Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed development at the corner of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way in Castlecrag.

I am also a student of Construction Management and Property at UNSW, so I have a strong interest in housing, development and how cities grow. I understand that Sydney has a housing shortage, and I agree that we need more housing so that people my age have a chance of living here in the future.

However, I don’t believe this proposal is the right development in the right place.

The size of the project is far beyond what is currently allowed on the site. The height limit is 9 metres, but this proposal is almost 49 metres tall. The amount of floor space is also much higher than what is permitted. From what I’ve learned in my studies, this isn’t a small change — it’s a very large jump that doesn’t follow the existing planning rules. Even the Council’s more recent plans for the site were much smaller than what is now being proposed.

It’s also concerning that the applicant hasn’t followed the usual process to justify these changes. Instead of properly working within the rules or applying to vary them, the proposal relies on a future rezoning that hasn’t actually been approved yet. To me, that doesn’t seem like the right way to approach development.

The references to the Housing SEPP also don’t seem to apply here. The site is too far from the nearest town centre to qualify for those provisions, and the application itself says this. It also mentions that another option, which would have required more affordable housing, was rejected because it wasn’t considered feasible. This makes it seem like the focus is more on maximising the size of the development rather than delivering the type of housing that is most needed.

Another major issue is the location. The site is right next to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area and the Griffin Centre, which are important parts of Castlecrag’s history. Castlecrag was designed to fit in with the natural landscape, with low-scale buildings that don’t dominate their surroundings. That’s what makes the area special.

Even the applicant’s own heritage report admits that the building will be much larger than the surrounding homes and will stand out. It also says that the design can’t really match the style of the area because of how big it is, and that there will be impacts like overshadowing. The site is also at a key entry point into the heritage area, which means the building will be very noticeable. To me, this shows that the development just doesn’t fit the character of the area.

There are also serious concerns about traffic and transport. The intersection at Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already very congested, especially during peak times, and the application itself says it is operating beyond capacity. What is particularly concerning is that the traffic modelling used isn’t reliable under these conditions, which means there is no clear understanding of how much worse things will get.

Public transport is an even bigger concern for me personally. As a student travelling to university and often to part-time work, I rely on buses to get into the city and connect to other transport. These services are already limited, not very frequent, and often full during peak hours. It is common to have to wait for two or even three buses before being able to get on, especially in the morning. This makes it difficult to get to university classes or work on time, even when leaving early.

The site is not close to a train station, and there are no high-frequency transport options nearby. This means that most new residents will also rely on buses or cars. Adding a large number of new residents without improving public transport will put even more pressure on a system that is already struggling. For people like me, this doesn’t just mean inconvenience — it affects our ability to reliably get to university, attend classes, and maintain part-time jobs.

The proposal also doesn’t properly consider the impact of other developments nearby. There has already been a lot of new housing built in the Willoughby area, and this is putting pressure on roads, transport and services. Looking at this project on its own doesn’t show the full picture.

I believe we need more housing in Sydney, and as someone studying this field, I want to see development done properly. But that doesn’t mean building large developments anywhere. They need to be in the right locations, with the right infrastructure, and in a way that respects important areas like Castlecrag.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the application be refused.

Yours faithfully,
Local Resident

I strongly support the proposed residential and retail project in Castlecrag, particularly for what it means for local businesses.

Village businesses rely on regular foot traffic. Right now, the lack of modern apartment living limits the number of people close enough to support shops, cafés and services day to day.

More well-designed homes in the village means more locals walking past shopfronts, spending locally, and keeping the village active throughout the week. It also helps long-term residents downsize without leaving the area, keeping both people and spending power in Castlecrag.

This project will help keep the village commercially viable, lively, and sustainable for the long term.

Thanks for considering my view.

The proposed buildings are completely out of line with the character of the neighbourhood. Even as someone who does not live in Castlecrag, I do not wish to see another Sydney resident suffer from such atrocity in their neighbourhood. There has been no thought (and certainly no care) put into the impact such an eyesore will have on house prices on areas where it’s visible. Having people in that tower looking down into people’s backyards is an intrusion into privacy. And there’s been no thought on the burden of the mass of residents on the surrounding area. I strongly oppose this ugly development proposed for Castlecrag.

For all of the reasons below I object to the development application as made.

1. Incompatible with the unique architectural heritage of the area
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.

The benefits of the project in terms of units does not justify the impacts and detraction from a unique Sydney suburb.

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.

I strongly object to the proposed development.
The building height is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding low-density character of Castlecrag. The scale of the development will result in significant overshadowing, reducing access to natural sunlight for neighbouring properties and impacting residential amenity.
In addition, the increase in population density will place substantial pressure on local traffic and parking, which are already constrained in the area. The existing road network is not designed to accommodate such an increase.
Furthermore, the proposal does not respect or align with the established character and heritage values of Castlecrag, which is known for its unique architectural identity and natural environment.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused.

The project grossly exceeds Willoughby Council’s adopted master planning for the site.
The project is detrimental to the character of the adjacent Griffin Conservation Area.
Public transport to the site of the proposal is currently poor (3x half-hourly bus routes and 1x 2-hourly route) and therefore residents of the project will likely resort to private vehicle use. Development of this scale is more appropriate in areas that are serviced by high-frequency rapid transit (such as Chatswood).

I write to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-90134958) involving two residential towers of up to 11 storeys, approximately 150 apartments, retail premises including a supermarket, basement parking, and associated works.
My concern is not with redevelopment itself. A redevelopment proposal for this site was already approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel in December 2024 under DA-2024/13. That approved proposal was a significantly smaller and lower-scale mixed-use development comprising approximately 38 apartments and a form that was more consistent with the surrounding area.
The current proposal represents a dramatic escalation in height, density, and bulk compared with what was previously considered appropriate for the site.
It is difficult to understand how a site that was previously deemed suitable for a modest lower-rise development can now support towers of up to 11 storeys and approximately 150 apartments simply because the project has been reclassified as State Significant Development.
I am particularly concerned that the SSD pathway appears to have been used to bypass the existing local planning controls that previously limited development in this area to substantially lower heights. Those controls exist for a reason. They reflect the recognised character, heritage significance, environmental constraints, and infrastructure capacity of the precinct.
This area is widely recognised for its important architectural and landscape character associated with the Walter Burley Griffin planning philosophy. One of the defining features of the precinct is that buildings sit within the landscape rather than dominate it. The natural topography, vegetation, and low-scale built form are integral to its identity and significance.
The proposed towers are fundamentally inconsistent with those principles. Their scale and visual prominence would overwhelm the surrounding character and permanently alter the appearance of the area.
I am also concerned about the precedent this proposal would create. If this level of overdevelopment is permitted through the SSD process, it risks encouraging similar proposals that incrementally erode the heritage and environmental qualities of the precinct.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure, and transport capacity. This is not an area supported by high-capacity public transport appropriate for development of this scale. Increased density in locations without corresponding infrastructure planning will place additional pressure on local roads and services and increase reliance on private vehicles.
While the proposal includes affordable housing, this appears limited in proportion relative to the overall development. I also understand the affordable housing provisions apply only for a limited period, after which those dwellings may be sold on the open market. This raises legitimate questions as to whether the permanent impacts of the proposal are being justified by only a temporary public benefit.
In my view, the proposal is excessive, inconsistent with the established planning intent for the area, and incompatible with the recognised architectural and environmental significance of the precinct.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and respectfully request that it be refused in its current form.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. I grew up in Northbridge and remain closely connected to this community. My mother continues to live in the area, and I have a genuine and longstanding interest in its character, liveability, and future.
My objection is not reflexive resistance to development. It is a considered response to a proposal that is fundamentally out of scale, out of character, and out of step with the planning framework that governs this area.
1. Heritage and the Griffin Legacy
Castlecrag is not an ordinary suburban precinct. It was designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin as a deliberate integration of built form and natural landscape – one of the most significant examples of planned heritage environments in Australia. The Griffin vision is explicit: buildings should sit within the landscape, not dominate it.
This proposal does the opposite. An 11-plus storey tower at the gateway to the conservation area is not a sensitive response to heritage – it is a direct contradiction of it. The EIS minimises heritage impacts rather than genuinely assessing them, and the Design Review Panel has itself identified unresolved issues with bulk, massing, and heritage response. That the application has proceeded in this form is deeply concerning.
2. Incompatibility with Local Character and Built Form
The site sits adjacent to low-rise residential dwellings. There is no graduated transition in scale proposed – just an abrupt interface between the surrounding neighbourhood and a high-rise structure with no precedent in the locality. The proposal exceeds height limits that apply even in Northbridge Town Centre, which has a higher planning classification than Castlecrag. This is not a minor departure from character – it is a wholesale departure from it.
3. Planning Non-Compliance and Flawed Justification
The application relies on planning logic that simply does not apply here. Castlecrag is not an LMR-designated growth area, and the EIS incorrectly imports density uplift rationale from Northbridge, which is a designated growth centre. The site has no rail or metro access – it is 3 to 4 kilometres from the nearest station – meaning Transit Oriented Development principles cannot be legitimately invoked. Compliance metrics appear to have been manipulated, with retail and public space combined and rounded up to meet thresholds. This is not a borderline case requiring nuanced judgement; it is a proposal that does not meet the basic tests of its own planning framework.
4. Traffic and Infrastructure – A Network That Cannot Cope
The road network in and around Castlecrag is already operating beyond comfortable capacity. This proposal nearly doubles parking provision from 163 to 376 spaces, yet simultaneously claims reduced traffic impact – a conclusion that defies logic and directly contradicts prior modelling. No meaningful network mitigation is proposed.
But the deeper problem is public transport. The site is 3 to 4 kilometres from the nearest rail station. Bus services are infrequent and largely impractical outside weekday peaks. The EIS attempts to characterise the site as well-served by public transport – a claim so disconnected from reality that the project’s own construction planning documentation contradicts it, acknowledging poor transport access in that context while the planning justification claims the opposite. That internal contradiction alone should raise serious questions about the integrity of the assessment.
Transit Oriented Development principles exist precisely to ensure density is located where people can actually live without a car. This site fails that test entirely. Approving high-density residential development here does not reduce car dependence – it guarantees it, and pushes the consequences onto local streets not designed to absorb them. The likely result is increased rat-running through residential streets, and genuine pedestrian safety risks near local shops, schools, and crossings.
The infrastructure case for this development does not exist. It has been asserted, not demonstrated.
5. Community Impact and Loss of Village Character
Beyond the technical non-compliances, this proposal removes community facilities that were previously part of the design, replaces genuine public space with retail circulation, and offers affordable housing at a level (6.67%) that will deliver no real benefit to low or middle income households given local market rents. The community consultation process was inadequate, and by the developer’s own admission, no modifications were made in response to community feedback. This is not a development that gives anything meaningful back to the community it will permanently alter.
Conclusion
I am particularly concerned that this application is being advanced during a period of expanded State Significant Development pathways. That mechanism exists to facilitate projects of genuine state-wide benefit – not to override legitimate local planning frameworks in heritage-sensitive areas with inadequate infrastructure. Approving this proposal would set a precedent that undermines the integrity of planning controls across similar communities across NSW.
I urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form.

I support the proposed residential and retail development in Castlecrag as I believe it will be a positive change for the suburb and help improve activity within the local village area.
The project will provide more housing options for people at different stages of life, including older residents looking to downsize while remaining in the area. It will also help encourage further growth and investment within the suburb, supporting future retail, service, and logistics-related businesses over time.
Overall, I believe the development is a good opportunity to modernise the area and support the long-term growth of the community.

The proposed development is overwhelming, and it completely destroys the skyline the suburb is famous for. The residents and visitors to Castlecrag have appreciated its ambience and charm with its tree lined skyline especially at sunset. As a result of this project the traffic will increase to an unmanageable level and will lead to angst and division in our community.
I am also concerned about the change on flow of land and sea breeze this project may cause and the fact there seem to be no assessment conducted on this.