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 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

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 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.

I write to object to the proposal for the UNSW Barker Street Car Park Expansion.
I am a person who cares about the environment, the safety of people, and a local resident who walks and rides a bike as their main mode of transport. UNSW has the benefits of being accessible by light rail (2 lines), buses, walking and cycling (protected cycleways to UNSW).
As a university highly esteemed for its education and progressive research, it’s surprising that someone at UNSW hasn’t done the cost benefit analysis and calculated the detrimental effects this car park expansion will have on the finances for the university, environment, health and community and reputation.
As a resident I don’t understand how the state would allow for a development that will damage the health, education, and increase safety risks to people, by encouraging more people to drive than to take sustainable transport options such as buses, light rail, walking or riding a bike. By increasing the number of vehicles travelling to the car park, the state is responsible for increasing the safety risk of people being exposed to cars, and increasing the dangers on the roads. This impacts the safety of the surrounding environment, creating unpleasant places to walk or ride a bicycle.
I request the Department consider whether building a car park supports the government and the community in developing sustainable, liveable cities, support more people to ride and bicycle by funding more protected cycleways, and prioritising traffic signals for people walking or riding a bike.

See attached file.

Need for the proposal has not been demonstrated - baseline parking occupancy data analysis not in EIS
“Predict and provide” planning is outdated. In 2024 the NSW Government committed to adopting a “vision and validate” - UNSW should be following best practice in managing parking demand.
Increasing parking supply will make driving to campus more attractive and encourage more staff, students and visitors to drive to until parking congestion returns to its equilibrium level, as NSW Government is aware, this is known as induced demand. Increasing traffic to the university and in surrounding streets.
Impacts of increased car dependence are not assessed.
The proposal is misaligned with UNSW’s Net Zero Strategy, UNSW’s transport mode share target of "at least 85% of staff and student trips to campus be made by sustainable modes" and Randwick City Council’s net zero objective, and the NSW Government’s Future Transport Strategy 2056 of reducing car dependence, and increasing the share of trips by public and active transport - what is the point of having such strategies? No wonder there is a loss of trust in Government and institutions.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED. This is a major shortcoming of the proposal.