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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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