Some time ago this afternoon, I lodged a formal OBJECTION on behalf of The Paddington Society, of which I am president. I noted in the comments box that I endorsed and supported that objection; this is my personal OBJECTION. I own and have lived at 14 Roylston Street Paddington for almost 40 years, arriving with my family in 1986 when Paddington was an inexpensive suburb and this precinct was particularly inexpensive. It was still relatively undeveloped with warehouses and light industry on many of the sites, including in my street. Roylston St directly connects at the northern end to Trumper Park and Oval so along with other long-term residents I am well aware of the site, the oval, the parklands and their relationship with Edgecliff. When our children were young the oval and the park were regular parts of our recreation. I regularly walk uphill through the park and past the proposed development site to trains, buses and the shopping centres. My husband and I, both architects, enjoyed our garage, converted via an approved DA into a studio in 1981, as the location for our small office after several years of renting premises in Underwood Street, Paddington. As individuals and members of the Paddington Society for decades, we have made submissions - both personal and on behalf of the Society - about overdevelopment proposals in Paddington. I've been a member of Working Parties at the invitation of Woollahra Council and with a small number of committee colleagues we try to address and send comments to Council where inappropriate development is notified. We have had an active involvement over many years in commenting on Council's DCP amendments, much of such matters related to enhancements to parks and the public domain, including urban landscaping in the overall suburban context. Our committee members also liaise and connect with community groups in Edgecliff, Darling Point, Double Bay and Woollahra, so our concerns extend into the LGA, well beyond Paddington. We have been greatly concerned about flooding, particularly in our low-land precincts, and with colleagues I have participated in working parties regarding WMC's Paddington Floodplain Risk Management Committee for many years. Flooding in the southern part of Royston St has been improved after Council's remedial works in recent years, but I'm well aware that parts of the northern ends of Roylston, Hampden and Cecil Streets and lanes still regularly still receive floodwater and debris ingress(including pollutants) into their properties during severe downpours. I share the belief of Paddington Society colleagues that the proposal for 8-10 New McLean Street SSD-80626208 can ONLY be assessed with detailed knowledge of the significantly larger, taller and bulkier Stage 2. This is particularly important, since provision of the bulk of the required number of Affordable dwellings is presently deferred, with only 2 so-called Affordable dwellings provided in the Stage 1 documents. At present there will be a dramatic and unacceptable net loss of affordable dwellings - the existing 106 to be replaced by just 2 !! Far from providing public benefit, the proposal is to the detriment of the public, providing only 65 dwellings with just 2 nominally Affordable. ie a loss of 41 genuinely affordable studios and 1 bedroom dwellings ! The 10-storey development, albeit with setbacks towards Trumper Park and the east, will still overwhelm the adjacent and surrounding predominantly 2- storey terraces, some of the oldest in the LGA. Much of the existing vegetation on the site will be removed to facilitate the construction, including (possibly, it is unclear) the trees and vegetation on the Stage 2 site. That would be a scandalous outcome, if it were to be approved, removing the planting which screens the present well designed low rise blocks so effectively from both the street and the parklands.
Traffic and congestion is a big and increasing problem, As a regular user of both Edgecliff shopping centres, when I use the car for transporting a weekly shop, along with neighbours and friends I know how time-consuming it can be to turn in and out of New McLean St in all directions during the ever-increasing lengthy peak periods, including on weekends. We locals avoid accessing the intersection from any direction, including the major intersections further to west and east during such periods. Driving to and from suburbs further to the east at peak periods is also to be avoided; traffic proceeds at a crawl, again particularly during school pick up and drop off and when construction and trade vehicles are on the route from well before 7 am and well after 3 pm.
I do not wish to note all the points listed in the Society's outline objection list, so here repeat that I endorse and echo the Paddington Society's OBJECTIONS to the proposal. I also take this opportunity to attach a submission on the Impact of Reduced Affordable Housing in Paddington on the Nursing Workforce as St Vincent's Hospital Darlinghurst. This was commissioned by the Society some months ago to highlight the cumulative negative impacts of reduction of genuinely affordable small and medium dwelling numbers in site after site, in suburbs such as ours in proximity. To date on just 3 such development in Paddington and Edgecliff (the Verona site on Oxford St, 160 Oxford St and now 8-10 New McLean St) there has been a cumulative loss of 124 genuinely affordable predominantly studio and one-Bed units, so necessary for essential workers, nurses, teachers, firemen etc, and to the detriment of those supposedly targeted for benefit by the government's legislative changes. I hope I will be able to upload that submission. Yours sincerely, Esther Hayter.

I am a resident and home owner in the area and have been for 14 years and strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:
1. The proposed FSR and height far exceed appropriate scale for the area and surrounding terrace houses and are well in excess of relevant planning controls. Further, the proposal purports to justify itself on the basis that a development will be built on the adjoining westerly lot, which is not required by law and therefore the proposed development on the Easterly lot should not be permitted based on a presumed development that may never eventuate. The proposed height of 10 stories will grossly overshadow neighbouring residences, blocking much valued sunlight and views and encroach on neighbours' privacy. The proposed bulk and height will also block sunlight to Trumper Park, which is greatly valued by the community, especially during winter. The solar impact benchmarking in the proposal is not based on a comparison with the existing development and is provided by the developer's architect and is therefore not independent and inherently biased. An independent assessment of overshadowing and loss of sunlight to Trumper Park and neighbouring properties compared with the existing development should be required.
2. The proposed development with its oversized bulk and height will create an undesirable wind tunnel effect in New McLean Street. An independent wind tunnel and CFD assessment should be required.
3. The proposal includes far too many carspaces (136) which will grossly exacerbate the already over-congested New McLean Street and intersection with New South Head Road during peak times.
4. There are no 1 bed or studio apartments in the proposal, which is highly inappropriate given the ageing population in the area and stated objectives/justification of affordable housing by Government in the area. The proposal will result in a net loss of approx. 70 apartments from the existing buildings.
5. The proposal will result in the loss of too many trees adjoiningTrumper Park, which is much valued for its tree canopy and natural reserve. This will also negatively impact other flora and many animals in the area, including bird life.
6. The proposal does not take in account that the Government has already announced that Edgecliff is not a suitable TOD sit due to the lack of water and other infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure and essential services should be addressed before a proposal of this nature is approved. Public transport in Edgecliff including trains and buses are already over capacity in peak periods. The proposal will exacerbate congestion further. An independent assessment of impact to public tranpsort congestion should be required. The proposed new train station at Woollahra will further exacerbate over congestion on trains between Bondi Junction and the city which should be taken into account in the assessment.
7. The proposal does not include much needed additional community facilities which Woollahra Council has recommended, including creative spaces, library facilities and public green spaces. These should be prerequisites to any development of this scale.
8. The proposed 5 story carpark excavation will risk damage to neighbouring properties including disruption to the water table and risk of subsidence. This has happened in other areas due to lack of proper excavation controls and enforcement including many instances in Double Bay where the soil is similarly soft and sandy to Edgecliff posing a high risk of subsidence and water table disruption. Furthermore, the proposed vibration limit for excavation of 5mm/s far exceeds an appropriate level, which should be limited to 2mm/s in the conditions of approval and strictly monitored and enforced by Council/State Government. A comprehensive water table disruption assessment and appropriate excavation controls should be assessed and formulated by independent geotechnical/structural engineers and appropriate conditions required and enforced by State/Local Government, otherwise neighbouring old terrace houses built on sandy soil will be at high risk of serious damage and devaluation.
9. Federal legislation enacted in April 2025 which permits 50% of new developments to be purchased by foreigners and temporary residents will result in many apartments in the proposed development being purchased by foreigners and temporary residents, which makes housing in the area even less affordable for Australians. More genuine affordable housing should therefore be required. The proposed development of 2 and 3 bedroom units will be very expensive and force many existing residents out of the area.

I wish to submit my objection to the above proposal on the following basis;
1. This proposed development far exceeds the Woollahra Local Environment Plan 2014 in terms of
a) Building height by a factor of over 5 times
b) Floor space ratio by over 5 times
2. The site is at a key intersection of New South Head Road and Darling Point Road.
3. Traffic at this juncture is already a bottle neck especially in the mornings and afternoons with cars lining up to do school pickups at Ascham.
4. This is intersection is a key entry point to the Eastern Suburbs and Woollahra and the road cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. This bottle-neck will choke entry to the Eastern Suburbs to death.
5. Often the ambulances, police and fire engines use this route to access the Eastern Suburbs and choking this entry and access point further will lead to very serious consequences.
6. This over ruling of the current Council plans leaves a very dangerous precedent to future overdevelopment in Woollahra area.
7. The voice and will of the local residents is being ignored. Surely people living in the area should have a voice in terms of the environment in which they have invested and live?
8. The local infra structure just cannot cope with a development of this size – schools, roads, traffic, utilities
9. Local Council is elected to reflect the values of the residents they represent. The Council has rejected this development and it is inconceivable that they can merely be ignored. Why then waste money having local Councils?
10. Bureaucrats from outside the local area should not be able to impose their decisions on local Councils and residents.
11. I do not believe that local residents have properly been informed regarding the size and scale of the development. A referendum on the size and scale of this development needs to conducted.
12. The traffic impact will have a major effect on the Mona Road flow as well. The access in Mona Road is already heavily congested in the afternoons.
13. How does one provide affordable housing in one of the most expensive suburbs in Australia? This is a nonsense and is not in accordance with our social fabric. We do not live in a socialist country – or do we?? Only 2 units have been set aside for Affordable Housing - what a joke
14. Another 65 residential units?? This is madness.
15. I object to all the trees being knocked down and green space being degraded - this is a disgrace.
16. Bureaucrats are destroying our suburb forever. The stain that they leave behind with this crazy decision, leaves a black mark for generations to come.
I am not against the development of this site and believe it should be subject to the same building restrictions that are currently in place and in harmony with the suburb's current surrounds.
Why even bother to hear our objections when they are ignored and not considered.
Another major traffic crisis looming with a development of this size located in a cul-de-sac with very poor inward and outward access.
But what do the bureaucrats care. A sad day.

I own a terrace house at 15 Bowes Avenue, Edgecliff, and have done so since 2000.

My house is one house away from the southern boundary of the proposed development, and faces Trumper Park.

I am not a NIMBY. I support the State government’s proposals to increase the affordable housing in Sydney, and have no problem with a redevelopment of the existing housing at 8-10 New McLean Street.

However, the proposed development is fundamentally flawed as the scale and impact of the proposed development is utterly inappropriate for the site in question.

Issue 1: traffic

There is nothing in the proposal that identifies how the increased traffic from the proposed development will be adequately managed.

New McLean Street is a short, narrow, cul-de-sac that meets New South Head Road and Darling Point Road. Even at present it is unable at various times of the day to deal with the traffic to and from the Edgecliff Centre, with traffic frequently at a standstill. This affects not only the traffic on New McLean Street, but also the traffic that flows up New South Head Road past the Edgecliff Centre.

No thought has been given to these problems, and the failure to do so will reflect badly on the State government’s residential reforms.

Issue 2: overshadowing and privacy

The scale of the proposed development will mean that large parts of the heritage area south of the site will lose both light and privacy, and that those proximate to the southern boundary of the site, including my house at 15 Bowes Avenue, will be particularly adversely affected. A more appropriately scaled development of the site would address this impact.

Issue 3: Trumper Park

In a similar vein, the overshadowing of Trumper Park will be detrimental to the health of the bushland in the Park. This is an historic park and playing field, and it needs to be protected from overshadowing to maintain its health and the enjoyment of its many users.

Other comments

Affordable housing

The existing housing stock on the site of the proposed development comprises 104 studio and one bedroom units. The nature of these apartments is that they currently comprise affordable housing. The apartments that replace these affordable housing apartments will, virtually entirely, not comprise affordable housing – they will be expensive Eastern suburbs apartments that diminish the stock of affordable housing in Edgecliff.

Conclusion

In view of the clear deficiencies of the proposed development, I submit that the proposed development is not in the public interest and requires a complete re-think to ensure that it recognises the limitations of the site, preserves the amenity of the Edgecliff heritage area and Trumper Park and at the same time meets the State government’s desire to increase affordable housing in Sydney.

I oppose the application. I am an architect, and a long time resident of Edgecliff, living in a terrace house in the Paddington HCA. I am appalled by the insensitivity of this development.

There is much that has been flouted in the application, ranging from its failure to meet Housing SEPP Policy Principles to multiple non-compliances with mandatory Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) criteria. Basically the developer is wanting to replace 106 affordable housing units in two attractive buildings set on tree covered lots with 65 two and three bedroom apartments in a tower block, only two of which will be affordable. The existing building is virtually invisible in the trees surrounding it. It was designed in the 1960s by Clarke Gazzard, award winning architects of the Edgecliff Centre, and proponents of the Sydney School of architecture. It sits unobtrusively in the landscape, virtually not seen from any direction.

The proposed new building is also completely out of keeping with what I assume the State Government is hoping to achieve in its housing policies.Three quarters of the trees on the site are slated to be removed, including approximately two-thirds of the highest value ones. The proposal does not provide reasonable amenity for residents, and community infrastructure in the Woollahra municipality is already stretched. Car parking is excessive for an accessible location; the point of building adjacent to the Edgecliff Centre is the ease of using public transport. The proposal does not minimize climate and environmental impacts, and will overshadow Trumper Park.

One of the neighbourhood’s greatest concerns is traffic. The road network at this location is already performing close to capacity. The Woollahra Council Urban Planning Department has commented that: “The intersection of New McLean Street and New South Head Road is approaching or at capacity and Council has been working with Transport for NSW for several years to improve capacity at this intersection. The increase in residents and commercial tenants will likely increase the strain on this intersection. It is noted that consultation with the RMS has not taken place.” Currently it is not easy to access New McLean Street at the best of times, and equally difficult to leave it. Not only does this street provide the only access to the two shopping centre car parks, the Medical Centre carpark, and loading docks, but also the parking for the two existing residential towers and adjacent residential and commercial properties. Adding 140 car parking spaces will only exacerbate the problem.

This is only the first building that is being proposed on this site. A second even taller one is apparently next. A decision on the first stage should be withheld until an application for the second stage is lodged so the project can be considered in its entirety and in the context of known proposed developments.

Our community in Edgecliff made various comments on the original proposals, but these appear to have been totally disregarded.

Margaret Smyth
9 Great Thorne Street
Edgecliff NSW

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.