The proposed development is too big, both in its height and the number of units.
This is amplified by being located on one of the highest points in the suburb, thereby causing detrimental shadowing effects and visual blight.
It will be there for generations to come.
Will it be like Eddie Obeid's developments?
And be remembered by the public for a long time as Scully's Scourge or Minns' Monster?
Would it not be better to provide a development that leaves a positive legacy for current and future generations?
Thank you,
Lesley Naimo

Objection to Proposed SSD — 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

There is something instructive in how this application began. A thoughtful, low-rise design had already been approved for this site, one that respected the Griffin Conservation Area, retained nearly all its trees, and sat comfortably within the scale of the suburb. Then Conquest bought the site, looked at the approved plans, and decided the problem with them was insufficient profit. The proposed 11-storey towers now before you is the solution to that problem. Not a planning solution. A financial one.

That reframing matters, because the SSD Housing Pathway was never intended as a mechanism for private uplift. It was designed for suburbs with rail, metro, frequent buses and genuine transport capacity. Castlecrag has one road in and one road out, no train station within walking distance, and bus services that residents describe with the weary affection one reserves for a relative who is always late. Designating it a housing hub because a neighbourhood supermarket once operated on the site is not strategic planning. It is a policy applied without judgment.

Castlecrag is not precious about change. The Griffin philosophy was never about stasis, it was about buildings that defer to landscape, that sit below the canopy, that arrive in a suburb rather than announce themselves above it. Two 11-storey towers at the gateway of a low-rise heritage conservation area does not defer to anything. They dominate the ridge line, permanently alter the sense of arrival, and cast the kind of shadows that trees, which provide filtered, living light, do not.

Twenty-two trees will be removed, including eight high-value indigenous canopy trees. Deep soil zones will be reduced, meaning whatever is planted in their place will not, in any of our lifetimes, become equivalent. The EIS knows this, which is perhaps why it has not provided a Tree Management Plan. What you cannot measure, you need not defend.

The affordable housing offer, 6.67% for 15 years, at rents still beyond most moderate-income earners, is the fig leaf on an otherwise naked act of overdevelopment.

The Department is being asked to override local planning controls, discard an already-approved sympathetic design, and permanently alter one of Sydney's most architecturally significant suburbs. In exchange, the community receives a couple of towers it never asked for and housing it cannot afford.

That is not a trade-off. It is an imposition.

I urge the Department to refuse this application.

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD 90134958 at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag.
The proposal for two 11 storey towers, 150 dwellings, a floor space ratio of 4.2:1 and five basement levels constitutes an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site.
This scale bears no reasonable relationship to:
• the approved development outcome already granted for this land,
• the surrounding built form, which is overwhelmingly one to three storeys, or
• the established character of Castlecrag as a low rise, landscape dominated suburb.
The height increase from approximately 15.75m to nearly 49m represents a profound and unjustified departure from what has been considered appropriate for this site.
The proposal provides no credible transition to adjoining low density residential land or the nearby Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Instead, it introduces a visually dominant, skyline altering form that would permanently erode local character.
The proposal would also place significant additional pressure on already constrained local infrastructure, particularly the surrounding road network and public transport system. Roads such as Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way already experience congestion during peak periods, with queuing and delays common at key intersections and access points. The introduction of approximately 150 additional dwellings would materially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion, reducing safety, and impacting local accessibility.
In addition, the local bus network servicing Castlecrag is limited in both frequency and capacity, particularly outside peak periods. These services are already heavily relied upon by residents, including school commuters, and are not designed to accommodate a substantial uplift in population density. Increased demand would likely result in overcrowding, reduced service reliability, and longer wait times. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate how these impacts would be mitigated or supported by meaningful infrastructure improvements.
Approval would create a serious precedent, It would signal that established planning controls, approved envelopes, and community expectations can be overridden through the SSD process to facilitate extreme intensification.
For these reasons, the application is not in the public interest and should be refused.

I object to this project - its scale and impact will have significant negative impact on our community. I have detailed my concerns in the attached document.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 100 EDINBURGH RD CASTLECRAG

Our home is in the Conservation area on the block next to the development. We have original Burley Griffin designed homes just a few houses away from our home. Heritage groups visit our block to view these unique homes on a regular basis.

I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

LOSS OF ENJOYMENT/COMFORT/VISUAL DOMINANCE
This project will be visible from every west facing window of our home, including our private lounge/recreation area and back yard. Future residents at 100 Edinburgh Rd will be able to see right into our home, bedroom and yard. Our home will require extra heating in winter and spring months because of the long shadow (mentioned later) cast by the huge buildings. The bushland aesthetic and character of the suburb will be erased for our home as the proposed large buildings will be visible from every west facing room and recreational space.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the scale and bulk of the project to a more modest size to lower the visual and other impacts to our home.

OVERSCALE
The project scale is overwhelmingly tall and will dominate the landscape. It will sit well above any future treeline and overwhelm surrounding houses and shops. At the top of the hill it will be visible to many hundreds of houses and buildings with a window or recreation space facing it.

I urge the Minns Government to insist that the developer brings down the height so that it sits within the landscape, not dominating it.

INCREASED SHADOW
Our home at 128 Edinburgh Rd will be in afternoon shadow from the huge bulk of this development in winter/spring, blocking our light and requiring extra heating in the afternoon/early evening. It will spoil our comfort both inside and in the outdoor area and garden, and increase household costs for a large period of the year.

I urge the Minns Government to require the developer to lower the scale, bulk and height of the project so that it doesn’t raise the cost of heating in our home or cut the light and sun in the afternoon and evening to our home and yard.

LOSS OF HERITAGE
The project sits at the entrance to a unique bushland suburb designed by world renowned architects. It is next to two heritage areas; the Griffin Centre and the Conservation area, which are visited regularly by history and heritage groups. We have no footpaths, no fences, no garages and large green space limitations among other planning requirements to preserve the unique features of this suburb. The development is completely out of character with its bulk, dominance, and there is a lack of an architectural design link to the environment or its unique architectural heritage.

I urge the Minns Government to insist the developer redesign the project to a modest scale in keeping with the Burley Griffin ethos, which is to be “subordinate” to the landscape. I urge the Minns Government to require the developer to submit a design that ties in thematically with the Burley Griffin design aesthetic, and to the unique bushland ridgetop setting.

TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS
Living as close to the development as we do, I am concerned about traffic safety. With one main road into the suburb, Edinburgh Rd is already choked at peak times with long queues to exit the suburb. With so many luxury units proposed at the entry to the suburb, extra cars from the units would add to the traffic density and increase queuing at peak times. It is already difficult to exit our home by car at peak times. I am concerned about the safety of exiting our home and the suburb, especially in an emergency.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the number of units in the proposal to lower the impact to the traffic at this already busy intersection on the grounds of traffic safety, and to consider the impacts to traffic especially during emergencies.


NOT A TRANSPORT HUB OR TOWN CENTRE
The site is too far from a town centre or train station to justify such a large-scale development. It is more than 2 km to Chatswood or Crows Nest train stations, and public transport to those centres is impractical and infrequent. It is more than 800 metres to Northbridge shopping precinct. Buses from this intersection are scarce during the day, and often overcrowded or cancelled. To justify this scale on the grounds that this intersection is a functioning town centre is disingenuous at best. Future residents will have to use cars to access transport hubs and shopping centres.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the number of apartments in the development as the site does not act as a town centre or transport hub, and will require residents to use cars to access trains and shopping centres, thereby increasing traffic choking at this busy intersection. This will also put pressure on emergency services as there is only one main road in and out of the suburb.

I’m writing to support the SSDA for the former Quadrangle site. The proposal makes effective use of a long-underutilised brownfield location and thoughtfully combines commercial revitalisation with new housing. Activating the ground floor with retail while locating residential uses above reflects well-established mixed-use planning principles. Overall, the project offers clear public benefits, including the return of key services, the addition of affordable housing, and upgrades to the public domain, with impacts appropriately focused around a major transport hub.

I strongly object to the project as presented.

I am a resident of Northbridge for 14 years, with 6 of those living in central London. I therefore have both the perspective of living in the area immediately adjacent to Castlecrag as well as living in one of the busiest capital cities in the world along with the dense pollution that comes with that. At the outset I am not opposed to medium density housing and do not qualify for NIMBY status. I am a realist and pragmatic and it has been evident for some time that something needs to be done at Local, State and Federal levels to address the current housing crisis. However the submission by the Developer for 100 Edinburgh Rd will not serve any purpose other than to be a permeant scar on the horizon and landscape and line the pockets of said Developer. If approved by the NSW Government it will be a decision which I believe will have intended and unintended consequences and one that will be deeply regretted.

It is evident that the submission by the Developer has been lodged with complete disregard for current development rules, is grossly incompatible on a number of levels with the community and environment, will be an eyesore on the ridge line, and if it is allowed to proceed, will cause irreparable harm and I suggest the Governmentwill regret the decision to allow it to proceed in this current social and political setting.

I highlight some key points below

- the site is clearly OUTSIDE the designated area for LMR and is therefore NOT eligible for the associated height and density benefits proposed . Critically they have seized upon the Northbridge scenario which is a designated growth centre to seek to justify the proposed development. The development fails at the first hurdle.
- the site is NOT serviced by train or metro only buses ,which based on real experience are irregular and infrequent.
- the height, scale and bulk of the proposed development does not comply with the current zoning and statutory controls. What is proposed is in flagrant disregard and dismissive of the E1 Local Centre standards in place and in turn the expectations of the Willoughby Council and community
- the nearest buildings that are of the same height proposed 13-15 levels, are located in Chatswood, St Leonards, Crows Nest and North Sydney. All of those suburbs are serviced by rail and the metro and have current zoning and statutory controls in place to consider and accommodate high rise developments such as this.
-At the moment this is a unicorn for Castlecrag. I suggest other suburbs will quickly find themselves in the same situation if it is approved as it will serve as a precedent which other developers will seize upon to justify other ill considered and unintended developments.
- the heritage significance of Castlecrag is well known. This development completely flies in the face of the long established, adopted and practiced philosophy of landscape integrated development in the area. The EIS has seemingly deliberately glossed over the heritage impacts or sought to obfuscate the obvious reality that this bulky high rise development will have on the gateway to Castlecrag
-increased traffic issues will obviously arise with the creation of 150 units and 376 car spaces , not just in the immediate vicinity but in the already congested arterial roads in and around Castlecrag, Northbridge and Willoughby. To state the obvious there is one road in and out of Castlecrag. The busy intersection with Eastern Valley Way is often gridlocked during weekly peak hours and on weekends particularly on Saturdays. The added volumes of people and cars will undoubtedly increase the risk of unsafe traffic behaviour, create rat running, and give rise to pedestrian safety concerns.
- Affordable housing is an important issue and needs to be addressed at a Local State and Federal level. This development allows for just 6.7% of units to be earmarked as affordable which is below policy expectations. Notwithstanding that, the high market rates for rental properties in the area ,even factoring in the marginal discounts will unlikely be affordable for low - medium income earners. The development is marketed as high end luxury which will come with the commensurate price tag - this will not assist first home buyers or those seeking affordable rental accommodation. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
- environmental impacts on the site insofar far as tree removal and overshadowing to numerous homes to the southern elevation is alarming. The reports are factually incorrect and inconsistent.
- there has been a distinct lack of genuine interaction and engagement with the community and none with the broader community ie Northbridge. The level of obfuscation, disregard, bordering on arrogance on the part of the developer is instructive and deeply concerning
- the loss of genuine community and public space is of significant concern. There will be no genuine community gathering space which if done well can be a real asset to large scale developments. The side walk next to commercial tenancies cafes, restaurants etc is not the same as a well considered, centrally and safely located designated community space . Again this lack of genuine consideration for by the Developer for the community is instructive .

In summary I object to this Development as it fails on so many levels - it does not comply with the current planning rules, it will create irreversible harm to the landscape, will be an eye sore, cause traffic and pedestrian chaos, won't service the community adequately, won't assist the housing crisis, and more concerning if approved it will set a precedent for other developers to do the same in every suburb in the Sydney Metropolitan area.

I therefore implore the Government to do the right thing and reject the Development Proposal of 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag in its current form.

I support additional housing options for Australians particularly younger Australians. Howver I find this proposal way out of proportion for the Castlecrag area which has limited car traffic options and is far away from any rail link. The proposed size of this development would so much larger than any other recent developments.
It also seems to ignore any heritage aspects of the area.
Lastly it alos apprears that it will be a high end developments o the price of the apartments will be way out of range for those that have limited housing options.

I write in strong support of the proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, from a commercial and retail leasing perspective.
This site represents the only genuine village core within Castlecrag. Its performance is critical to the delivery of local services and the overall functionality of the suburb. The current proposal provides a commercially viable pathway to achieving this outcome.

Public and Economic Benefit to the Area
The proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road delivers clear, tangible benefits to Castlecrag by addressing both existing gaps in local amenity and the long-term functionality of the village centre.
1. Strengthening the Local Village Core
This site already functions as the suburb’s focal point, but it lacks the scale and mix of uses required to operate as a true, self-sustaining village centre. The proposed development formalises and strengthens this role by introducing a critical mass of activity, ensuring the centre is consistently active and commercially viable.
2. Delivering Essential Local Services
The inclusion of appropriately scaled retail and service-based tenancies will provide day-to-day convenience for residents, reducing reliance on surrounding centres. This is particularly important for a suburb like Castlecrag, where access to local, walkable services is currently limited.
3. Supporting Local Businesses and Employment
The development creates a platform for small businesses and local operators to establish within the suburb. By aligning tenancy sizes and formats with proven demand, it increases the likelihood of long-term occupancy and stable trading conditions.
Importantly, the proposal will directly increase local employment opportunities across retail, hospitality, and service sectors. These are accessible, community-based jobs that support the local economy
4. Enhancing Daily Activation and Safety
A mix of residential and retail uses ensures the site is active throughout the day and into the evening. This increased activation improves passive surveillance, strengthens perceptions of safety, and contributes to a more engaged and usable public domain.
5. Aligning with the Local Lifestyle
The proposal responds directly to Castlecrag’s bushland character and outdoor-oriented community. By enabling retail and hospitality uses that integrate with outdoor spaces and informal gathering, the development reinforces—not detracts from—the suburb’s identity.
6. Reducing Travel and Supporting Walkability
By consolidating services within a central, accessible location, the development reduces the need for residents to travel the suburb for everyday needs. This supports a more walkable, sustainable local environment and reduces traffic pressure on surrounding roads.
7. Delivering a Sustainable Long-Term Outcome
Importantly, the proposal is not just well-designed—it is commercially viable. This ensures the centre will be occupied, maintained, and active over the long term. An under-scaled or compromised development would risk vacancy and underperformance, ultimately failing to deliver these same community benefits.
Conclusion
This application represents a commercially viable, strategically aligned, and site-appropriate outcome. It has been calibrated to meet both market demand and the unique characteristics of Castlecrag.
Council should be mindful that reducing or diluting the proposal carries real and lasting consequences—namely, the risk of underdevelopment, vacancy, and a failure to realise the site’s role as the suburb’s functional centre.
I strongly support the application in its current form and encourage Council to approve a scheme that delivers a sustainable, activated, and economically resilient village core.