Submission: Objection to SSD-80626208
Redevelopment of 8–10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I write as a nearby resident of Edgecliff to formally object to the proposed redevelopment at 8–10 New McLean Street (SSD-80626208), particularly the proposal for excavation of a five-storey basement car park.
While I recognise the importance of housing delivery, this proposal represents an excessive and inappropriate scale of development for its immediate context.
1. Excessive Basement Excavation (Five Storeys Below Ground)
A five-level basement is extraordinary in a small residential street environment. This level of excavation is typically associated with major commercial or shopping centre developments, not mid-scale residential buildings.
Concerns include:
Structural risk to adjoining properties during deep excavation
Groundwater impacts and potential long-term drainage implications
Construction vibration and prolonged heavy machinery operation
Soil removal logistics (thousands of truck movements through local streets)
Long-term maintenance and flooding risk in extreme rainfall events
The cumulative construction impact of such deep excavation would be severe and disproportionate to the site context.
2. Traffic and Congestion Impacts
A 65-unit development supported by a five-storey basement car park indicates a significant volume of vehicle capacity. This will:
Increase traffic generation in an already constrained residential network
Intensify peak hour congestion
Create safety concerns for pedestrians and school children
Increase pressure on local intersections and access roads
The proposal appears to prioritise vehicle storage over neighbourhood amenity.
3. Overdevelopment of Site
The scale of excavation and parking provision suggests a density and intensity beyond what is compatible with the established character of the surrounding residential area.
Deep multi-level basements are not neutral infrastructure — they fundamentally alter the scale, engineering footprint and environmental impact of a development.
4. Questionable Public Benefit
The public benefit appears minimal. Of 65 units, only two are designated as affordable housing in perpetuity. This represents approximately 3% of total yield.
The significant disruption, excavation risk and traffic increase imposed on existing residents does not appear proportionate to this limited affordable housing outcome.
5. Construction Duration and Community Impact
Five levels of basement excavation will likely require:
Extended construction timelines
Continuous heavy vehicle movements
Noise and dust impacts
Potential road closures or restrictions
This will materially affect local residents’ safety, access and amenity for an extended period.
Conclusion
The proposed five-storey basement car park is excessive, disproportionate and incompatible with the scale and character of this residential locality.
I respectfully request that the Department:
Refuse the application in its current form; or
Require substantial redesign, particularly reducing the scale of basement excavation; and
Require a more detailed independent geotechnical and traffic impact assessment with genuine community consultation.
This proposal, as currently designed, places unreasonable burden on the existing community while offering limited demonstrated public benefit.
Yours sincerely,
Miranda Sheppard
90 Cameron Street, Edgecliff 2027
0467 722 915

I support the project. I believe it will really improve housing affordability and availability in the area. I would like to see the number of storeys significantly increased.

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.

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

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.

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