I am one of 5 generations of my family to have lived in this suburb. We are not all old nor are we rich. I have personally been a union member all my working life
I strongly OBJECT to this proposal for the following reasons :
It is too big and too high and too bulky and is completely inappropriate for this site.
It destroys the unique, internationally renowned heritage precinct of W. B Griffin, who as you must know, designed our nation’s capital and is a pioneer of modern architecture. Also, as you must know, his design and layout respect the natural landscape which this development does NOT.
CASTLECRAG is a uniquely designed community of world significance. Great cities are NOT created by trashing heritage.

NEXT it is inconceivable that anyone could believe this site is appropriate in respect of congestion and traffic chaos at the entrance of this peninsula suburb with one road in and out. There are two kindergartens, a school and a hospital and the suburb is in a bushfire zone. ALREADY peak hour traffic causes dangerous congestion at the intersection. It would be irresponsible for a government to allow such a huge development at this site. It is not near a train station or metro. There is already an approved scheme of 3 to 5 storeys with shops . The community has agreed to this. We are not NIMBIES. Moreover we have been told that Willoughby City Council has already exceeded its housing goals without this development being built.

The housing is advertised as luxury. Hard to see how it can be called affordable. I know from lived experience that nurses, teachers and other workers could not afford to buy one of these apartments. The development will not assist easy flow of goods and services around this city but it will just cause a huge bottleneck and also ruin a unique area that was called “Paradise on Earth “ by its founders

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

I speak as someone who has just spent over two years in the trenches of the Sydney property market. I have attended hundreds of inspections and been outbid at dozens of auctions. I finally secured an apartment recently, but only after a grueling struggle.

I am a staunch advocate for increasing housing supply—I know firsthand how desperate the need is. However, having spent two years analysing every new development in this corridor, I can say with certainty: this is not the housing we need.

1. A Misuse of the "Supply" Argument
During my two-year search, I saw many "luxury" developments like this one. They don't help people like me.

Pricing Out the Market: This 12–14 storey proposal isn't designed to be accessible. By cramming 150 high-end units into towers, the developer is targeting offshore investors and downsizing "wealth-lockers," not the young professionals or families trying to get a foot in the door.

The "Affordability" Fig Leaf: Providing only 10 affordable units out of 150 is insulting to those of us who have struggled to buy. It’s a transparent attempt to use the SSD (State Significant Development) pathway to bypass local heritage rules without providing a meaningful social return.

2. Density Without the "Transport"
As someone who prioritised being near a commute, I find this location baffling for a high-rise.

This site is 4km from the nearest train or Metro.

Density works when it's built on top of transport hubs. Building 150 apartments here just means 200+ more cars fighting for space on Eastern Valley Way every morning.

3. Supply Should Not Mean the Destruction of Heritage

The previously approved 3–5 storey plan (DA-2024/13) was the perfect compromise. It offered 38 new homes in a way that respected the Griffin legacy.

Dumping twin 14-storey towers into a low-rise heritage village doesn't "fix" the housing crisis; it just destroys the very reason people want to live in Sydney’s unique suburbs in the first place.

4. Rewarding Bad-Faith Planning
As a buyer, it is incredibly frustrating to see a developer buy a site with an approved, sensible plan, and then use a government loophole to try and triple the size. This SSD proposal feels like an opportunistic "land grab" that ignores the years of community work that went into the original, environmentally conscious design.

Conclusion
I want more apartments in Sydney. I want my friends to be able to buy homes without it taking two years of their lives. But we need smart density, not greedy density.

This proposal is a massive overreach that ignores transport realities and environmental and heritage protections. I urge the Department to reject this SSD and hold the developer to the scale of the original, community-supported 3–5 storey approval.

Sincerely,
An exhausted first homebuyer

I object to the project on 2 major grounds. These are:
The project will create significant traffic issues for the community as well as transit through the intersection. 150 units one a small footprint serviced by a bus rather than rail does not make sense.
The project is out of context with the look, see and feel of the Castlecrag, and surrounding 2068 suburbs. The original DA at 3 - 5 stories makes sense and provides the sort of development that will be sympathetic with the area and provide needed alternative accommodation to stand alone homes and as well provide a sensible increase of density that can be replicated in non rail serviced parts of the community.

The proposed project falls outside the intended building scope and involves a bulky 12-storey structure, while the surrounding buildings are only three storeys high. This significant height and scale mismatch is likely to result in substantial negative environmental impacts.

In addition, the development is located on the corner of a busy road that serves as the only exit route for local residents. This is expected to cause increased traffic congestion and significantly disrupt the daily lives of people in the area.

In addition, there are insufficient service shops and dining options in the area, making it inconvenient and less suitable for residents.

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: Submission of Objection - SSD-90134958 – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objection to the State Significant Development Application (SSDA) SSD-90134958 for the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

The scale and bulk of the proposed development are entirely inappropriate for this site. The subject land is not zoned to accommodate a development of this magnitude, and the proposal fails to align with established NSW Government Planning Policies. Specifically, this site is not designated as a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site, nor does it fall under the provisions of the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy. Forcing this level of density onto a site that lacks the requisite strategic planning overlay is a fundamental breach of planning principles.

The current proposal represents a significant overreach that undermines the integrity of the NSW planning system. If a development of this height and density is approved in direct contradiction to local zoning and strategic frameworks, it would signal that planning controls are effectively redundant. Approval of this SSDA would illustrate that there is no longer a need for a consistent planning system, as it would allow developers to bypass established community and council standards at will.

Furthermore, the proposal will have a devastating impact on the Castlecrag Heritage Conservation Area. Castlecrag is an internationally recognised estate, celebrated for the visionary work of architect Walter Burley Griffin. His "planning with nature" philosophy dictated that all built forms must be subordinate to the landscape, preserving the rocky outcrops and native canopy that define the suburb’s character. The proposed 11-storey towers would dominate the ridgeline, destroying the delicate balance between the built environment and the natural landscape that Griffin fought to protect.

I wish to state my support for the previously approved Development Application (DA-2024/13). That approval provided a responsible three-storey shop-top housing model that respected the local tree line and stayed within the established principles of Castlecrag's height limits. The current SSDA is in no way reflective of that original approval; instead, it seeks to triple the height and vastly increase the bulk, ignoring the sensitive context of the "Gateway" to Castlecrag.

Finally, I believe the SSDA application is fundamentally misleading. The true environmental and heritage impacts have not been clearly articulated in the applicant's documentation. The devastating reality of this proposal has been well-documented by eminent professionals and heritage experts who have publicly voiced their concerns regarding the irreversible damage this development would cause. I urge the Department to reject this application and uphold the integrity of the Castlecrag Heritage Conservation Area.

There is already an approved development for this site (DA-2024/13) which demonstrates a contextually appropriate outcome. That scheme adopts a scale of approximately three to five storeys and delivers a mixed-use result that integrates with the surrounding environment. It provides clear evidence that additional housing can be achieved on this site without excessive height or bulk, and without compromising the character of the locality.

By comparison, the current proposal represents a substantial and unjustified increase in scale, extending to between twelve and fourteen storeys. This level of height and mass is inconsistent with the existing built form and would dominate the surrounding area. Rather than contributing to the streetscape, it would overwhelm it, resulting in a built form outcome that is incompatible with the established character of the suburb.

The approved development pathway also confirms that housing delivery on this site can occur while maintaining and respecting local heritage values. This is particularly significant given the site’s immediate relationship to the Griffin Conservation Area, which holds recognised and widely acknowledged significance. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Griffin planning philosophy, which is founded on buildings being integrated with, and subordinate to, the natural environment. The scale and visual prominence of the proposal directly conflict with this principle.

The proposal does not align with applicable planning controls relating to height and scale. Existing controls, particularly in relation to Edinburgh Road, anticipate a much lower built form, generally in the order of three storeys. The extent to which the proposal exceeds these controls is material and cannot be reconciled as a minor variation. It represents a clear departure from the intended planning outcome for the site.

From a strategic planning perspective, the location does not support development of this intensity. Castlecrag is not identified as an area for significant housing growth under either state or local planning strategies. The site is not within a transport-oriented development zone and is located more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre. As such, it does not meet the criteria typically applied to justify higher-density outcomes.

Access to public transport is limited, particularly outside peak periods, and there is no proximate rail infrastructure. In this context, the proposal would increase reliance on private vehicles, placing additional pressure on the local road network. This introduces a foreseeable risk of increased congestion and constrained access, including for emergency services.

More broadly, the proposal is not consistent with Council’s established planning framework or its approach to heritage conservation. The scale, form, and intensity of the development are not supported by the applicable controls or the strategic intent that underpins them. Approval of a development of this magnitude would represent a significant inconsistency in the application of those controls.

There is also a material precedent risk. Approval would signal that developments of a substantially greater scale than currently permitted may be acceptable in low-rise suburban environments. This would undermine the integrity and predictability of the planning framework and create pressure for similar outcomes on comparable sites.

Finally, while the proposal is positioned in the context of housing supply, it does not demonstrably contribute to housing affordability. The nature and scale of the development indicate a higher-end product offering, limiting its relevance to broader housing accessibility objectives.

Taken together, the proposal is inconsistent with established planning controls, strategic intent, and the defining characteristics of the locality. The scale of the departure is significant, and the resulting impact on character and heritage would be permanent and irreversible.

see attached