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

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.

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 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.

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 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.