Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

the scale of this development undermines the visual impact of this Heritage area ,& above all the inadequate parking & traffic chaos ensueing with this largescale block .Where are the community elements in this design & the proposal sabotages the Castlecrag principles this suburb was built on. I respectfully ask decision makers to amend this DA to a more compliance discussion allowing the true nature of Castlecrag as a livable suburb to shine for future generations.

I am in favour of the proposed development at the corner of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road. This location is one of the more appropriate points within the area to accommodate increased height and density, given its position at a key transport intersection and its existing road infrastructure.

Focusing taller development in this setting allows surrounding low-rise neighbourhoods, including the Griffin heritage precinct further along the Peninsula, to retain their established scale and character. It also helps ensure that growth is directed away from more sensitive residential streets.

I feel the amount of units and therefore the height to be excessive for the Area cnr of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way as there is only one road in and out of that peninsula suburb, no trains, no ferries and intermittent bus services. The impact on the suburb and Eastern Valley Way will cause gridlock and quite possibly damage and threaten this bushland heritage area. Therefore I wish to request a review to lessen the height and no. Of units and bring the development back to its original DA approval

Failure to reach correct height and scale . The project is too tall, unsightly, does not meet Burley Griffin requirements of a Heritage suburb. There are strict conditions to which all residents and other retailers must adhere to. This applicant must also adhere to these rules. If the applicant complies with these rules the height will be reduced to 4 or 5 levels, it will be aesthetically pleasing and the traffic congestion problems will disappear.
Please also bear in mind the errant proposal of ‘affordable housing’ which in this case is a complete furphy.
Others have made detailed objections of relevance and I stand by these
Please refuse this application

I support this development as I believe this a once in a lifetime opportunity for me and my partner to be able to live in Castlecrag. The suburb is in dire need of revitalisation and amenity, particularly having an amenity with new shopping outlets and a modern aesthetic location for the suburb to be proud of.
As we currently experiencing a housing crisis within Sydney, this is a once in a generation opportunity to tackle the issue. Castlecrag is supposed to be an esteemed Suburb of Sydne, not a museum that doesn't adapt to the wider cities and countries.

1. The planned development is incompatible with its surroundings. It is too bulky and does not blend into the surroundings.
2.If the developments is going to be 11 storeys plus it should be set back further from the street and there should be some transition in scale from the surrounding buildings.
3.There should be a lot more affordable housing in the current climate.
4. I strongly object to the loss of community space on the ground level. The Quadrangle was a community hub and the proposal completely disregards this.

I wish to submit my objections to the new/changed development application for 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.
For 37 years I have lived at 18 Laurel Street Willoughby, a comfortable walking distance from Castlecrag. I treasure being so close to such an historic suburb, and enjoy its streets, pathways, bush tracks, vistas & unique architecture. Having grown up in Canberra, I also have huge respect for the work of Walter Burley Griffin’s impact and legacy in Australia.
The suburb of Castlecrag, planned & architecturally populated by Walter Burley Griffin & Marion Mahony Griffin, is a unique treasure for Willoughby Council, but also for the people of Sydney and Australia. I compare it to other historic areas in Sydney such as The Rocks, Paddington, Cockatoo Island and parts of old Balmain. On a smaller scale, the heritage listed streets of Second & Third Avenue in Willoughby are an example of where Willoughby Council has had the foresight & strength to protect the original character of the area close to my home.
The opportunities to ruin these heritage areas, whether unknowingly, or by insincere commercial development opportunities, are many, so I am speaking up to protect this suburb for future generations.
The current proposal, which is significantly different to the approved development, appears to be a developer taking advantage of ‘possession’ and dishonestly adjusting the agreed compromise for commercial benefit. There is no aesthetic regard for this building being the entrance to such a special, historic & bushland suburb.
The proposal is too high (up to 13 storeys), which is visually blocking the entrance to Castlecrag village. The suburb is low rise & nature abundant, and as mentioned above, historic, special, sensitive & needs to be preserved as such. This development will dominate, overshadow, add urban density, destroy existing large trees and cause even greater traffic congestion for this one-road-access suburb.
Given that public transport is only by bus, and presuming more buses will be added to support the development’s subsequent increase in population in Castlecrag (150 apartments), the existing bus stops will further choke the traffic flows around Edinburgh Road & Eastern Valley Way.
I fear that in the quest to build more housing in the short term, we lose sight of the value of protecting our heritage. Housing is important, but the unique qualities of Castlecrag should not be squandered for future generations by insensitive & inappropriate housing development. This proposal is listed as a ‘State Significant Development’ so I urge those deciding on this development to respect the significance for the State, refuse this new development version and revert back to the previously approved proposal.

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to formally object to the Development proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road. As a local resident, my primary concern is the catastrophic impact this development will have on road safety and the dangerous increase in traffic volume on local side streets. While I was in favour of the original 4 story building, an 11-story building in this area will create significant issues for all residents due to traffic increases.

1. Significant Risk to Pedestrian and Motorist Safety
The scale of the proposed 11-story development will generate a massive influx of vehicle movements. Our local side streets are already an accident waiting to happen. I have personally witnessed numerous "near misses" involving vehicles attempting to navigate narrow residential roads. Increasing the density ten-fold will inevitably lead to serious accidents. There are many young children in the area (including my own) and without access to sidewalks, many people walk on the road or in the gutters. Increasing traffic will be dangerous for the community. It's not an "if" a terrible accident will happen, but "when".

2. Inadequate Traffic Management
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately address the behavior of drivers seeking to avoid congestion on Edinburgh Road. Side streets such as The Postern, Sunnyside Crescent, and Raeburn Avenue are already used as shortcuts. These streets are often narrowed by parked cars (leaving a single lane) and are frequently used by children and elderly residents. The proposed five-level basement car park will funnel hundreds of additional cars into this fragile ecosystem daily.

3. Departure from the Village Scale
Beyond traffic, this proposal is a gross overdevelopment. An 11-story tower is fundamentally incompatible with the heritage character of the area. The developer already has an approved 3-story plan (DA-2024/13) which is far more appropriate for this site.

4. Overburdening of Local Infrastructure
The existing road network was never designed to support a high-density building. The intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already one of the most congested points in the region. Adding the traffic load of 150 luxury apartments will result in gridlock, further incentivising dangerous driving through residential side streets. Just the additional trucks used during demolition of the old site, created havoc in the neighbouring streets with large trucks blocking driveways etc.

Conclusion
I urge the Department and the Independent Planning Commission to reject this SSD application. The development must be scaled back to the previously approved heights to ensure the safety of our community and the preservation of Castlecrag’s unique heritage.

Sincerely,
J. Parker

I am in support of the currently approved plans for 3-5 storeys with 38 apartments plus retail at ground level, and I wish to outline the following points about the inappropriate, poorly planned and non-compliant proposed SSD:
- The site is not within an LMR designated area and is not eligible for associated height or density bonuses. The EIS incorrectly imports planning logic from Northbridge, which is a designated growth centre.
- The site is not serviced by rail or metro infrastructure, and bus services are limited and infrequent. This fails the fundamental principle of locating density near transport hubs.
- Retail and public space areas have been combined and rounded up to meet threshold requirements, indicating a lack of integrity in compliance reporting.
- The proposal retains setback relationships from a 3–5 storey scheme despite increasing height to 11+ storeys, contrary to planning principles.
- The increased height logically results in longer and deeper shadows, yet this has not been adequately modelled or disclosed.
- Overshadowing to southern properties is excessive and does not meet planning requirements for winter solar access.
- Southern neighbours are likely to lose meaningful sunlight for extended periods, potentially up to six months of the year.
- Vehicle numbers increase substantially, with parking rising from 163 to 376 spaces.
- Despite increased density, the assessment claims reduced traffic impacts, contradicting logical expectations and previous modelling.
- The road network is already congested, with peak queues extending significant distances, yet no mitigation is proposed. The intersection of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way is currently "at capacity" by the admission of the proponent's own traffic expert ... and that is with the existing hole in the ground; it cannot cope with the drastically increased traffic due to such a development.
- Drivers will likely divert through local streets not designed for high traffic volumes, creating safety risks.

- Increased traffic volumes near shops, schools, and crossings create significant safety risks, particularly during peak periods.
- Even with expanded parking, the proposal remains below required standards, shifting demand to surrounding streets.
- Only 6.67% of units are "affordable housing", below policy expectations.
- Rent levels based on marginal discounts from high local market rates will not deliver genuine affordability. It is unlikely low-medium income earners will be able to afford likely rental costs, even at a discount.
- Public Transport is limited and its accessibility is misrepresented. The site is located 5.8km from the nearest railway station and 3.7km from the nearest Metro station, which are therefore not a viable transport option for residents.
- Bus frequency is limited, particularly outside of weekday peak hours, making public transport impractical for daily commuting.
- There is a clear contradiction within the project documentation
 whereby construction planning acknowledges poor transport access, while planning justification claims the opposite.
- There are frequent references in the EIS to the proposed development being a "modified development" (to DA-2024/13). Given that the SSD application is supported by a rezoning application to significantly increase the building height and FSR development standards, this is not the case and is misleading.
- Furthermore, the SSD application relies on some past consultant discipline reports specific to DA-2024/13. The SSD application must be supported by discipline studies specific to the proposed development.

Summary: in addition to the above-mentioned points regarding planning non-compliance, overshadowing impacts, traffic, parking and safety concerns, there are also significant and overwhelming heritage impacts. This objection is not about "NIMBYism" - it is about common sense and being able to get in and out of our suburb that relies on one intersection that is already at capacity.

The whole development is too large, high and bulky for a residential location as Castlecrag. There is no building of the proposed development in the near areas.

Castlecrag is NOT a transport hub and with the number of proposed apartments it is inevitable there will be an increase road traffic in the area. Edinburgh Road is a two-lane road

The height of the proposed development, which is on a ridge, will have significant shadowing of the properties south of the development, particularly during winter.

The initial approved development would not cause the difficulties mentioned above.

We object to the development at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag (SSD-90134958) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed plans are out of character for the suburb of Castlecrag.
Walter Burley Griffin designed Castlecrag to harmonize with nature, it features winding roads following natural contours, stone houses blending into the landscape. It is a model of how to subdivide and build within and with respect for the Australian landscape.
An 11 story building is totally out of character for this area which will be an absolute shame not to preserve the vision and heritage of Castlecrag and will be an eyesore. Walter Burley Griffins vision for Castlecrag will be lost should this ugly, high-rise building go ahead.

If we must have residential apartments in Castlecrag we would agree to the original low rise plans of 3-5 storeys (DA -2024/13) in keeping with local character and the unique local conservation area. However, Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area and there is limited transport facilities available for any additional housing.

2. Parking and lack of infrastructure to manage increased parking and road traffic has not been addressed;
a. 150 Apartments that are all 2 or 3 bedroom high end apartments, therefore catering for families with more than one car.
b. With only 1 car park allotted to each apartment on the plans it will create a parking nightmare in the surrounding area as these will mostly be luxury apartments, and most owners will own more than one car.
c. Additional cars from the residents will be parked on the roads in the nearby area and will create massive parking issues for local property owners and anyone attempting to park to utilise the current retail areas.
d. There is limited parking available on the proposed plan for people visiting the proposed supermarket and proposed retail shops and with extra additional resident’s cars parked in the nearby area it will be impossible for patrons to park on the streets to visit the supermarket and local retail businesses.
e. The only entry and exit to and from Castlecrag is via the intersection of Edinburgh Rd an Eastern Valley Way. Currently a very busy intersection especially at peak times. At those lights there are only two exit lanes heading West
f. One exit lane is turn right only and is often delayed due to the oncoming traffic heading east on Edinburgh Rd entering Castlecrag and pedestrians crossing from nearby bus stops.
g. The left exit lane is for both travelling straight ahead on Edinburgh Rd AND turn left onto Eastern Valley Way.
h. Pedestrians regularly cross at these lights at Eastern Valley Way from Castlecrag to Willoughby and the opposite way as well, so the Left Exit lane is regularly held up by any cars and buses that turn left as they wait for pedestrians to cross.
i. Buses are regularly unable to turn left due to pedestrians crossing, therefore only allowing one or two cars through at any one time.
j. Adding a possible 150–300 extra cars to the traffic exiting Castlecrag is going to create absolute chaos as the intersection is regularly backed up with very heavy traffic already.
k. There is no train station nearby so the limited local buses in and out of Castlecrag are an important transport service which should not be compromised by inevitable traffic congestion.
l. Emergency services to Castlecrag is via one road in and one road out and should not be compromised by increased traffic congestion.

How does the current infrastructure service an extra 150 residents plus a supermarket and retail shops when the infrastructure is already inadequate?

This building is going to create massive parking and traffic issues and should be kept at the reduced height and apartment numbers previously applied for within the current planning controls.

We own a property located immediately opposite the proposed development site at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, and as such, we will experience the adverse impacts of this development every day. For the reasons set out below, we object to this proposal and ask that it be refused, or fundamentally redesigned and reduced in scale.
Impact on residential amenity
This local area already contains a busy arterial road, and we are concerned that Edinburgh Road will also become increasingly busier. Introducing a development of this scale will materially increase congestion during peak hours, worsen constant traffic noise, and restrict safe pedestrian movement.
The number of parking spaces proposed involves a significant increase in vehicle movements, in addition to delivery trucks and service vehicles associated with the supermarket and retail uses. From our perspective this means more noise, more exhaust emissions, longer periods of congestion, and increased safety risks when entering or leaving our property.
Out‑of‑scale built form
From Eastern Valley Way and surrounding Willoughby properties, the proposed towers will appear overwhelmingly large. A development of this height represents a stark and sudden change in scale compared to the established low‑rise residential built form along this corridor.
The visual impact is not limited to distant views. From our property, the bulk and height of the development will dominate outlook, replacing sky and openness with a large built wall. This is an unreasonable outcome for neighbouring residents and one that cannot be mitigated through landscaping or design refinements alone.
Noise and light impacts
The proposal introduces intensive uses immediately adjacent to existing homes. Noise from vehicle movements, basement ramps, retail loading, mechanical plant and extended operating hours will carry beyond the site boundary. In addition, lighting from retail premises, signage and car park access points will further erode residential amenity, particularly during evenings and early mornings.
These impacts are especially concerning given the height of the development, which increases the spread of noise and light into nearby residential areas.
Overshadowing and loss of outlook
The scale and height of the towers will also result in increased overshadowing and a permanent loss of existing outlooks for properties west of the site, including along Eastern Valley Way. These impacts will reduce natural light and alter the character and liveability of our house in a way that cannot be reversed.
Conclusion
While we support appropriate, well‑designed development, this proposal is simply too large, too intensive and too impactful for its location. It places a disproportionate burden on neighbouring residents while delivering outcomes that are incompatible with the surrounding residential environment.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that SSD‑90134958 be refused, or at minimum substantially amended to significantly reduce height, density, traffic generation and retail intensity.

I was born in 1957 at Cabarisha Hospital (now Castlecrag Private Hospital).

I attended Miss Dove’s Kindergarten (now KU Castlecrag Preschool) and Castlecrag Infants School (now Glenaeon Steiner School), both located directly opposite the hospital. My local GP was Dr Revett, whose home and surgery were also opposite the hospital. We shopped locally at the Castlecrag shops.

Castlecrag was not just a suburb—it was a tightly connected community and sanctuary, where neighbours looked out for one another and genuine social cohesion was the norm.

As a child, I spent my leisure time playing tennis or squash at the Castlecrag Tennis Club and Squash Courts, or exploring the extensive bush tracks throughout the peninsula. Almost all daily life unfolded within the boundaries of Castlecrag itself.

Growing up here felt safe, stable, and inclusive. That sense of security was reinforced by the peninsula geography, with only two entry and exit points, creating a naturally contained and calm environment.

Walter Burley Griffin designed Castlecrag on the principle that the built environment should harmonise with the natural landscape. That principle shaped not only the homes and streets, but also the placement and scale of community infrastructure—schools, shops, medical services, and recreation facilities. Castlecrag was intentionally designed as a living, interwoven community where environment, services, and people formed a coherent whole.

In my view, the proposed twin towers at the entrance to Castlecrag are fundamentally incompatible with the character and ethos of this suburb. The scale and density are out of proportion with the existing infrastructure, which is already limited in its capacity to absorb additional population and traffic.

A serious bottleneck will inevitably form at the single access point as residents enter and exit the peninsula, placing further strain on local roads and services.

While I fully recognise the need for increased housing and better use of land, such development must be undertaken in a way that respects and integrates with the existing environment, heritage, and community fabric. This proposal does not achieve that balance.

The construction and presence of these towers will cause significant disruption and will likely generate deep and lasting division within the community. New residents risk feeling isolated from the established social fabric, and local businesses may suffer from community backlash and reduced support.

The needs of the existing community must be acknowledged and respected—not overridden or dismissed.

This proposal risks fracturing a community that has been carefully built over more than a century.

I object to the proposed mixed-use development at Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way. In its current form, the proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the planning controls that apply to this site and would cause lasting harm to the character and liveability of Castlecrag.
My primary concern is that the proposal does not comply with the existing planning framework. The Willoughby LEP allows for a maximum building height of 9 metres, yet this proposal is nearly 49 metres tall, over five times the permitted limit. It also exceeds the allowed floor space ratio by more than four times. The applicant has attempted to justify this by referencing a “concurrent rezoning,” but that rezoning has not been approved or properly exhibited. As a resident, it is deeply concerning that such a large development could be considered based on planning rules that do not yet exist - and erected at the end of my street!
I am also very concerned about the impact on the heritage and character of Castlecrag. This site sits directly beside the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, which is known for its low-scale buildings integrated with the natural landscape. Even the applicant’s own documents acknowledge there will be “visual contrast due to the scale disparity.” A development of this height and bulk at the gateway to the conservation area is fundamentally at odds with what makes this suburb special.
From a day-to-day perspective, traffic is already difficult at the Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way intersection, as well as the Edinburgh Road / Raeburn Avenue / Chandler Lane corner (primary access to bus stop). The applicant’s own report states the intersection is operating at Level of Service F, meaning it is already failing. As a parent managing school drop-offs, errands, and family logistics, I cannot see how adding 150 apartments and hundreds more cars will not make this significantly worse and potentially unsafe. I also have deep concerns regarding the safety of both pedestrians and motorists as they traverse these intersections, and for the ability to park outside my own home in Raeburn Avenue - already an impossibility.
In short, this proposal would change the feel of Castlecrag in a way that cannot be undone. It is simply too large, too dense, and too out of step with both planning controls and community expectations.
I respectfully request that the application be refused. Alternatively, it should be deferred until a proper planning proposal has been independently assessed and publicly exhibited.
I have no reportable political donations to declare.
Regards,
Tami Cunningham

The project is a threat to the great sense of community that I have witnessed Castlecrag foster throughout my life here since 2009. The suburb prides itself on community spaces and a homely feel, and the development does nothing to cater to these themes. The resistance of the developers to cooperate with the community, and their general lack of transparency with respect to development updates and plans has further contributed to their dissonance with what is ordinarily such trusting suburb. This development should not proceed.

**Submission – Objection**

I object to the State Significant Development application for the Edinburgh Road / Eastern Valley Way site on the grounds of non-compliance with statutory planning controls, inadequate infrastructure assessment, and failure to meet key design standards.

First, the proposal represents a profound departure from the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012. The permitted height is 9 metres and FSR is 1:1, yet the application seeks 48.96 metres and 4.2:1 respectively. The applicant has not submitted a clause 4.6 variation request, instead relying on a “concurrent rezoning” that has not been subject to Gateway determination or public consultation. In my view, approving a development of this scale based on a hypothetical future planning instrument would undermine the integrity of the planning system.

Second, the traffic impacts are not properly resolved. The applicant’s own Traffic Impact Assessment confirms the key intersection is already operating at Level of Service F, and further concedes that the modelling “is not representative” under those conditions. In practical terms, this means the applicant cannot reliably quantify the impact of the development on an already failing intersection. As someone who commutes daily, this raises serious concerns about congestion, safety, and emergency access.

Third, the proposal fails the Apartment Design Guide in a material way. The applicant admits that 30% of apartments will receive no direct sunlight during winter, double the maximum allowed under the ADG. This is not a minor variation; it reflects a fundamental compromise in residential amenity driven by excessive density.

Finally, the public benefit offered does not justify the scale of the proposal. Only 10 out of 150 apartments are designated as “affordable,” and only for a period of 10 years. This falls short of policy expectations and does not represent a proportionate trade-off for the extent of planning non-compliance being sought.

In summary, the proposal is inconsistent with the statutory planning framework, unsupported by adequate infrastructure analysis, and delivers poor design outcomes.

I request that the application be refused. In the alternative, it should be deferred pending a properly exhibited planning proposal and referred to the Independent Planning Commission.

Regards,
Pat Cunningham

Date: 4 May 2026

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed development. My reasons are:
1. The intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way, currently already cannot cope with the amount of traffic that has to exit onto Eastern Valley Way from Edinburgh Road, especially for a right turn onto Eastern Vally going North. Further vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the scale envisaged will have a extremely negative effect on traffic flow along Eastern Valley Way and will make entry and exit from the suburb extremely time consuming especially at peak times - the traffic already backs up all the way down Edinburgh Road and this will be exacerbated ten fold, making life in the suburg extremely inconvenient and difficult. Apart from personal inconvenience - emergency services would find it extremely difficult to enter and exit the suburb.
2. Castlecrag is not near a train station and the bus service is only adequate during peak hours, therefore residents of the new development will increase usage of private cars - see above
3. The lower scale, that was already approved (3-5 storeys), is all that can possibly be accomodated by the surrounding infrastructure.
4. While everyone is concerned about the housing crisis it is an insult to build the tiny amount of affordable housing units envisaged, and then pretend that this means the project must proceed - it will make NO impact on the housing crisis currently experienced by young people. This is clearly manipulation and window dressing, to provide cover for what is a focused high-end development, that will make no impact on the affordable housing shortage for young people in the wider Sydney area.
5. Castlecrag has an unique character and history - Walter Burley Griffin's philosophy was for buildings to blend with the environment, NOT dominate and overwhelm it, with massive man-made structures such as is proposed.
6. The number of new units proposed and therefore the number of new residents that will enter the suburb are so numerous that they will overwhelm the existing residents and their way of life, both walking around the suburb and continuing to patronise the local shops and restaurants. This is clearly unfair to the current residents who invested their lifes savings to settle in Castlecrag, precisely for the exisitng way of life in terms of the charm of the local neighbourhood shops and busyness of the neighbourhood. Some progress and expansion is inevitable and acceptable (refer previous application) - the main point being that any development must blend into the suburb NOT change the suburb so substantially, that it becomes a different place.

Grow up, the old people are stopping us younger generation in having a chance to live. They harp on about the beautiful gardens and design intent around Castlecrag yet they fail to even hear what we need or see what we need! what about us? So what, put us in a cart pulled by horses and off with our heads into a city/suburb far far away so they can live in their garden dream. Come on oldies. what about us????
We deserve access to beautiful gardens and be able to live a dream.
Get on with it. You had your chance, now it is our time to be able to live and have a piece of this suburb also.

with the current pension allowance we receive, we would not be able to sustain our selves so we have no choice but to sell our beautiful home and that leaves us to go where? right now we our choices are other suburbs and in a city fast enviroment or to a retirement village in central coast. give me an option give us an option to downsize too. why must we move suburbs away when we are use to living right here. we need safe secure homes and convenient supermarket and barber and hair and a pharmacy or doctors is very good.

I am writing to express my support for the mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road. It is widely recognised that Sydney is facing a significant housing supply shortage, and each local government area has a role to play in meeting housing targets.

This site represents an ideal location for infill development, given its position along a major transport corridor. Supporting growth in well-serviced, high-amenity areas is a fair and balanced approach to planning. The proposal delivers a high-quality residential outcome and contributes to the “30-minute city” objective by locating housing in close proximity to transport, services, and daily needs.