I have lived in Willoughby since 1974 and in Castlecrag since 1988. I strongly object to the proposed 13 storey towers at 100 Edinburgh Road.
The previously approved 3 storey scheme (DA 2024/13) was acceptable after many years of negotiation. The new proposal is completely out of scale with Castlecrag and will permanently alter the suburb’s character.
Traffic and safety impacts are my major concern. Exiting Sugarloaf Crescent into Eastern Valley Way is already dangerous, and the nearby exits at Covelee Circuit and Cawarrah Road /Rembrandt Drive also present significant risks. The EIS does not adequately address these issues, and the development will add hundreds of additional vehicle movements.
The proposal also conflicts with Griffin heritage principles and does not provide meaningful affordable housing.
I request that the SSD be refused or reduced to a scale consistent with the previously approved development, with a full independent traffic and safety audit required.
Refer Objection Submission attached together with Cover Page and One Page Summary of Objection.

Signed: Castlecrag Resident (Registered objector)
Castlecrag, NSW. Date: 2 May 2026
Submitted via NSW Planning Portal by registered objector.

My main objection is to the impact on the heritage values of the Castlecrag precinct.
Although 100 Edinburgh Rd is not technically in the Castlecrag heritage precinct, it is right on the border and forms the gateway to the precinct. In fact it is the entry to the heritage precinct. Castlecrag is important not only for local, state and national heritage, but in my opinion this area has international significance having been designed by Walter and Marion Burley Griffin, two highly important and famous architects. Their goal was the development of an idyllic community with a consistent architectural feel in a bushland setting. The design of this mixed use development is in total contrast to these goals. It does not reflect the architecture nor the aim of “sitting comfortably within a bushland setting”. The scale and mass of this proposal completely dominates the heritage precinct and does not support any of its values.

This projects is ill considered, un wanted by the community and money grab for those supporting the build.
There is failure to consider community feedback- the developer was not prepared to modify is proposal basded on community input and consider how thier project affect the community who live there.
There was removal of community hub elements, as previously community facilities have been omitted from the build.
The build is not creating and real benefit to the housing shortage, its a high end development afforded by home owners who already own 2 or 3 properties, hence the profiteering with out meanful impact.
The road network is already congested, with no mitagation proposedin the build, increased traffic volumes nears shops, schools and crossings bring satefy risks, a school almost lost her life at the intersenction only a few years ago.
There is disregard for the impact visually but more importantly the hertiage of Castlecrag, it breaches the established height benchmarks, has poor/ no transistion to surrounding low rise areas, and the tree canopy dominance central to the Griffin vision for Castlecrag is underminded. It is incompatable with the surrounding buildings and shows and incorrect reliance on low to medium rise uplift.
Please, pleaase, please just consider a better way that this build can be done, the way proposed is not the way forward. It can be done better and its up to you to help guide a build that fits into the community, that's wanted and used ina fitting manner.

1. I object to this proposal due to its scale being wildly out of proportion to the existing built environment in which it is located.
2. I am not against any development or pushing the boundaries of existing planning policies and rules but this specific proposal just goes too far
3. In my opinion, the previously approved DA 2024/13 - which was itself already highly contested - is acceptable and should be built in this location.
4. Any argument by the developer about project cost viability or economic efficiencies is of course relevant as a private economic concern / benefit but must not be given undue weight by State Planning because the public economic cost / benefit of the scale is in terms of population density increase falls to the residents and local community.
5. I also object to the proposal because although the local area is well served by private car and public bus routes, there is no obvious means of increasing capacity to accommodate for such a large spike in a single location; the fact that the area is not served by a train line means that any super large scale project like this proposal is inappropriate
6. In my opinion the proposed development will be a "spectacular" double fail - not only spectacular in terms of the way it will immediately negatively impact the physical landscape, but also spectacular in terms of the way that it will ultimately negatively impact on the well being of all of its stakeholders, principally neighbours, local residents, local council and NSW Government
7. For NSW Government to approve this proposal over the genuine and reasonable objections of local community is likely to raise serious questions about probity and will definitely contribute to the erosion of confidence and faith of all communities across NSW in its Government to make good decisions for their collective benefit.

1. The apartment buildings are too high for this unique suburb designed by globally-recognised architects Walter Burley Griffin and his wife Marion Mahony Griffin to ensure the built form is subservient to its natural setting.
2. The buildings would overshadow in Winter months the houses that adjoin the southern boundary of the project.