Please see attached file.

We desperately need more housing especially near our railway stations and close to where people want to go. This is both, build it.

I object to this development on a number of grounds outlined below:
- This development would involve the net loss of many affordable units. The existing apartments consist of modest studio apartments or one- or two-bedroom apartments. The provision of 2 affordable apartments out of 65 in the development proposal is the merest tokenism.
- Demolition and rebuilding are enormously costly in terms of carbon emissions. In Europe the movement is away from demolition in favour of re-fitting, if that is necessary.
- The development would involve the loss of 152 out of 203 trees, some of high retention value. Currently the buildings are nestled among trees which provide a strong aesthetic value both to the street scape and for residents. Trees provide important cooling, shade, aesthetics and contribute greatly to general well-being of those around them. For people in units with no gardens ambient trees are critical to well-being.
-5 levels of basement parking would require a massive excavation, endangering two century old Moreton Bay Fig trees. The extra 100 odd cars would exacerbate the considerable traffic problems already present in New McLean Street.
-Higher building would overshadow the important public space of Trumper Park.
The site is not suited to the sort of development envisioned by this developer.

Keiran Thomas
I object to redevolopment 8 - 10 McLean St Edgecliff ssd- 80626208 because New McLean St is a no through road and already there is great congestion in the street with cars going into parking station from the busy New South Head Road. Also removing established trees which cool and quieten this hub at Edgecliff would be very detrimental to the environment which is becoming increasingly important
Edgecliff centre area is already overcrowded with buildings going up on corner of New South Head Road and New Mclean St and 1 Darling Point Road
Why spoil a working area when in my opinion there are many better options for the developer to build housing.
I do implore that the nsw gov puts proper thought into this proposed application. Sydney is a beautiful airy city so why won't the developers look around and find a convenient area where there is space. The future is so important so please try to make the developers see reason and ask them to make a more suitable decision on areas to develop. In my opinion planned cities last forever bathed in beauty. There seems to be endless areas between the city and Newcastle crying out to be cleverly developed and the intrastructure, rail, fast train and road service already working in that area . I implore you for the sake of the city to consider other options remembering AI has commenced so less people will be travelling daily to work.
sincerely,
Juliet Munro

As an owner of a small terrace in Edgecliff near this proposed development, I strongly object to it.

The traffic flow around New Maclean Street is already diabolical. It is particularly bad at the traffic lights, where the new apartment residents would be expected to enter and exit multiple times per day. The area is highly busy as it is, with a large apartment block having been built on top of the supermarket (which suggests that the area already contributes to high density living).

Also, the proposed height is far too high. The residents will likely be able to see into all of our backyards and there may be shadowing issues.

The area is a heritage one, with the area around Glebe Street (where my terrace is) being of considerable significance to the history of the State. Another very high apartment block, with all of the traffic and population inflow that it brings, is inconsistent with the maintenance of the heritage of this beautiful area in circumstances where there are already many apartment buildings that are in place. No justification has been given as to the size and scale of this development.

I am one of many essential workers who live at 8-10 New McLean St, Edgecliff and work locally.
I am opposed to the development proposal for the site because it significantly reduces the number of apartments from approximately 100 studio and 1-bedroom units, down to 65 units. It also removes the established trees which seamlessly integrate with adjacent Trumper Park.
I believe the redevelopment will prohibit essential workers from living close to the hospitals in the area.
I encourage reconsideration of the project design to increase (not decrease) the number of dwellings on the site, to include a significant number of studio apartments. I also hope the new development will retain the significant green spaces and trees which are home to, or frequented by, native birds, bats and reptiles.
Thank you for your consideration.

Please see attached submission.

Submission Attached