Redevelopment of 8-10 New Mclean St, Edgecliff

I write to formally object the project. As a resident of Bowes Avenue at Edgecliff, located approximately 20 metres west of the proposed development site, I will be directly and significantly impacted by this proposal.

1. Direct impact on adjoining low-scale terrace housing
My property is a terrace dwelling within a low-scale residential streetscape. The proposed development represents a substantial and incompatible increase in height, bulk, and density immediately adjacent to this sensitive interface.

Given the proximity of my property to the site, the proposal is likely to result in (1) significant overshadowing and loss of natural light, (2) loss of privacy due to overlooking, (3) increased visual bulk and a sense of enclosure (4) diminished residential amenity and (5) overpopulation and over-density.
The scale of the proposed development is wholly inconsistent with the established character of Bowes Avenue and surrounding terrace housing. This represents clear overdevelopment of a constrained site.

2. Traffic congestion and safety impacts
Traffic conditions in the local area are already under significant strain. Bowes Avenue and surrounding streets experience frequent congestion, which is exacerbated by nearby schools such as Ascham School.
Daily school pick-up and drop-off activity results in (1) High traffic volumes during peak morning and afternoon periods, (2) Illegal or informal parking, (3) reduced road safety for pedestrians and residents and (4) over-congestion of New South Head Road.

The proposed increase in density will introduce additional vehicle movements into an already congested local road network. This will worsen traffic delays, road safety risks and noise and general disturbance.
The proposal fails to adequately address how these cumulative impacts will be managed.

3. Loss of already limited street parking
Street parking in Bowes Avenue and surrounding streets is extremely limited. Existing residents already face difficulty accessing parking due to high residential demand and school-related parking pressures.
The proposed development will significantly increase demand for on-street parking, particularly given the limitations of on-site parking provision typically associated with developments of this nature.
As a result, (1) existing residents will have reduced access to parking near their homes, (2) visitor parking will become increasingly constrained and (3) local amenity will be further eroded.

4. Overdevelopment and incompatibility with local character
The proposal involves a dramatic increase in building height and floor space ratio, far exceeding the scale of surrounding development. This level of uplift is inappropriate given (1) the proximity to heritage conservation areas, (2) the fine-grain character of surrounding terrace housing, and (3) the site’s role as a transition between commercial and residential zones.
The development will dominate the streetscape and undermine the established character of the area.

5. Inadequate planning controls under SSD pathway
As the proposal is intended to proceed via the State Significant Development pathway, there is limited ability to enforce detailed design controls through local planning instruments. This creates uncertainty around key issues such as (1) final building envelope and design, (2) overshadowing impacts, and (3) traffic and parking outcomes.
Given the proximity of my property, this lack of certainty is unacceptable and places nearby residents at significant risk of adverse outcomes.

6. Lack of strategic merit and prior refusal by Council
Importantly, Woollahra Council has already refused the planning proposal on the basis that it (1) does not demonstrate strategic merit, (2) is inconsistent with established planning strategies for Edgecliff. Furthermore, the site was not identified for this level of uplift in strategic planning work, reinforcing that the proposal is opportunistic rather than plan-led. Furthermore, it should be queried why this project is state significant and up for approval by the NSW Government as a Major Project when rezoning of the Edgecliff and Woollahra LGA has yet to be finalised.

As a State Significant Development, the proposal limits the ability of Council to impose detailed controls. This creates unacceptable uncertainty regarding final building design and scale, traffic and parking outcomes, and amenity impacts on directly affected residents.

6. Cumulative impact of multiple large developments
This proposal cannot be assessed in isolation. There are multiple State Significant Development proposals in the immediate Edgecliff precinct, and planning material highlights that combined impacts will result in significant overdevelopment, there is no coordinated traffic or infrastructure strategy and the cumulative effect will place major strain on the locality.
This lack of coordinated planning is a critical failure and will directly impact surrounding residential streets such as Bowes Avenue.

7. Inadequate infrastructure and public benefit
There is no clear guarantee that the proposal will deliver adequate infrastructure upgrades, additional public facilities or meaningful or permanent affordable housing. The Labor government has a strong focus with delivering social and affordable housing, however, the development will only provide a measly 2.75% of affordable housing. This is insufficient and does not align with the Government's objectives, and is merely a proponent in obtaining development approval. I query why this redevelopment is state significant.
Planning commentary indicates that proposed public benefits may be limited or uncertain despite the scale of uplift being sought.This raises serious concerns about whether the proposal is in the public interest.

8. Unacceptable impact on heritage conservation areas
The site sits within close proximity to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, which is recognised for its intact streetscapes, consistent building scale, and historic significance. The proposal poses serious risks to this heritage setting, including disruption of established height and scale relationships, visual intrusion into heritage streetscapes, loss of the transitional buffer between commercial and residential zones, precedent for further encroachment of high-density development into heritage areas and loss of biodiversity in surrounding areas. Redevelopment will further impact Trumper Park and cause a reduction in habitat for local fauna
Heritage conservation areas rely not only on the protection of individual buildings, but also on the preservation of their broader setting and context. This proposal undermines that principle.

9. Environmental and biodiversity impacts
The site forms part of a broader ecological and green corridor within the local area. The proposed intensification raises significant environmental concerns, including loss of vegetation and urban tree canopy, fragmentation of biodiversity corridors, reduction in habitat for local fauna and increased urban heat and reduced environmental quality
These impacts are particularly concerning in a dense urban environment where green space and vegetation are already limited and highly valued.

10. Inconsistency with local character and heritage context
The proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area, including nearby heritage conservation areas and terrace housing. Key concerns include abrupt scale transition, visual dominance within the streetscape, loss of the fine-grain urban character. Such impacts are irreversible and fundamentally alter the identity of the locality.

Objection Submission: State Significant Development Application SSD-80626208
8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff

Dear Joseph,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development Application SSD-80626208 for the demolition, site works, vegetation clearing, two-lot subdivision, and construction of a residential flat building at 8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff. While I acknowledge the need for increased housing and affordable housing in the area, I have significant concerns regarding the impact of this development on the local community, environment, and heritage.

1. Excessive Building Height and Bulk
The proposed building height of 39.8 meters significantly exceeds the current permissible height of 10.5 meters under the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (WLEP 2014). While the applicant has requested a variation under Clause 4.6, the proposed height is a 279% increase over the current standard. This excessive height will disrupt the existing streetscape and create a visual intrusion, particularly for nearby properties and Trumper Park users. The justification provided by the applicant relies heavily on the draft Planning Proposal PP-2023-1648, which has not yet been finalized. Until the amendments to WLEP 2014 are officially made, the current height controls should be upheld to preserve the character of the area.

2. Impact on Heritage Conservation
The site is located within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and the proposed development risks undermining the heritage significance of the area. The scale and bulk of the building are inconsistent with the fine-grained subdivision pattern and architectural character of the HCA. The proposed development could detract from the visual harmony of the area and overshadow nearby heritage-listed properties, such as Bowes Terraces and Royal Terraces.

3. Environmental Concerns
The proposal involves the removal of 152 trees, including 114 native species, and the clearing of 3,000m² of vegetation. While the applicant has proposed new landscaping, the loss of mature trees and existing vegetation will have a detrimental impact on local biodiversity and the visual appeal of the area. The removal of trees and vegetation will also negatively affect the microclimate and contribute to the urban heat island effect.

4. Traffic and Parking Impacts
The proposed development will generate additional traffic and parking demands in an already congested area. While the applicant has provided a Transport Impact Assessment, the projected increase in vehicle trips during peak hours will exacerbate existing traffic issues, particularly at the New South Head Road/New McLean Street intersection. The cumulative impact of this development, combined with other nearby projects, has not been adequately addressed.

5. Overshadowing and Solar Access
The proposed building will cast significant shadows on Trumper Park and nearby residential properties. While the applicant claims compliance with Woollahra DCP 2015, the shadow diagrams provided indicate that the development will create additional overshadowing, particularly in the morning hours. This will negatively impact the amenity of park users and nearby residents.

6. Community Concerns
The community has expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of the development, including construction noise, vibration, dust, and traffic disruptions. The proposed mitigation measures, while noted, may not be sufficient to address these concerns. The scale of the development and its impact on the local community's way of life should be carefully reconsidered.

7. Premature Reliance on Draft Planning Proposal PP-2023-1648
The applicant's justification for the proposed height and FSR variations relies heavily on the draft Planning Proposal PP-2023-1648, which has not yet been finalized. Until the amendments to WLEP 2014 are officially made, the current planning controls should be adhered to. Premature reliance on draft planning proposals undermines the integrity of the planning process and sets a concerning precedent for future developments.

Conclusion
In light of the above concerns, I urge the Minister to reject SSD-80626208 in its current form. The proposed development is inconsistent with the current planning controls, poses significant risks to the local environment and heritage, and fails to adequately address community concerns. I request that the application be revised to align with the existing WLEP 2014 controls and to better address the environmental, social, and heritage impacts on the Edgecliff community.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I strongly object to this project on a number of grounds:

Scope, and Affordable Housing
The project currently only involves Stage 1 of a multi-stage development. Under this stage, it involves the demolition of over 100 existing studio and 1/2 bedroom apartments, which would generally be described as "low cost", to be replaced by a smaller number (65) of 2 & 3 bedroom apartments, of which only 2 are dedicated as affordable housing. This involves a considerable loss of affordable housing at a time and in a location where this type of accommodation is in short supply.

Even if limited to Stage 1, the development will put significant stress on the existing infrastructure, including sewerage, the mains of which runs down Cameron Street, and storm water from the area encompassing Jersey Road, Ocean Street and Queen Street and beyond, and which could cause significant damage in the future.

Traffic:
New Mclean Street is only around 200 metres long, and is a narrow cul-de-sac with a turning circle at the far end, and with only one lane running in each direction. This services 2 shopping centres, each with a major supermarket. In addition, there are a number of medium to high-rise apartment blocks at the end of the street, the residents of which are dependent on New Mclean Street for entry and exit. There is no other access other than the intersection of New Mclean Street and New South Head Road, where the traffic lights also control vehicle movements into and out of Darling Point Road. Cameron Street is closed at the junction with New Mclean Street, and is unsuitable as an alternative as it is only single lane, and carries one-way traffic. At various times of the day, even at current usage, it can take in excess of 10 minutes to exit New Mclean Street to travel east on New South Head Road. In the event of an emergency, fire, ambulance and police vehicles will be unable to enter or exit in a reasonable time.

Additional traffic, both during and post construction of either Stage 1 or Stage ll of the development will make this unworkable and dangerous, and also impact on the overall flow of traffic via the "choke point" of Edgecliff where traffic to the City from the east as far away as Dover Heights and Watsone Bay, the south east from Bondi and Coogee, or from further south via Ocean Street.

Train travel from Edgecliff to the City and beyond is also at, or over capacity at various times of the day, particularly during the morning peak hour, despite services originating from only one stop away (Bondi Junction) running every 3 minutes. Between 8 and 9 am, it is not uncommon for carriages being unable to fit all the passengers on the platform wanting to travel. This will become worse with the increase in population, and potentially cause significant danger.

I respectfully urge the Department and the Minister to reject the proposal for Stage 1, and in due course Stage ll which will further exacerbate the overall issues of infrastructure and traffic in the Woollahra and Eastern Suburbs area.

Chris Gosselin

The development proposal in SSD-80626208 does not follow the precise maximum envelope controls set out within the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) determination dated 9 December 2025. There is non-compliance to heights and setbacks. I
I have summarised the key points of objection below for your review:
1. Non‑Compliance With SECPP Height and Setback Controls
The proposal does not comply with the maximum height of buildings, setbacks, and envelope controls mandated by the SECPP.
No dimensional set‑outs are provided for the south‑east portion of the site, and the built form appears to exceed the approved envelope. This is unacceptable and undermines the integrity of the planning process.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk, and Scale
The development represents an overdevelopment of the site.
The height, massing, and insufficient setbacks create unreasonable visual and amenity impacts on neighbouring R2‑zoned properties, including heritage terrace houses. The proposal fails to provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding low‑density residential area.
3. Inadequate Separation Distances
The proposal does not comply with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) separation distances, including the required additional 3m setback where the site interfaces with lower‑density zoning. This results in unacceptable privacy, overshadowing, and visual impacts.
4. Poor Transition to Heritage Areas
The development does not respond sensitively to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area.
The bulk and scale will dominate the streetscape and adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.
5. Traffic and Parking Impacts
The traffic assessment is inadequate and does not address cumulative impacts from nearby developments or current transport studies.
The proposal will worsen congestion on New McLean Street and New South Head Road, creating safety and accessibility issues.
6. Construction Vibration Risks
The proposed vibration limits exceed acceptable standards for fragile terrace houses.
Stricter limits, mandatory dilapidation reports, vibration monitoring, and contingency plans are required to protect neighbouring properties.
7. Environmental and Amenity Impacts
The proposal results in:
- Overshadowing of neighbouring homes
- Loss of privacy
- View loss and poor view sharing
- Insufficient deep soil and tree canopy provision
- Non‑compliance with ADG separation distances
These impacts are unreasonable and avoidable through a compliant design.
8. Inconsistency With Planning Controls and Public Interest
The proposal is inconsistent with the LEP, DCP, SEPP, and the objectives of the EP&A Act.
The cumulative non‑compliances result in significant amenity loss and set an undesirable precedent for future development.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I request that the Department require the applicant to submit amended plans that comply with the SECPP determination and relevant planning controls. Unless these issues are fully resolved, I respectfully request that SSD‑80626208 be refused.

I oppose the application. I am an architect, and a long time resident of Edgecliff, living in a terrace house in the Paddington HCA. I am appalled by the insensitivity of this development.

There is much that has been flouted in the application, ranging from its failure to meet Housing SEPP Policy Principles to multiple non-compliances with mandatory Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) criteria. Basically the developer is wanting to replace 106 affordable housing units in two attractive buildings set on tree covered lots with 65 two and three bedroom apartments in a tower block, only two of which will be affordable. The existing building is virtually invisible in the trees surrounding it. It was designed in the 1960s by Clarke Gazzard, award winning architects of the Edgecliff Centre, and proponents of the Sydney School of architecture. It sits unobtrusively in the landscape, virtually not seen from any direction.

The proposed new building is also completely out of keeping with what I assume the State Government is hoping to achieve in its housing policies.Three quarters of the trees on the site are slated to be removed, including approximately two-thirds of the highest value ones. The proposal does not provide reasonable amenity for residents, and community infrastructure in the Woollahra municipality is already stretched. Car parking is excessive for an accessible location; the point of building adjacent to the Edgecliff Centre is the ease of using public transport. The proposal does not minimize climate and environmental impacts, and will overshadow Trumper Park.

One of the neighbourhood’s greatest concerns is traffic. The road network at this location is already performing close to capacity. The Woollahra Council Urban Planning Department has commented that: “The intersection of New McLean Street and New South Head Road is approaching or at capacity and Council has been working with Transport for NSW for several years to improve capacity at this intersection. The increase in residents and commercial tenants will likely increase the strain on this intersection. It is noted that consultation with the RMS has not taken place.” Currently it is not easy to access New McLean Street at the best of times, and equally difficult to leave it. Not only does this street provide the only access to the two shopping centre car parks, the Medical Centre carpark, and loading docks, but also the parking for the two existing residential towers and adjacent residential and commercial properties. Adding 140 car parking spaces will only exacerbate the problem.

This is only the first building that is being proposed on this site. A second even taller one is apparently next. A decision on the first stage should be withheld until an application for the second stage is lodged so the project can be considered in its entirety and in the context of known proposed developments.

Our community in Edgecliff made various comments on the original proposals, but these appear to have been totally disregarded.

Margaret Smyth
9 Great Thorne Street
Edgecliff NSW

I own a terrace house at 15 Bowes Avenue, Edgecliff, and have done so since 2000.

My house is one house away from the southern boundary of the proposed development, and faces Trumper Park.

I am not a NIMBY. I support the State government’s proposals to increase the affordable housing in Sydney, and have no problem with a redevelopment of the existing housing at 8-10 New McLean Street.

However, the proposed development is fundamentally flawed as the scale and impact of the proposed development is utterly inappropriate for the site in question.

Issue 1: traffic

There is nothing in the proposal that identifies how the increased traffic from the proposed development will be adequately managed.

New McLean Street is a short, narrow, cul-de-sac that meets New South Head Road and Darling Point Road. Even at present it is unable at various times of the day to deal with the traffic to and from the Edgecliff Centre, with traffic frequently at a standstill. This affects not only the traffic on New McLean Street, but also the traffic that flows up New South Head Road past the Edgecliff Centre.

No thought has been given to these problems, and the failure to do so will reflect badly on the State government’s residential reforms.

Issue 2: overshadowing and privacy

The scale of the proposed development will mean that large parts of the heritage area south of the site will lose both light and privacy, and that those proximate to the southern boundary of the site, including my house at 15 Bowes Avenue, will be particularly adversely affected. A more appropriately scaled development of the site would address this impact.

Issue 3: Trumper Park

In a similar vein, the overshadowing of Trumper Park will be detrimental to the health of the bushland in the Park. This is an historic park and playing field, and it needs to be protected from overshadowing to maintain its health and the enjoyment of its many users.

Other comments

Affordable housing

The existing housing stock on the site of the proposed development comprises 104 studio and one bedroom units. The nature of these apartments is that they currently comprise affordable housing. The apartments that replace these affordable housing apartments will, virtually entirely, not comprise affordable housing – they will be expensive Eastern suburbs apartments that diminish the stock of affordable housing in Edgecliff.

Conclusion

In view of the clear deficiencies of the proposed development, I submit that the proposed development is not in the public interest and requires a complete re-think to ensure that it recognises the limitations of the site, preserves the amenity of the Edgecliff heritage area and Trumper Park and at the same time meets the State government’s desire to increase affordable housing in Sydney.

I wish to submit my objection to the above proposal on the following basis;
1. This proposed development far exceeds the Woollahra Local Environment Plan 2014 in terms of
a) Building height by a factor of over 5 times
b) Floor space ratio by over 5 times
2. The site is at a key intersection of New South Head Road and Darling Point Road.
3. Traffic at this juncture is already a bottle neck especially in the mornings and afternoons with cars lining up to do school pickups at Ascham.
4. This is intersection is a key entry point to the Eastern Suburbs and Woollahra and the road cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. This bottle-neck will choke entry to the Eastern Suburbs to death.
5. Often the ambulances, police and fire engines use this route to access the Eastern Suburbs and choking this entry and access point further will lead to very serious consequences.
6. This over ruling of the current Council plans leaves a very dangerous precedent to future overdevelopment in Woollahra area.
7. The voice and will of the local residents is being ignored. Surely people living in the area should have a voice in terms of the environment in which they have invested and live?
8. The local infra structure just cannot cope with a development of this size – schools, roads, traffic, utilities
9. Local Council is elected to reflect the values of the residents they represent. The Council has rejected this development and it is inconceivable that they can merely be ignored. Why then waste money having local Councils?
10. Bureaucrats from outside the local area should not be able to impose their decisions on local Councils and residents.
11. I do not believe that local residents have properly been informed regarding the size and scale of the development. A referendum on the size and scale of this development needs to conducted.
12. The traffic impact will have a major effect on the Mona Road flow as well. The access in Mona Road is already heavily congested in the afternoons.
13. How does one provide affordable housing in one of the most expensive suburbs in Australia? This is a nonsense and is not in accordance with our social fabric. We do not live in a socialist country – or do we?? Only 2 units have been set aside for Affordable Housing - what a joke
14. Another 65 residential units?? This is madness.
15. I object to all the trees being knocked down and green space being degraded - this is a disgrace.
16. Bureaucrats are destroying our suburb forever. The stain that they leave behind with this crazy decision, leaves a black mark for generations to come.
I am not against the development of this site and believe it should be subject to the same building restrictions that are currently in place and in harmony with the suburb's current surrounds.
Why even bother to hear our objections when they are ignored and not considered.
Another major traffic crisis looming with a development of this size located in a cul-de-sac with very poor inward and outward access.
But what do the bureaucrats care. A sad day.

I am a resident and home owner in the area and have been for 14 years and strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:
1. The proposed FSR and height far exceed appropriate scale for the area and surrounding terrace houses and are well in excess of relevant planning controls. Further, the proposal purports to justify itself on the basis that a development will be built on the adjoining westerly lot, which is not required by law and therefore the proposed development on the Easterly lot should not be permitted based on a presumed development that may never eventuate. The proposed height of 10 stories will grossly overshadow neighbouring residences, blocking much valued sunlight and views and encroach on neighbours' privacy. The proposed bulk and height will also block sunlight to Trumper Park, which is greatly valued by the community, especially during winter. The solar impact benchmarking in the proposal is not based on a comparison with the existing development and is provided by the developer's architect and is therefore not independent and inherently biased. An independent assessment of overshadowing and loss of sunlight to Trumper Park and neighbouring properties compared with the existing development should be required.
2. The proposed development with its oversized bulk and height will create an undesirable wind tunnel effect in New McLean Street. An independent wind tunnel and CFD assessment should be required.
3. The proposal includes far too many carspaces (136) which will grossly exacerbate the already over-congested New McLean Street and intersection with New South Head Road during peak times.
4. There are no 1 bed or studio apartments in the proposal, which is highly inappropriate given the ageing population in the area and stated objectives/justification of affordable housing by Government in the area. The proposal will result in a net loss of approx. 70 apartments from the existing buildings.
5. The proposal will result in the loss of too many trees adjoiningTrumper Park, which is much valued for its tree canopy and natural reserve. This will also negatively impact other flora and many animals in the area, including bird life.
6. The proposal does not take in account that the Government has already announced that Edgecliff is not a suitable TOD sit due to the lack of water and other infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure and essential services should be addressed before a proposal of this nature is approved. Public transport in Edgecliff including trains and buses are already over capacity in peak periods. The proposal will exacerbate congestion further. An independent assessment of impact to public tranpsort congestion should be required. The proposed new train station at Woollahra will further exacerbate over congestion on trains between Bondi Junction and the city which should be taken into account in the assessment.
7. The proposal does not include much needed additional community facilities which Woollahra Council has recommended, including creative spaces, library facilities and public green spaces. These should be prerequisites to any development of this scale.
8. The proposed 5 story carpark excavation will risk damage to neighbouring properties including disruption to the water table and risk of subsidence. This has happened in other areas due to lack of proper excavation controls and enforcement including many instances in Double Bay where the soil is similarly soft and sandy to Edgecliff posing a high risk of subsidence and water table disruption. Furthermore, the proposed vibration limit for excavation of 5mm/s far exceeds an appropriate level, which should be limited to 2mm/s in the conditions of approval and strictly monitored and enforced by Council/State Government. A comprehensive water table disruption assessment and appropriate excavation controls should be assessed and formulated by independent geotechnical/structural engineers and appropriate conditions required and enforced by State/Local Government, otherwise neighbouring old terrace houses built on sandy soil will be at high risk of serious damage and devaluation.
9. Federal legislation enacted in April 2025 which permits 50% of new developments to be purchased by foreigners and temporary residents will result in many apartments in the proposed development being purchased by foreigners and temporary residents, which makes housing in the area even less affordable for Australians. More genuine affordable housing should therefore be required. The proposed development of 2 and 3 bedroom units will be very expensive and force many existing residents out of the area.

Some time ago this afternoon, I lodged a formal OBJECTION on behalf of The Paddington Society, of which I am president. I noted in the comments box that I endorsed and supported that objection; this is my personal OBJECTION. I own and have lived at 14 Roylston Street Paddington for almost 40 years, arriving with my family in 1986 when Paddington was an inexpensive suburb and this precinct was particularly inexpensive. It was still relatively undeveloped with warehouses and light industry on many of the sites, including in my street. Roylston St directly connects at the northern end to Trumper Park and Oval so along with other long-term residents I am well aware of the site, the oval, the parklands and their relationship with Edgecliff. When our children were young the oval and the park were regular parts of our recreation. I regularly walk uphill through the park and past the proposed development site to trains, buses and the shopping centres. My husband and I, both architects, enjoyed our garage, converted via an approved DA into a studio in 1981, as the location for our small office after several years of renting premises in Underwood Street, Paddington. As individuals and members of the Paddington Society for decades, we have made submissions - both personal and on behalf of the Society - about overdevelopment proposals in Paddington. I've been a member of Working Parties at the invitation of Woollahra Council and with a small number of committee colleagues we try to address and send comments to Council where inappropriate development is notified. We have had an active involvement over many years in commenting on Council's DCP amendments, much of such matters related to enhancements to parks and the public domain, including urban landscaping in the overall suburban context. Our committee members also liaise and connect with community groups in Edgecliff, Darling Point, Double Bay and Woollahra, so our concerns extend into the LGA, well beyond Paddington. We have been greatly concerned about flooding, particularly in our low-land precincts, and with colleagues I have participated in working parties regarding WMC's Paddington Floodplain Risk Management Committee for many years. Flooding in the southern part of Royston St has been improved after Council's remedial works in recent years, but I'm well aware that parts of the northern ends of Roylston, Hampden and Cecil Streets and lanes still regularly still receive floodwater and debris ingress(including pollutants) into their properties during severe downpours. I share the belief of Paddington Society colleagues that the proposal for 8-10 New McLean Street SSD-80626208 can ONLY be assessed with detailed knowledge of the significantly larger, taller and bulkier Stage 2. This is particularly important, since provision of the bulk of the required number of Affordable dwellings is presently deferred, with only 2 so-called Affordable dwellings provided in the Stage 1 documents. At present there will be a dramatic and unacceptable net loss of affordable dwellings - the existing 106 to be replaced by just 2 !! Far from providing public benefit, the proposal is to the detriment of the public, providing only 65 dwellings with just 2 nominally Affordable. ie a loss of 41 genuinely affordable studios and 1 bedroom dwellings ! The 10-storey development, albeit with setbacks towards Trumper Park and the east, will still overwhelm the adjacent and surrounding predominantly 2- storey terraces, some of the oldest in the LGA. Much of the existing vegetation on the site will be removed to facilitate the construction, including (possibly, it is unclear) the trees and vegetation on the Stage 2 site. That would be a scandalous outcome, if it were to be approved, removing the planting which screens the present well designed low rise blocks so effectively from both the street and the parklands.
Traffic and congestion is a big and increasing problem, As a regular user of both Edgecliff shopping centres, when I use the car for transporting a weekly shop, along with neighbours and friends I know how time-consuming it can be to turn in and out of New McLean St in all directions during the ever-increasing lengthy peak periods, including on weekends. We locals avoid accessing the intersection from any direction, including the major intersections further to west and east during such periods. Driving to and from suburbs further to the east at peak periods is also to be avoided; traffic proceeds at a crawl, again particularly during school pick up and drop off and when construction and trade vehicles are on the route from well before 7 am and well after 3 pm.
I do not wish to note all the points listed in the Society's outline objection list, so here repeat that I endorse and echo the Paddington Society's OBJECTIONS to the proposal. I also take this opportunity to attach a submission on the Impact of Reduced Affordable Housing in Paddington on the Nursing Workforce as St Vincent's Hospital Darlinghurst. This was commissioned by the Society some months ago to highlight the cumulative negative impacts of reduction of genuinely affordable small and medium dwelling numbers in site after site, in suburbs such as ours in proximity. To date on just 3 such development in Paddington and Edgecliff (the Verona site on Oxford St, 160 Oxford St and now 8-10 New McLean St) there has been a cumulative loss of 124 genuinely affordable predominantly studio and one-Bed units, so necessary for essential workers, nurses, teachers, firemen etc, and to the detriment of those supposedly targeted for benefit by the government's legislative changes. I hope I will be able to upload that submission. Yours sincerely, Esther Hayter.

‘The redevelopment of 8-10 New McLean Street offers the opportunity for much needed affordable housing and a mix of housing choices within the Edgecliff locality’.
I would like to start with the above paragraph from the planning assessment for this proposal for dealing with affordable housing. From what I can see there will be negligible benefit in providing affordable housing to the residents that will be displaced by this development. There is currently sufficient mix of housing diversity in the Edgecliff area without tis development.
I am very aware of this as I have been a long standing resident of Edgecliff, and the Woollahra area for over 55 years.
After a review of the proposal, the proposed development is not suitable for this site for the following reasons:
1. Size; the development is basing their entire proposal that a high rise above Edgecliff Station is suitable. From all aspects including overshadowing and the impact to traffic the proposal is causes adverse impacts to surrounding developments. The proposal seeks to justify the size on a proposed further development that may or may not be approved.
As noted in Planning Ingenuity’s planning report clearly notes that the site is zoned for a building height of 10.5m and an FSR of 0.75, and ‘the subject site is located to the south of the Edgecliff Local Centre and is not currently anticipated to accommodate any increase in density’
This planning requirement is done for good reason and based on the information at hand there is no compelling reason or public benefits to expand on this.
They note that the plan will ‘contribute towards the growth and revitalisation of the Edgecliff Centre, by improving architectural and urban design’,
This can be done by a smaller development and should be encouraged.
2. Extent of parking: the proposal is allowing for 281 additional car spaces on the site. This makes no sense when there is a major transport hub across the road. The traffic is currently at a stand still at times form the cars entering the parking at Edgecliff Centre. To add a further 281 vehicles will make this area impossible to use. And for many of the elderly, such as mother who frequents this centre, will make life very difficult.

It is note that the montage that is included with the design shows a four lane street, when in fact it is only 2 in most areas, and the other lanes are for parking.

The photo (Figure 6 from Planning Ingenuity’s report) shows how the cars are backed up well past the traffic lights leading on to New South Head Road, with the current traffic.

Another 281 will lead to an over congested road that would not be useable.

3. Massing: while a building on top of Edgecliff Centre may one day be approved, this does not give the right for another high-rise development to be built. The proposed new development is so far out of scale that I am amazed that FJM would consider this.
The base of the building has merit as does the parts within, but anything over 4 storeys need to be reconsidered with the impact to the neighbouring heritage conservation area.
4. Excavation: impact of the excavation six (6) storeys underground has not been addressed and would be a concern for neighbouring developments, train tunnels and water ways.
We have seen enough phalanx symbols erected over Sydney that we do not need another one in what is one of the most perfect suburbs of Sydney, only for the benefit of developers. There is no merit in the size of the building, nor the number of apartments required, only to meet the whim of a State Premier who does not seem to know the importance of place and HOME.
I have lived my 55 years in the East and have enjoyed the beauty of this area. Sensible sized developments (apart form a few), beautiful tree lined streets. My parents helped save Cook Rd Centennial Park from over development in the 70’s and I do hope that sensibility prevails to save the beauty of the East.
This development, like so many other being proposed and in the pipeline will grossly impact the beautiful suburbs or Edgecliff, Woollahra and Paddington.
The far better option is for the Government to develop the land over the open space of the Edgecliff-Bondi Junction line and spend the $350m on housing themselves as affordable housing rather than developers. This was there will be no displacement of residents form existing buildings and the prices for surrounding existing housing will not be impacted in price, traffic, essential services and importantly schooling.
It is considered that the proposal as submitted should not be submitted and the applicant carefully considers the significance of the existing place. It would be beneficial if the applicant lived in the area and appreciated the beauty of the local rather than trying to destroy it. In my view, we already have the great wall of Bondi Junction, and we do not need this to happen to Edgecliff or Woollahra.

Submission in Support
SSD-80626208 — Redevelopment of 8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff
16 March 2026

I write in string support of the proposed residential development at 8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff (SSD-80626208). As a resident in the near vicinity, this is a site that is overdue for renewal, ideally located for density, and capable of making a meaningful contribution to Sydney's housing supply.


THE EXISTING BUILDINGS HAVE REACHED THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE
The two residential flat buildings currently on this site are tired and well past the point where maintenance can restore them to a standard befitting their location. Heritage specialists have confirmed they have no heritage significance. This is not a case of demolishing something irreplaceable - it is replacing structures that have exhausted their functional life with something materially better.

Buildings of this era were designed and constructed with no regard for thermal performance, energy efficiency, or sustainability. They cannot be meaningfully retrofitted to meet modern standards - their replacement with a building designed to current environmental specifications is itself a sustainability outcome.

As Gehl has argued throughout his career, the quality of the built environment at ground level determines whether a neighbourhood is inviting and walkable. Deteriorating buildings with poor street engagement diminish street life. Replacing them with a development that addresses the street and its surroundings is an improvement the neighbourhood needs.

THIS SITE WILL DELIVER SIGNIFICANT NEW HOUSING
The proposal delivers significant new dwellings. In a municipality where supply is severely constrained and prices reflect that scarcity, this is a material contribution.

The concept of the "zoning tax" is directly applicable here: when housing prices persistently exceed construction costs, the gap is overwhelmingly explained by regulatory barriers to new supply. In Sydney's eastern suburbs, that tax is substantial. Alain Bertauds recent remarks are complementary - Sydney's price-to-income ratio did not emerge suddenly. It built gradually while supply was rationed in exactly the kinds of well-located, infrastructure-rich areas where new housing should be easiest to deliver.

Lucy Turnbull has identified the structural problem clearly: medium-density housing is the least financially feasible option, caught between greenfield sprawl and high-rise towers, yet Grattan Institute research shows it is the form most acceptable to communities undergoing change. A 10-storey building that steps back at upper levels is precisely that difficult-to-deliver middle ground. Approving it signals that well-designed medium density will be supported where it is most needed.


EDGECLIFF STATION MAKES THIS ONE OF THE BEST POSSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR DENSITY
The site sits less than 50 metres from Edgecliff Railway Station and the adjoining bus interchange. It is difficult to imagine a location better suited to higher-density residential development. When a site presents itself already blessed with heavy rail, bus connections, and walking distance to commercial amenities, the planning system should be facilitating development rather than constraining it.

Bertaud's labour market framework brings a further dimension: the value of transit-adjacent housing is not convenience alone - it is about expanding the range of jobs accessible to residents. Every household within walking distance of Edgecliff Station gains efficient access to the entire Sydney rail network and, by extension, to the metropolitan labour market. This is exactly where housing growth should be directed.

Restricting supply at transit-rich sites does not preserve affordability. It concentrates price pressure and pushes demand to less accessible locations, generating longer commutes, higher transport costs, and greater emissions.


THE ALTERNATIVE HAS REAL COSTS
Opposition to developments like this implicitly assumes the status quo can be preserved indefinitely. But ageing buildings become less liveable each year; housing supply falls further behind population growth; and a transport asset like Edgecliff Station remains underutilised relative to its potential.

The existing buildings are not heritage items. The design - by Fender Katsalidis — responds to its heritage context by creating a transition between the Edgecliff station precinct and lower-rise residential areas. Good architecture is not the enemy of heritage. Mediocre, ageing buildings that contribute nothing to the streetscape are a far greater threat to neighbourhood character than a thoughtfully designed replacement.

I encourage the Department to approve this application. Sites like this, genuinely transit-adjacent, with no heritage significance in the existing buildings, designed by a leading practice, and delivering substantial new housing represent the clearest possible test case for whether Sydney's planning system is serious about housing supply. The answer should be yes.

The intersection of New McLean and New South Head Roads is already highly congested, making it difficult to enter and exit New McLean Street during busy times.
Increasing the population and motor vehicles in New McLean Street will have a detrimental impact on this already congested intersection - which will have a significant impact on resident's ability to leave and return to their homes.
Increasing the pupulation downstream of this intersection in other suburbs will also increase congestion on New South Head Road through Edgeclif, further impacting this already congested intersection.
Other approved and proposed developments in Darling Point Road and New McLean Street will also negatively impact this intersection.
Increasing the population in the Esatern Suburbs peninsula (Northern area) without addressing traffic and public transport infrastructure is irresponsible and short-sighted. The area only has 2 significant arteries / feeder roads which are already highly congested - William Street / New South Head Road and Oxford Street / Old South Head Road.
Please stop further development until the you address the impact through appropriate infrastructure upgrades.

To whom it may concern,
I write to object to the proposed redevelopment of 8–10 New Mclean Street, Edgecliff. While the need for additional housing in Sydney is widely acknowledged, developments of this scale must demonstrate that they can be accommodated without overwhelming existing infrastructure and while delivering genuine community benefits.
In this case, the proposal raises serious concerns regarding traffic congestion, road safety, emergency access, and the loss of relatively affordable housing in one of the Eastern Suburbs’ most accessible locations. In its current form, the development appears likely to impose substantial impacts on the surrounding community while delivering limited public benefit in return.

Existing traffic conditions
New Mclean Street already functions as a major access corridor for the Edgecliff precinct, rather than a quiet residential street. It serves as a key entry point for several major facilities, including:
- Edgecliff railway station
- Eastpoint Food Fair
- Edgecliff Centre
- Eastpoint Tower
As a result, the street carries a high and diverse volume of traffic, including:
- residents from nearby apartment buildings
- shoppers accessing the two shopping centres
- service and delivery vehicles
- commuter pick-up and drop-off traffic associated with the railway station
These combined uses mean that New Mclean Street already experiences significant congestion and queuing, particularly during peak commuting hours.

Intersection bottleneck
The intersection of New Mclean Street with New South Head Road and Darling Point Road is a well-known traffic bottleneck.
Vehicles exiting New Mclean Street must merge into heavy through-traffic on New South Head Road. In particular, turning right from New Mclean Street into New South Head Road is already extremely difficult, often requiring drivers to wait extended periods for a safe gap in traffic.
Vehicles frequently queue along New Mclean Street waiting to exit, particularly during peak periods.

Traffic generation from the proposed development
The existing building at the site contains approximately 106 residential units.
The proposed redevelopment would increase this to approximately 256 residential units, supported by a large basement car park reportedly containing more than 400 parking spaces.
Even conservative traffic modelling assumptions suggest that such a development would generate hundreds of additional vehicle movements per day, including many during peak commuter periods.
All of this traffic would funnel into New Mclean Street, and ultimately into the already constrained intersection with New South Head Road and Darling Point Road.

Cumulative development pressure
This proposal must be considered alongside other development pressures affecting the New South Head Road corridor.
Additional residential and commercial development in the precinct will produce cumulative traffic increases, feeding into an intersection that already struggles to manage existing volumes.
The likely result will include:
- longer queues on New Mclean Street
- increased delays exiting the street
- greater difficulty turning right onto New South Head Road
- increased driver frustration and unsafe manoeuvres

Peak stacking effects
Traffic in the area does not occur evenly throughout the day. Instead, it frequently “stacks” during peak periods when multiple traffic generators operate simultaneously.
These include:
- commuter traffic associated with the railway station
- shopping centre traffic
- local residential traffic
- school drop-off and pick-up traffic
When these peaks coincide, the result is short-period congestion that already overwhelms the intersection and surrounding streets.
Introducing a large increase in residential density will significantly intensify this peak stacking effect.

School traffic impacts
Traffic conditions are further complicated by substantial school-related traffic movements.
The site sits directly opposite Ascham School, which generates considerable vehicle traffic during school drop-off and pick-up periods.
In addition, there has been public discussion of a potential future public high school on the site of the Edgecliff Centre. If this proceeds, the surrounding roads would need to accommodate substantial additional school-related traffic.
These factors further limit the ability of the local road network to absorb additional vehicle movements generated by new development.

Emergency vehicle access
New Mclean Street effectively operates as a cul-de-sac serving a dense residential and commercial precinct.
During peak congestion periods, traffic queues can extend along the street, potentially impeding access for emergency vehicles, including ambulances, fire services and police responding to incidents in nearby buildings or within the station precinct.
Increasing traffic volumes in this constrained environment risks delaying emergency response times, particularly during the same peak periods when congestion is already most severe.

Parking provision inconsistent with transit-oriented development
The proposal reportedly includes more than 400 parking spaces for 256 apartments.
Such a high parking ratio is difficult to justify for a development located immediately adjacent to Edgecliff railway station, one of the Eastern Suburbs’ major public transport nodes.
Planning policy increasingly promotes transit-oriented development, where higher density housing near railway stations is designed to encourage public transport use and reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Providing a very large quantity of parking appears to encourage car ownership and additional traffic, undermining these planning objectives.

Loss of affordable housing near a major transport hub
A further major concern is the effective loss of relatively affordable housing currently located within walking distance of Edgecliff Station.
The existing building contains more than one hundred apartments, many of which represent comparatively more attainable housing options within the local area due to their age and configuration.
The proposed redevelopment would replace this housing with a much larger complex that includes only two designated “affordable housing” units.
This outcome appears inconsistent with broader NSW planning objectives that seek to increase the supply of affordable housing in locations close to public transport, employment and services.
The provision of only two affordable units within a 256-apartment development does not represent a meaningful contribution toward those objectives.

Net community benefit
Large redevelopment proposals typically justify increased height, density and scale by demonstrating a clear public or community benefit.
However, in this case the proposal appears to deliver limited community benefit relative to its impacts.
The development would:
- significantly increase traffic congestion in an already constrained location
- intensify peak-period congestion through traffic stacking
- risk delays for emergency vehicle access
- encourage private vehicle use through excessive parking provision
- replace relatively attainable housing with higher-cost apartments
- provide only two affordable housing units despite the scale of the project
Taken together, these outcomes raise serious questions about whether the proposal delivers a genuine net benefit to the local community, particularly given the significant impacts it is likely to impose on surrounding infrastructure and residents.

Consistency with planning objectives
Under the framework established by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development should promote orderly land use, sustainable infrastructure outcomes and positive community benefits.
Given the existing traffic constraints, the limited affordable housing outcome, and the scale of the proposed development, it is difficult to conclude that the proposal satisfies these broader planning objectives.

Requested actions
Given the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the NSW Government:
Reject the proposal in its current form, as the scale of development appears incompatible with the capacity of the surrounding road network.
If the proposal is to proceed to further consideration, require the following substantial revisions and investigations:
- A comprehensive independent traffic assessment that properly evaluates peak stacking effects, cumulative development impacts and intersection capacity.
- A detailed emergency vehicle access assessment during peak congestion periods.
- A significant reduction in parking provision to align the development with transit-oriented planning principles.
- A substantially increased affordable housing component, commensurate with the scale of the development and its proximity to major public transport.

Conclusion
New Mclean Street already plays a critical access role within the Edgecliff precinct, serving major commercial centres, residential buildings, nearby schools and a key public transport hub.
The proposed redevelopment at 8–10 New Mclean Street would significantly increase traffic pressures on an already constrained intersection while delivering minimal affordable housing and limited broader community benefit.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Government to carefully reconsider whether the proposal, in its current form, represents an appropriate outcome for the Edgecliff community.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Haski

The existing building provides approximately 100 affordable apartments immediately across the road from Edgecliff train station. They house a number of essential workers who work in the area.
I have no issue with redevelopment per se but it should be all affordable apartments in this location, or if not, at least 20% affordable.
To approve a development removing multiple existing affordable apartments and replacing it with a development with only 2 affordable apartments, in an area where a large number of luxury apartments
are already being planned / being constructed would be outrageous and a sad day for the area.

As 8-10 New Mclean St currently accomodate's lower-cost housing how does the new proposal accomodate the people that will be displaced as the proposal only includes 2 Units dedicated to Affordable Housing? This does not seem like a progressive and accomodation solution for affordable housing.
How do you propose to accomodate the additional traffic of a 5 story basement carpark in what is effectively a cul-de-sac?
As it is, only 2-3 cars are able to get through the traffic lights leading onto New South Head in either direction out of New Mclean St, how will the traffic flow and move?
The impact of the shadowing of Trumper Oval, a highly used public space for sport in the area

The proposal to demolish the existing residential units and construct new residential units is supported. The units on the current site are old and in poor condition. They are of a very basic living standard. The land is under utilised. If they were owned by the state government, they would probably be considered a knockdown, as they probably do not meet current standards.
Building new units will provide a better standard of accommodation and accommodate more people. They will provide more housing for more people, very close to the city and very close to public transport, shops and hospitals. The units are also near many parks and the harbour.

Objection to Planning Proposal – 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally object to the proposed rezoning and associated Local Environmental Plan (LEP) changes relating to 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff.

This proposal raises significant concerns in relation to strategic planning, heritage protection, infrastructure impacts, biodiversity, and the broader public interest. For the reasons outlined below, I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposed LEP changes or, at a minimum, defer any decision until the State-led rezoning process for the Edgecliff and Woollahra station precincts has been completed.

1. Premature Rezoning Ahead of State-Led Planning

The proposal should be deferred until completion of the State-led rezoning process currently underway for the Edgecliff and Woollahra station areas. Proceeding with this site-specific rezoning in isolation risks undermining the strategic planning framework being developed for the broader precinct.

A coordinated approach would ensure that any uplift applied to this site is assessed alongside other sites within the station catchment and that appropriate planning controls are applied consistently across the area.

Allowing this proposal to proceed independently creates a clear risk that the site will receive an inappropriate level of uplift relative to surrounding land.

2. Inability to Secure Key Planning Controls

Given the site's classification as State Significant Development, many critical design and planning controls cannot be secured through a Development Control Plan (DCP). These include matters such as tower and podium form, parking rates, solar access, biodiversity protections, and detailed design outcomes.

This creates a significant risk that the site may ultimately be developed in a manner inconsistent with the design presented in the planning proposal or at a scale that exceeds what the surrounding area can reasonably accommodate.

3. Council Concerns Regarding Exhibition Process

The submission from Woollahra Council states that the proposal is not supported in its current form and that the exhibition process did not fully comply with the requirements of the Woollahra Community Participation Plan.

These procedural concerns further call into question whether the proposal has been assessed with sufficient transparency and community engagement.

Fourteen days of exhibition is inadequate.

4. Significant Community Opposition

The large number of public submissions opposing the rezoning reflects widespread concern within the community regarding the scale of the proposed uplift, the resulting densification, and the potential impacts on neighbourhood character, infrastructure, and amenity.

Such a strong and unified response from residents should weigh heavily in the Department’s consideration of whether the proposal is in the public interest.

5. Conflict with the Edgecliff Commercial Centre Strategy

The site was deliberately excluded from the Edgecliff Commercial Centre Strategy for sound strategic reasons. These include:

Its location within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area

Its role as a transition site between the Edgecliff commercial centre and surrounding heritage areas

Its function within an established biodiversity corridor

Existing traffic congestion and parking pressures along New McLean Street

Allowing this proposal to proceed would undermine the strategic intent of the Edgecliff Commercial Centre Strategy and its accompanying Design Strategy, both of which were the subject of extensive research and public consultation.

6. Lack of Strategic or Site-Specific Justification

Overall, the planning proposal fails to demonstrate sufficient strategic alignment or site-specific merit to justify rezoning of this magnitude. The proposal would likely result in unacceptable impacts on local character, amenity, biodiversity, infrastructure capacity and liveability.

7. Impacts of Overdevelopment

The scale of development enabled by the proposed LEP changes is excessive and would set a precedent for the first R4-level density within the Woollahra Local Government Area, fundamentally altering the character of the locality.

Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale

The proposal facilitates an 18-storey tower that is grossly inconsistent with the surrounding R3 Medium Density Residential zone and incompatible with the established low-to-medium scale neighbourhood and heritage context.

Lack of Appropriate Transition

The proposed building height provides no reasonable transition to adjacent 2–4 storey residential properties, including terrace houses within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. This sets an unacceptable precedent for gradual encroachment of high-density development into heritage areas.

Inadequate Affordable Housing Contribution

The proposed affordable housing contribution is limited to uplifted gross floor area and falls significantly short of both the Planning Panel’s earlier recommendations and Woollahra Council’s target of 10% affordable housing.

This is particularly concerning given the likely loss of approximately 106 existing market-affordable dwellingscurrently located on the site.

Loss of Smaller and More Affordable Apartments

While the proposal includes a “no net loss” clause for dwelling numbers, it does not guarantee retention of smaller and more affordable apartments. In particular, the proposal would result in the loss of approximately 50 existing studio apartments, with none proposed to replace them.

Without a mandated apartment mix, the redevelopment is likely to deliver larger, higher-cost apartments and reduce housing diversity.

Insufficient Housing Yield Relative to Uplift

Given the scale of the proposed uplift, including a floor space ratio of approximately 3.7:1, the proposal does not ensure an appropriate dwelling yield that would meaningfully contribute to housing supply.

Traffic and Parking Impacts

The development would exacerbate already significant congestion on New McLean Street and at its intersection with New South Head Road. Residents who live in the vicinity of the site have consistently raised concerns about existing traffic conditions.

The proposal includes 281 parking spaces, which is excessive for a site located adjacent to a train station and inconsistent with recently introduced parking controls within Woollahra.

Biodiversity and Impacts on Trumper Park

The proposal would result in overshadowing and vegetation loss that could negatively impact biodiversity, ecological connectivity, and the amenity of Trumper Park, an important public open space and wildlife corridor.

The proponent’s biodiversity assessment appears limited in scope and does not demonstrate adequate mitigation measures.

8. Public Interest

Ultimately, this proposal is not in the public interest.

The scale of uplift, the likely impacts on heritage character, biodiversity and infrastructure, and the overwhelming opposition from local residents all point to a development outcome that is inconsistent with the planning principles that should guide growth in established communities.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to reject the proposed LEP changes, or at a minimum defer the proposal until the completion of the State-led rezoning process for the Edgecliff precinct.

Yours faithfully,

Nicola Grieve

I write to object to the Planning Proposal for 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff, which seeks to amend the planning controls under the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014, including increasing the maximum building height and floor space ratio for the site.

While I acknowledge the need to deliver additional housing in well-located areas, I believe the proposal raises several significant concerns that have not been adequately addressed.

1. Excessive Car Parking Provision
The proposed development includes a substantial amount of basement parking. Given the site's immediate proximity to Edgecliff Railway Station and the bus interchange, one of the key strategic justifications for the proposal is its accessibility to public transport.

Providing a large volume of car parking is inconsistent with this stated objective. Rather than encouraging sustainable transport outcomes, the proposal risks encouraging increased private vehicle ownership and use, which is contrary to contemporary urban planning principles for transit-oriented development.

Developments located within metres of a major transport interchange should prioritise reduced car dependence, not facilitate additional traffic generation in an already constrained local road network.

2. Inappropriate Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal includes a tower element reaching approximately RL91, which would result in a building of approximately 18 storeys. This scale of development is completely out of character with the immediate surrounding area, which includes numerous two-storey terrace houses and lower-scale residential development nearby.

The proposal would introduce excessive bulk and visual dominance, creating a built form that is disproportionate to the established character of the locality. The transition between the proposed tower and the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood appears abrupt and poorly resolved.

While some increase in density near transport nodes can be appropriate, the scale proposed here appears excessive and does not adequately respect the existing urban fabric.

3. Adverse Impacts on Trumper Park
The site directly backs onto Trumper Park, an important local environmental and recreational asset.
The proposed height and building mass are likely to have significant impacts on the park environment, including:
- Visual dominance over the park
- Potential overshadowing and loss of amenity
- Disturbance to existing vegetation and ecological habitat
- Impacts on local birdlife and fauna that rely on the parkland environment

While mitigation measures may be proposed, the scale of development means that these environmental impacts cannot realistically be eliminated.

Trumper Park is valued not only as public open space but also as an important urban ecological corridor, and development of this magnitude immediately adjoining the park risks permanently altering its character and environmental quality.

4. Overall Planning Merit
In its current form, the proposal prioritises development yield over appropriate urban integration and environmental protection. The combination of:
- excessive building height
- significant bulk and density
- substantial parking provision in a transit-rich location, and
- the site's sensitive interface with Trumper Park,

raises serious concerns about whether the proposal represents good planning for the area.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the Planning Proposal in its current form. I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully reconsider the scale and design parameters of the proposal, particularly in relation to building height, density, parking provision and impacts on Trumper Park.

Any redevelopment of this site should be more consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood character and should prioritise environmental protection and sustainable transport outcomes.

Planning Proposal – 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff
Objection Submission – Local Resident (Glenmore Road)

To whom it may concern,

I write as a resident of Glenmore Road whose home and local environment will be directly affected by the proposed redevelopment of 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff.

After reviewing the planning proposal and supporting documentation, I strongly object to the proposed amendments to the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014, which would allow a dramatic increase in height and density on this site.

The proposal seeks to increase the permitted building height to RL91 and the floor space ratio to 3.7:1, enabling the construction of a high-rise residential development of approximately 246 apartments immediately adjacent to Trumper Park and Trumper Oval.

The magnitude of the planning uplift being requested is extraordinary. The current planning controls permit a maximum building height of approximately 10.5 metres and a floor space ratio of 0.75:1, yet the proposal seeks to replace these with controls enabling a tower reaching approximately 18 storeys with an FSR of 3.7:1. This represents a dramatic and unprecedented increase in development intensity on land currently zoned for medium density residential development.

Despite the language used throughout the proposal, this is not a carefully balanced piece of urban planning. It is an attempt to secure an extraordinary uplift in development potential on a site that sits directly beside one of the most important public green spaces in Paddington.

Impact on Trumper Park and Trumper Oval

Trumper Park and Trumper Oval are among the most significant recreational and environmental assets in the Paddington and Edgecliff area. They provide heavily used sporting fields, bushland walking trails and valuable open space for residents of the surrounding suburbs.

Placing a tower of the proposed height directly adjacent to the park boundary will fundamentally alter the relationship between built form and public open space.

The proposal suggests that solar impacts to the oval are acceptable. However, anyone familiar with the site understands that Trumper Oval already receives limited sunlight due to surrounding topography and vegetation. Introducing a building of this scale will inevitably worsen shadowing conditions.

Reduced sunlight has direct consequences for turf quality and the usability of sporting fields. The proposal therefore risks permanently degrading a public recreational asset relied upon by the local community.

Public open space is extremely difficult to replace once compromised. Allowing a development that risks diminishing the environmental quality of Trumper Park cannot reasonably be described as delivering a public benefit.

Loss of Sunlight and Residential Amenity

The proposal also fails to properly acknowledge the real impacts on surrounding residents.

Properties along Glenmore Road and nearby streets already experience reduced solar access due to existing development and the natural topography of the park corridor.

Further obstruction of sunlight will worsen conditions for neighbouring homes and increase problems commonly experienced in dense urban environments, including dampness, mould growth, reduced air circulation and difficulty drying clothes outdoors.

These issues may appear minor in planning documents but they represent the everyday reality of living in an already constrained built environment.

The proposal gives little meaningful consideration to the cumulative impact of further height and bulk on surrounding homes. Urban density should not come at the expense of basic residential liveability for existing communities.

Token Affordable Housing

The planning proposal repeatedly attempts to justify the development by referencing the housing crisis and the need for additional housing supply.

However, the documentation confirms that only 2.76% of the uplift in gross floor area will be allocated as affordable housing.

Within a development of approximately 246 apartments, this equates to only a very small number of affordable units.

This is not a meaningful response to Sydney’s housing affordability challenges. It is a token provision used to justify a substantial increase in development yield.

In practice, the development is far more likely to deliver high-value apartments well beyond the reach of ordinary residents.

Presenting this proposal as a solution to the housing crisis is therefore misleading.

Incompatible Scale and Character

The site sits adjacent to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area and borders Trumper Park.

The surrounding urban environment is characterised by low and medium density residential buildings, heritage terrace housing and significant tree canopy associated with the park corridor.

Introducing a building of up to 18 storeys at this location represents an extreme escalation in scale that is inconsistent with the surrounding context.

While the proposal claims to create a transition between the Edgecliff commercial centre and the park, the reality is that the development would introduce a dominant high-rise structure immediately overlooking sensitive open space and heritage streets.

Once a building of this scale is approved it becomes much more difficult to resist similar proposals nearby.

Failure of Strategic Planning

One of the most concerning aspects of this proposal is that it effectively bypasses the strategic planning framework that already exists for the Edgecliff area.

The Edgecliff Commercial Centre Planning and Urban Design Strategy was prepared to guide where increased density should occur and how the area should evolve.

Importantly, the site at 8–10 New McLean Street was excluded from that strategy.

Allowing a site-specific uplift from medium density residential controls to an 18-storey tower risks undermining that strategic planning framework.

Planning decisions should be based on coordinated precinct-level planning rather than opportunistic rezonings that occur simply because land ownership has changed.

Approving this proposal would set a concerning precedent for future development proposals along the Trumper Park corridor.

Protection of Public Open Space

A core principle of sound urban planning is that public open space should be protected from overshadowing, enclosure and loss of environmental quality. Trumper Park and Trumper Oval are not private land capable of absorbing planning mistakes, but public assets relied upon by the wider community for recreation, sport and access to green space.

Approving a building of the scale proposed directly adjacent to the park boundary risks setting a precedent whereby the edges of public parks become sites for high-rise development. Over time, such decisions can result in the gradual enclosure of open space by tall buildings, reducing sunlight, openness and environmental quality.

For this reason, planning authorities should apply a precautionary approach and ensure that development adjacent to major public parks remains consistent with the scale and character of the surrounding area.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments represent a substantial and unjustified increase in height and density on a highly sensitive site bordering Trumper Park.

The development risks degrading the quality of an important public recreational space, reducing sunlight to neighbouring homes and introducing a scale of development that is inconsistent with the character and strategic planning framework of the area.

At the same time, the public benefits offered in return are minimal.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department of Planning and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel to reject the proposed amendments to the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan for 8–10 New McLean Street.

Given the scale of the planning uplift being sought and the potential impacts on Trumper Park and surrounding residents, this proposal warrants the highest level of scrutiny during assessment.

It is difficult to see how a building of this scale directly adjacent to Trumper Park can reasonably be considered consistent with the existing character of the area or with the strategic planning framework for Edgecliff.

Developer Compliance History and Community Confidence

An additional concern relates to the compliance history of the developer. Public reporting indicates that the developer associated with this project has previously received a substantial fine, reportedly in the order of $500,000, for unlawful or non-compliant development activity.

While the details of that matter sit outside this proposal, such enforcement actions inevitably raise questions about the developer’s commitment to operating within planning controls and regulatory frameworks.

This proposal asks the planning system to grant an extraordinary uplift in development capacity, moving from medium density residential controls to a high rise tower development. In situations where significant planning concessions are being sought, the community must have confidence that the proponent will comply with planning approvals, conditions of consent and construction standards.

Where a proponent has previously been subject to serious regulatory penalties, it is reasonable for the Department to consider whether granting such a substantial planning uplift is appropriate.

Community confidence in the planning system depends not only on the merits of individual proposals, but also on the expectation that developers who seek major planning concessions will demonstrate a strong record of regulatory compliance.

For this reason, the Department should apply careful scrutiny to the proposal and ensure that any assessment fully considers the developer’s track record and the potential risks associated with approving a project of this scale.

Sincerely,
Resident – Glenmore Road

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the planning proposal and associated State Significant Development application for the redevelopment of 8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff.
I support responsible development that enhances housing supply and integrates with existing infrastructure. However, I have serious concerns about the height, scale, and impacts of the proposed tower and built form, particularly in relation to Trumper Park and the surrounding community character.
1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposal seeks to significantly increase the maximum building height at the site from the current control to allow an 18-storey tower (and height envelope significantly greater than the existing 10.5 m control). This represents a very large uplift in height and bulk in a context that currently transitions down to low-rise residential areas and public open space.
Such a tall building is out of scale with the existing neighbourhood and the adjacent Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, threatening the established character and urban form of Edgecliff. Council planning staff have noted that the proposed height does not provide a suitable transition in scale to neighbouring development and parks.
2. Impact on Trumper Park — Overshadowing and Amenity
Of particular concern to me is the potential impact on Trumper Park, a valued public open space that provides recreational, social, and environmental benefits to the community.
Independent council submissions and planning assessments have identified that the proposed building envelope would cause significant overshadowing of Trumper Park, reducing sunlight to grassy and vegetated areas and detracting from the amenity of this recreational space. This overshadowing could also negatively affect vegetation health, biodiversity, and user experience.
Reducing sunlight hours in winter and throughout the year undermines the park’s utility and enjoyment for residents, athletes, families, and park users who rely on open sunlit fields and green space.
3. Traffic, Congestion and Local Amenity Impacts
Although not my primary focus, other serious issues associated with the proposal include:
Traffic impacts and congestion, with studies indicating that vehicle movements may substantially increase in narrow residential streets, worsening local amenity and safety.
Loss of existing affordable housing — the development would replace existing medium-density housing with far fewer genuinely affordable units.
Character and heritage impacts — the tower’s visual prominence will interrupt important views and detract from heritage values in nearby conservation areas.
4. Inadequate Transition and Inconsistency with Planning Controls
Woollahra Municipal Council has consistently refused previous iterations of this proposal because they do not align with the established planning strategy for Edgecliff, and because the development would fail to deliver appropriate housing, infrastructure, or public benefits at the scale proposed.
The tower’s proposed height undermines the local environmental plan’s objectives for good urban design, heritage conservation, and protection of public open space.

For the reasons above, I respectfully request that:
The proposed building height and envelope be significantly reduced to better respect the scale, character, and amenity of Edgecliff and adjacent Trumper Park.
A comprehensive and independent oversight on overshadowing and environmental impacts be undertaken prior to any approval.
Adequate measures be included to protect sunlight access, environmental values, and public amenity of Trumper Park and surrounding areas in any revised proposal.
Thank you for considering my submission.