to this height, creating a 6 level height along the entire beach front - creating a "Gold Coast" type of block height and will be detrimental to Bondi heritage scape.
4. There is limited to no green areas, extensive planting or trees rather it a massive concrete block with no setbacks.
Please stop this development from setting a terrible precedent that will ruin the Bondi Beach Heritage frontage.

I support this development because increases the total amount of houses in the area as well as fitting the character of the area better than the current 2 storey building does.
Waverley council should approve this because we are in a housing crisis and even if it is just for rich people, rich people need somewhere to stay so that the rest of us don't have to compete with them for housing. This development could be further complimented as more buildings are built to 6 storeys or higher in the area as it is a high demand area and it is outrageous to say that it does not fit local character as the current building is old and run down.
The rest of the block should follow to create a much more organised and cohesive look in the area. Make something that future generations can be proud of!

I have read the DA application and refer to page 13 of the Design Statement. The proposed design does not even pay lip service to the Heritage Area of Bondi Beach, it is a gross example of facadism where the exterior is kept out of obligation but no effort has been made to integrate the new design with the look and feel of the neighbourhood. The application sites several local examples on page 13, 132 - 134 Campbell parade, 56 and 58 Campbell parade (concept only) these designs endeavor to integrate with the existing structure and heritage look of Bondi Beach. The proposed design at 32 Campbell parade consider none of the heritage look of the area and bears more of a resemblance to 124 Campbell parade (also cited in the document) which is a gross example of two architectural styles smashed together so that neither works to compliment each other, or the heritage area of Bondi Beach. Bondi Beach is a globally recognised destination, and it needs to be protected otherwise it's going to look like Bondi Junction, which is fine for a shopping centre and business district but doesn't cut it as a globally iconic destination.

Hello, please approve DA-477/2025 to let more housing be built.

Although this development will only increase housing stock by a little, it's a move in the right direction. Every person living in Bondi is a person who doesn't have to travel to get there, reducing congestion and transport-related pollution. Happily, building on an existing footprint means no trees are affected.

As a secondary consideration, I would suggest, "Why not higher?", but I can understand the argument to have the property match the height of the large building next door at number 30.

I’m making a submission after seeing some surprising extreme remarks about the DA in question. Being DA-477/2025

If you look at the designs, it’s facade is similar to the building it’s immediately next to, and the building height is clearly consistent with it as well. It’s abundantly clear it’s sympathetic to its surroundings.

More importantly we have a housing crisis and developments like these are important for reducing rents. Based on a Quick Look at domain, the rents here are around $900. Clearly ppl want to pay a lot to live here so why not provide more opportunities to do so and provide more supply and make more affordable?

I want to clarify my earlier submission- I support this proposal IF more affordable housing is included.

The higher height allowance should benefit the community by ensuring ALL the additional sqm is allocated to the affordable apartments, and not used to increase the dwelling size or number of luxury apartments in the block.

One affordable apartment is not enough. It makes a mockery of the scheme.

NO SUCH THING SO CALLED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
ABSOLUTE LIES.

ONE, WAY TO HAVE SHITTY
DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED.

TREES, POSSUMS, BIRDS

BE GONE.

Dear Fellow Councillors and Planning Assessment Team,

As a dedicated member of Waverley Council with a lifelong commitment to preserving the unique character of Bondi Beach, I write to express my unequivocal and staunch opposition to the proposed development at 32 Campbell Parade (DA-477/2025). This application represents a blatant disregard for the longstanding views and serene enjoyment of our iconic beachfront that residents behind Campbell Parade – including hardworking landowners like myself – have cherished and protected for generations. We have invested our life’s labour, savings, and dreams into the privilege of calling Bondi home, drawn by its unspoiled coastal vistas and community spirit. To allow this over-scaled project to proceed would not only erode these irreplaceable assets but also undermine the fundamental property rights of existing owners and pervert the noble intent of affordable housing provisions.

I note that while the developers may garner some misguided support from those who cannot afford to live in the area, they are cynically exploiting a broader affordability crisis to mask their true intentions of profit-driven overdevelopment. These well-meaning individuals may not grasp the reality of the developers’ actual agenda: a token “affordable” unit shoehorned into a scheme of luxury penthouses that delivers no meaningful housing relief. It is all too easy for outsiders to decry that “Bondi is too expensive,” but such rhetoric wholly disregards the tireless efforts of those of us who have dedicated our livelihoods to realising the dream of homeownership here through years of sacrifice and perseverance.

This proposal must be refused outright, as it contravenes core legal frameworks designed to safeguard Bondi’s environmental and social fabric. Foremost, it flagrantly exceeds the maximum building height of 12.5 metres mandated by the Land and Environment Court’s June 2024 ruling in the South Bondi height controls matter. That precedent was established precisely to protect heritage character, view corridors, and sunlight access – elements this DA obliterates by proposing a towering 20-metre structure, equivalent to five or six storeys. Such non-compliance renders the application invalid under Clause 4.3 of Waverley’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012, which strictly limits heights in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to prevent visual dominance and amenity loss.
Furthermore, the developer’s cynical invocation of an “affordable housing bonus” to justify the extra floors is legally untenable. Under the NSW Affordable Housing SEPP 2021, sites must be at least 450 square metres to qualify for density bonuses – yet this paltry 238m² lot falls woefully short, disqualifying any height variation. The single purported “affordable” unit is a token gesture, failing to meet the SEPP’s substantive requirements for genuine integration and community benefit. This exploitative loophole attempt also breaches Waverley’s Development Control Plan (DCP) 2022, particularly Sections B2 (Residential Development) and B5 (Heritage and Landscape), which demand adequate setbacks, 30% permeable landscaped area (versus the proposed measly 9%), and preservation of solar access.

Approving this would invite judicial review, exposing Council to costly appeals and setting a dangerous precedent for opportunistic overdevelopment across our eastern suburbs.

Beyond these legal imperatives, the project would inflict severe practical harms on our community. Traffic congestion would intensify dramatically: the introduction of basement parking for up to five luxury apartments on this narrow beachfront site would funnel additional vehicles onto already strained Campbell Parade and adjacent laneways, exacerbating peak-hour gridlock and pedestrian hazards in a high-tourist zone. Bondi’s coastal roads are not equipped for such incremental burdens, and this DA ignores the cumulative impacts outlined in the Transport for NSW Guidelines for Developments, potentially violating integrated land-use transport planning under the EP&A Act 1979.
Most egregiously, this “wall of concrete” would shatter Bondi’s aesthetic harmony and historic character – a low-rise, human-scaled enclave that defines our global appeal. By severing century-old ocean view corridors from Francis and Edward Streets, it would deprive dozens of residents, including vulnerable elderly at the Astra Retirement Village, of sunlight, breezes, and sea glimpses.

This is not progress; it is an assault on the public amenity that Clause 1.2 of the LEP explicitly prioritizes: “to promote and reinforce the desirable elements of Waverley’s built form, urban design and landscape character.” Bondi is not a canvas for private profiteering but a shared treasure, and this DA’s stark, unyielding massing would indelibly scar its silhouette, alienating locals and deterring the very tourism that sustains us.

In refusing DA-477/2025, we uphold our duty under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to balance development with community well-being. I urge my colleagues to stand with Save South Bondi and the hundreds of submitters who echo this call: reject this application, enforce our height controls, and reaffirm that Bondi’s beauty belongs to all who call it home – not to those who seek to eclipse it.
Waverley Council, we are Bondi.

Please do not allow this to happen for the sake of our residents both young and old, and for the future of this beautiful, iconic place.

I agree completely with the last comment. Please don't regard the small volume of complaints to mean that the residents don't care. In their busy lives, trying to meet the demands of living in the Bondi area, these plans are not widely known. Please consider our community, beyond one affordable apartment to excuse a blight, whose core purpose is money. Let's aim to be about development that delivers what this falsely promises; low impact, sensitive development that provides a mix of options, including mamy small, adequate lodgings for the people that look after us residents as we draw on amenities. Let's remember the many council staff that help us here, who find it nearly impossible to live here on the fair but modest earnings that council work provides.

I've only just heard about this development, and believe the council should reject this proposal. I do not believe in the cynical 'affordable housing' component of this development.