The project will RUIN the Burley Griffin established heritage of Castlecrag. Having enjoyed the Burley Griffin heritage living in Castlecrag for the last 50 years, we must not let it be destroyed. A five story development should be the Maximum height for that site: 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag NSW2068.

The project will lead to poorly managed and congested traffic in and out of the property and onto Eastern Valley Way. The quantity of apartments is too large.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however, like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as housing set aside for social and essential workers.

Dont listen to the very noisy NIMBYs in Castlecrag - almost NONE of which will be impacted by this development anyway. They are embarrased at shooting themselves in the foot by opposing the earlier proposal, and now feel the need to oppose everything. They're mostly in the 60-90 yoa bracket (so am I incidentally) and have too much time on their hands. They never articulate WHY they are against the development - they just create an environment of "we will fight" and apparently that creates a swell of emotion in Crag residents.
We need our community hub to be built. It has been too long (4 years?) since we've had NO LOCAL SHOPS. My father visiting here from the UK at 89yoa has to walk to Harris Farm for groceries. The reality is it will look and feel modern, it will create a community feel and once again in our area.

I object to the proposal on the following grounds:

1. Excessive scale and height
The building’s elevation will dominate the district skyline and permanently alter the visual landscape.
Measured AHD, it would be the tallest structure in the district, presenting unacceptable bulk and scale inconsistent with the area’s established character.
The proposal lacks an appropriate transition in height to surrounding low-rise development.

2. Overdevelopment and density
The addition of 150 apartments is out of character with Castlecrag’s local context and residential scale, more suited to designated major centres such as Crows Nest, St Leonards, or Chatswood.
The intensity of use substantially exceeds what the local area can reasonably accommodate without adverse impacts.

3. Traffic and access impacts
Vehicle entry/exit to Edinburgh Road for both commercial and residential components will generate excessive traffic movements.
The relevant intersection(s) are already operating over capacity; additional volumes will exacerbate congestion, queuing, and safety risks.
Insufficient information has been provided on cumulative impacts, peak-hour performance, and mitigation measures.

4. Public transport and SSD suitability
The site is not on a major transport corridor and lacks the high‑capacity public transport required to support a development of this scale.
Given its location and context, the proposal should not be assessed as State Significant Development.

Requested determination
Refuse the application, or require a substantial reduction in height, yield, and traffic generation, with design amendments that respect local character and capacity.
Require an independent peer‑review of traffic modelling, visual impact, and strategic merit against relevant metropolitan and local planning frameworks.

I oppose the proposed development, particularly with reference to (but not limited to) the topics listed below.
SEARS Table / 5. Design Quality requirements:
The development should achieve Design Excellence in accordance with seven objectives for good design as stated in the NSW Government’s Better Placed design policy.
i.e.
better for people (safe/liveable):
better working (functional/efficient)
better value (lasting community value)
better look and feel (engaging/attractive)
better landscape (environmental quality)
better community (inclusive/connected)
better process (collaboration)

On the southern and south-eastern side of the proposed development the houses, Community Centre, Kindergarten, and Library (where I am a volunteer) will lose much of their winter sun. The land drops away very steeply on the southern side of the development, solar access will be lost, greater use of heating and dehumidifying would be needed. Solar panels will be useless. The playground and kindergarten forecourt will be damp, and the children will be denied much needed winter sun.
This is a Griffin Conservation Area. The development shows total disregard for Griffin’s design for sharing access. The proposed development will not be better for the people living, working, or visiting these areas.
The height of the proposed development is completely out of character and will greatly disaffect those properties/people to the south and south-east. The built environment would in no way be subservient to the natural environment.
Every one of those 7 objectives of Design Quality are missing.

SEARS Table / 7. Environmental Amenity requirements:
“Assess amenity impacts on the surrounding locality, including solar access, visual privacy, view loss and view sharing, as well as wind, lighting and reflectivity impacts. A high level of environmental amenity for any surrounding residential or other sensitive land uses must be demonstrated”.
The proposed development is in total opposition to these qualities.

Increased traffic will seriously jeopardise access and egress, especially of emergency vehicles. There is a hospital in Castlecrag. Longer queues in peak hours would warrant an extra lane being carved off the site to allow additional traffic exiting Castlecrag.
Disregard for Castlecrag: Promotional hoardings at the vacant site are deliberately misleading – a beautiful photo of the golf course in the next suburb - the other side of the next ridgeline and down into a bay. No way, even from the proposed top level would anyone be able to see down onto that golf course. The developers show a complete disregard for Castlecrag residents.
High Rise Hell
I reject the SSD proposal and support the existing Development Consent (3-5 storeys 38 apartments) already granted.

Subject: OBJECTION to Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (SSD-90134958)

I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (the "Quadrangle" site). While I recognize the need for a functional redevelopment of this site, the current proposal is a gross overdevelopment that threatens the fundamental character and heritage of Castlecrag.

My objections are based on the following key grounds:

1. Excessive Scale and Height Inconsistent with Local Character
The proposed height of up to 13–14 storeys (comprising two residential towers) is entirely unprecedented and inappropriate for Castlecrag. This suburb is world-renowned for its low-scale, "organic" architecture designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. A high-rise tower of this magnitude would dominate the skyline, destroy the village atmosphere, and set a dangerous planning precedent for "density-at-all-costs" in sensitive heritage conservation areas.

2. Departure from Previously Approved DA
In November 2024, the Sydney North Planning Panel approved a development for this site that was the result of extensive community consultation. That approved plan (3–5 storeys) was deemed suitable for the site’s topography and context. This new SSD proposal, which seeks to jump from 38 residences to 150, is a massive escalation that ignores the carefully balanced outcomes of the previous planning process. The use of the SSD pathway to bypass local planning controls is an affront to the community.

3. Heritage and Environmental Impact
Castlecrag is defined by its "harmony with nature." This proposal involves significant bulk and scale that will:

Overshadow adjoining residential properties and public spaces.

Impact the Heritage Conservation Area: The height and modern tower design do not respect the Griffin legacy or the specific site-specific Development Control Plans (DCP) that were intended to limit height to AHD 97.49 (approx. 11m above Edinburgh Rd).

Tree Loss: I am concerned about the long-term viability of the mature trees on the southern boundary given the increased excavation required for four levels of basement parking.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain
The intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already a significant bottleneck. Increasing the residential density by nearly 400% (compared to the approved DA) will create an unmanageable increase in traffic volume. The proposed basement parking and increased delivery requirements for the retail component will lead to further congestion and safety risks for pedestrians in the village heart.

5. Loss of Commercial Vitality
The previous Quadrangle was a community hub. By prioritizing high-density residential towers, the proposal risks diminishing the "village" feel of the retail space. The community needs a functional, accessible local centre, not a high-density residential enclave that prioritizes developer profit over local amenity.

Conclusion
The 100 Edinburgh Road site deserves a design that celebrates Castlecrag’s unique history and environment. This SSD proposal does the opposite—it imposes an urban high-rise model onto a sensitive suburban bushland setting.

I urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form and require the developer to return to a scale consistent with the 2024 approval and the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan.

Sincerely,

I write to object to the proposed mixed-use development comprising two residential towers, approximately 150 apartments including 10 designated as affordable housing, retail space, basement parking, rooftop communal areas, and strata subdivision.

1. Incompatible scale and bulk
This site sits within one of Australia’s most important enclaves of early modernist architecture. The scale, bulk, and visual dominance of two towers up to 13 storeys are fundamentally incompatible with this context.

2. Loss of architectural character
This area was designed with a clear idea in mind. Buildings should sit within the landscape, not dominate it. The natural shape of the land, the trees, and the bush setting are part of the design. The buildings are kept to a human scale and feel connected to their surroundings. This approach, associated with planners such as Walter Burley Griffin, is what gives the area its distinctive character and underpins its importance as a rare and nationally significant part of Australia’s architectural and cultural history.

3. Detracts from beauty and cultural significance
The proposed development departs from these principles. Its height and bulk will overwhelm the area. It will detract from the beauty of this place and from its cultural significance. This is not just a local issue. This area represents something unique in Australian architectural history, and once it is changed in this way, it cannot be restored.

4. Overdevelopment of the site
The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. The height and density exceed what is appropriate for this setting. It will be highly visible and will disrupt the existing scale of the area.

5. Lack of public transport
I am also concerned about the location of such a dense development in an area with limited public transport. Developments of this scale require strong, accessible transport links to function sustainably. In this case, public transport access is limited, traffic demand will increase, and residents will rely heavily on private vehicles. This outcome conflicts with sound urban planning and environmental goals.

6. Minimal affordable housing benefit
The inclusion of 10 affordable housing units within a 150-apartment development is minimal and does not reflect the intent of planning frameworks designed to increase access to housing for those in need. The proportion is too low to deliver meaningful impact, and the location lacks the transport connectivity required for equitable access to employment and services. The proposal appears to rely on planning mechanisms without delivering genuine public benefit.

7. Harmful precedent
Approval of this development will set a precedent for similar proposals and accelerate the erosion of a unique architectural and environmental asset. Short-term financial gain should not outweigh the protection of places that are part of Australia’s shared history and identity, or our responsibility to preserve them for future generations.

8. Inconsistent with planning intent
This proposal is inconsistent with the character, planning principles, and infrastructure capacity of the area. It fails to respect the architectural significance of the precinct, does not align with sustainable transport planning, and provides only a token contribution to affordable housing.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and urge that it be refused in its current form.

Objection Summary – Proposed Development (Willoughby LGA, Castlecrag)
I strongly object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road on the basis that it represents a gross overdevelopment of the site and is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning objectives and character of both the Willoughby Local Government Area and the unique suburb of Castlecrag.
The scale of this proposal is excessive and entirely out of context. A site that was previously approved for a modest three-storey development has now escalated into a proposal for two towers reaching up to 12 storeys, and up to 14 storeys at the rear. This dramatic increase in height and bulk is unreasonable and represents a clear overreach that will dominate and overwhelm the surrounding neighbourhood.
Castlecrag is renowned for its natural beauty, low-rise built form, and its integration with the surrounding bushland. This proposal fails completely to respect these defining qualities. Instead, it introduces a large, bulky, and visually intrusive development that will appear out of place and significantly detract from the character of the area. The design is overbearing and unattractive, and will permanently alter the visual identity of the suburb.
The proposal also raises serious concerns in relation to traffic and access. The existing road network, particularly with effectively limited access in and out of the area, is not capable of supporting a development of this scale. Increased traffic, congestion, and safety risks for residents and pedestrians are inevitable.
There appears to be a lack of genuine consideration for heritage and environmental impacts. The proposal risks loss of vegetation, increased urban heat, and further erosion of the natural landscape that defines Castlecrag. These impacts are inconsistent with responsible and sustainable planning.
The scale of the development—comprising approximately 150 apartments with only a minimal number classified as “affordable”—raises further concerns about the true community benefit of this proposal. It appears to prioritise high-density, high-end development outcomes over the needs and character of the existing community.
There will also be significant impacts on residential amenity, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased noise during both construction and ongoing use. These impacts are unacceptable for surrounding residents.
In addition, the proposal threatens the viability of existing local businesses and undermines the established community fabric. Developments of this scale risk replacing the unique, local character of the area with something far more generic and disconnected from the community.
The capacity of existing infrastructure has not been adequately addressed. Parking, drainage, and local services will all be placed under increased strain, with no clear or sufficient mitigation.
In summary, this proposal is excessive in scale, inappropriate in design, and inconsistent with the character and planning expectations of Castlecrag. It represents a significant departure from what was previously approved and introduces unacceptable impacts on residents, infrastructure, and the environment.
This development is not in the public interest and should be refused.

There are many things about the proposal that I object to.
Firstly, I do not see how it can be considered as meeting the SSID requirements given its location - the site is NOT within a kilometre of a transport hub and hence many of the new residents will have no way of getting to work/school other than private transport thereby adding to the significant congestion that currently occurs especially during morning and afternoon peak periods. This has all the hallmarks of being a public safety issue were there a need to evacuate the suburb due to some form of emergency. For example a bush fire - not unimaginable in a bush suburb. It’s hard enough currently getting in or out of the peninsula when there is an accident or breakdown on eastern valley way or alpha road. In fact, school sporting events at the nearby Shore Oval and Leisure centre already cause significant traffic congestion and driver frustration with increasing frequency.
A second concern I have is the scale of the proposed development. It will be a giant carbuncle on the ridge top. Every home in Castlecrag is going to feel overlooked and will loose its privacy. The properties closer to the site will loose their light and this will impact existing gardens and trees - not in a good way. It’s just too big and so out of keeping with the heritage standing of the Griffin conservation area which the site is adjacent to. It conflicts with the Griffins vision of the built landscape being subservient to nature and the natural contours of the land. And it goes against the WCC planning rules (a 2story maximum) so fiercely applied throughout the suburb. I have lived in Castlecrag for 27 years and my parents and grandparents (all now deceased) lived here since 1952 and there has been a lot of change in that time. Closing the local primary school was the last significant mistake the state government made. Please don’t let it make an even bigger one by allowing this oversized building to be built.
Regards
Vicki Craig