Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Willoughby
,
New South Wales
Message
The increase in building height will impact of surrounding residents. Residents living on Southern side will be in darkness for most of year, more cars parked in surrounding streets. Extra cars in out of Castlecrag.
Nearest train station Chatswood is nearly 3.8 kilometres away.
Nearest train station Chatswood is nearly 3.8 kilometres away.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CASTLECRAG
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission — Objection to State Significant Development Proposal
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (former Quadrangle site)
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Resident of Castlecrag NSW 2068
Date: 21 April 2026
---
I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. I write as a resident of Castlecrag and as part of a young family with two small children who walk, play and travel through this village every day. The proposal, as exhibited, represents gross overdevelopment of a constrained suburban site and a wholly inappropriate use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway.
1. Inappropriate use of the HDA / SSD pathway
The HDA provisions were designed to accelerate well-located housing supply adjacent to adequate transport infrastructure and services. 100 Edinburgh Road fails that threshold on every objective measure:
•The site is not within walking distance of a heavy rail station, metro station, or light rail stop.
•Bus services along Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way are infrequent and cannot absorb the additional trip generation from 150 apartments.
•There is no planned transport upgrade to service the proposal within the relevant horizon.
Using the SSD pathway to bypass Willoughby Council’s LEP height and FSR controls — controls which were deliberately set through a proper Planning Proposal process only two years ago — sets a corrosive precedent. A 3x uplift from the recently approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey scheme to an 11-storey, 150-apartment tower is not “housing delivery”; it is a circumvention of legitimate local planning controls in a location the framework was never intended to capture.
2. Gross overdevelopment incompatible with the Griffin Conservation Area
The site sits within, and adjoins, the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation Area — a precinct of national and international heritage significance. An 11-storey tower of approximately 15,852 sqm GFA would:
•Dominate the low-rise, landscape-led character the Griffins deliberately designed.
•Be visible from most public vantage points in the suburb and across Middle Harbour.
•Irreversibly compromise the heritage values the WLEP and State Heritage listings exist to protect.
With at least 180 dwellings already approved, under construction or recently completed within 400 metres of the site, the cumulative impact on suburb character, infrastructure and services has not been properly considered.
3. Unacceptable impact on KU Castlecrag Preschool
KU Castlecrag Preschool on The Rampart sits immediately adjacent to the site. An 11-storey built form at this location would:
•Overshadow the preschool’s outdoor play areas for significant portions of the day, particularly in winter months when solar access is most critical for young children.
•Degrade the quiet, low-scale setting in which the centre currently operates.
•Impose years of construction noise, dust and vibration impact on a sensitive early-childhood use directly abutting the site.
Any solar access, acoustic and construction management modelling submitted by the proponent must be independently verified against KU Castlecrag’s actual play yards and learning spaces — not merely the property boundary.
4. Traffic and access — the site cannot absorb the additional load
Castlecrag is a peninsula with effectively one arterial feed (Eastern Valley Way) and one local collector (Edinburgh Road). The proposal will generate in the order of 200+ additional vehicle movements concentrated on these roads, on top of the already-approved 38-apartment scheme and the 180+ recently approved dwellings nearby.
Specific, unresolved issues include:
•Eastern Valley Way / Morotai Crescent intersection — already difficult and unsafe to navigate, with no traffic signals and poor sight lines. The existing intersection cannot accommodate the increased turning movements this development will generate, particularly during school peak times.
•No signalisation or intersection upgrade is proposed or funded as part of the SSD.
•Edinburgh Road is the subject of a proposed High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) and 40 km/h zone — objectives which are directly inconsistent with funnelling hundreds of additional daily vehicle movements through the village centre.
5. Pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate
Pedestrian footpaths along Eastern Valley Way — the primary walking route to the site from the northern and eastern parts of the suburb — are narrow, discontinuous in places, and not designed to handle the pedestrian volumes implied by a 150-apartment development with a supermarket anchor. There is no pedestrian infrastructure upgrade commensurate with the intensification proposed. This is a direct public safety concern, particularly for children walking to Castlecrag Montessori, KU Castlecrag, Willoughby Girls, and the local shops.
6. Architectural design does not exhibit design excellence
SSD approval is predicated on demonstrable design excellence. The exhibited scheme does not meet that test:
•The built form reads as a generic, value-engineered apartment block transplanted into a highly specific heritage landscape context.
•Materiality and articulation are inconsistent with the Griffin architectural language and the considered sandstone, timber and landscape-integrated character of the surrounding streetscape.
•The scheme looks cheap and commercially driven, not contextually designed.
•There is no evidence of a competitive design process, design review panel endorsement, or serious engagement with the Griffin Conservation Area DCP provisions.
The previously approved 3–5 storey FJC Studio scheme demonstrated what a contextually appropriate response looks like on this site. The current proposal is a substantial step backwards in design quality.
7. Basement and construction impact on adjoining properties
A basement sized to service 150 apartments plus retail and a full-line supermarket on a sloping, sandstone site of this scale will require extensive rock excavation immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, KU Castlecrag, and the public domain. Foreseeable impacts — which are consistently underestimated at DA stage on comparable sites — include:
•Structural risk to adjoining footings and retaining structures during excavation and shoring.
•Ground water interception and long-term dewatering impacts on surrounding properties and landscape.
•Rock-breaking noise and vibration over an extended construction period in a quiet residential setting.
•Heavy vehicle movements on roads (Edinburgh Road, Eastern Valley Way, The Rampart, The Postern) that were not designed for sustained construction traffic of this intensity.
A dilapidation, geotechnical, vibration and groundwater regime commensurate with the scale of excavation proposed has not been demonstrated.
Conclusion
The already-approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey mixed-use scheme is the correct response to this site — it delivers housing, renews the retail village, and respects the Griffin Conservation Area. The SSD proposal currently on exhibition is a fundamentally different project: it is a gross overdevelopment on an infrastructure-poor site, enabled by a pathway never intended for locations like Castlecrag, and it would cause unacceptable and irreversible impact on an adjoining preschool, the local road network, pedestrian safety, heritage character, and adjoining properties.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and, more broadly, reconsider the appropriateness of applying the SSD / HDA framework to sites that plainly do not meet its locational criteria.
We ask the DPHI State Significant Assessments team to genuinely consider this objection on its merits — not treat it as a tick-box exercise. The community has invested significant time and care in setting out substantive planning grounds, and those grounds deserve a substantive response. If this proposal is progressed in its current form, we will escalate the matter to our local State Member, the Minister for Planning, and Willoughby City Council, on the basis that it constitutes a gross misuse of the planning controls and the SSD / HDA framework.
Yours sincerely,
Morotai Crescent, Castlecrag NSW 2068
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (former Quadrangle site)
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Resident of Castlecrag NSW 2068
Date: 21 April 2026
---
I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. I write as a resident of Castlecrag and as part of a young family with two small children who walk, play and travel through this village every day. The proposal, as exhibited, represents gross overdevelopment of a constrained suburban site and a wholly inappropriate use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway.
1. Inappropriate use of the HDA / SSD pathway
The HDA provisions were designed to accelerate well-located housing supply adjacent to adequate transport infrastructure and services. 100 Edinburgh Road fails that threshold on every objective measure:
•The site is not within walking distance of a heavy rail station, metro station, or light rail stop.
•Bus services along Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way are infrequent and cannot absorb the additional trip generation from 150 apartments.
•There is no planned transport upgrade to service the proposal within the relevant horizon.
Using the SSD pathway to bypass Willoughby Council’s LEP height and FSR controls — controls which were deliberately set through a proper Planning Proposal process only two years ago — sets a corrosive precedent. A 3x uplift from the recently approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey scheme to an 11-storey, 150-apartment tower is not “housing delivery”; it is a circumvention of legitimate local planning controls in a location the framework was never intended to capture.
2. Gross overdevelopment incompatible with the Griffin Conservation Area
The site sits within, and adjoins, the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation Area — a precinct of national and international heritage significance. An 11-storey tower of approximately 15,852 sqm GFA would:
•Dominate the low-rise, landscape-led character the Griffins deliberately designed.
•Be visible from most public vantage points in the suburb and across Middle Harbour.
•Irreversibly compromise the heritage values the WLEP and State Heritage listings exist to protect.
With at least 180 dwellings already approved, under construction or recently completed within 400 metres of the site, the cumulative impact on suburb character, infrastructure and services has not been properly considered.
3. Unacceptable impact on KU Castlecrag Preschool
KU Castlecrag Preschool on The Rampart sits immediately adjacent to the site. An 11-storey built form at this location would:
•Overshadow the preschool’s outdoor play areas for significant portions of the day, particularly in winter months when solar access is most critical for young children.
•Degrade the quiet, low-scale setting in which the centre currently operates.
•Impose years of construction noise, dust and vibration impact on a sensitive early-childhood use directly abutting the site.
Any solar access, acoustic and construction management modelling submitted by the proponent must be independently verified against KU Castlecrag’s actual play yards and learning spaces — not merely the property boundary.
4. Traffic and access — the site cannot absorb the additional load
Castlecrag is a peninsula with effectively one arterial feed (Eastern Valley Way) and one local collector (Edinburgh Road). The proposal will generate in the order of 200+ additional vehicle movements concentrated on these roads, on top of the already-approved 38-apartment scheme and the 180+ recently approved dwellings nearby.
Specific, unresolved issues include:
•Eastern Valley Way / Morotai Crescent intersection — already difficult and unsafe to navigate, with no traffic signals and poor sight lines. The existing intersection cannot accommodate the increased turning movements this development will generate, particularly during school peak times.
•No signalisation or intersection upgrade is proposed or funded as part of the SSD.
•Edinburgh Road is the subject of a proposed High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) and 40 km/h zone — objectives which are directly inconsistent with funnelling hundreds of additional daily vehicle movements through the village centre.
5. Pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate
Pedestrian footpaths along Eastern Valley Way — the primary walking route to the site from the northern and eastern parts of the suburb — are narrow, discontinuous in places, and not designed to handle the pedestrian volumes implied by a 150-apartment development with a supermarket anchor. There is no pedestrian infrastructure upgrade commensurate with the intensification proposed. This is a direct public safety concern, particularly for children walking to Castlecrag Montessori, KU Castlecrag, Willoughby Girls, and the local shops.
6. Architectural design does not exhibit design excellence
SSD approval is predicated on demonstrable design excellence. The exhibited scheme does not meet that test:
•The built form reads as a generic, value-engineered apartment block transplanted into a highly specific heritage landscape context.
•Materiality and articulation are inconsistent with the Griffin architectural language and the considered sandstone, timber and landscape-integrated character of the surrounding streetscape.
•The scheme looks cheap and commercially driven, not contextually designed.
•There is no evidence of a competitive design process, design review panel endorsement, or serious engagement with the Griffin Conservation Area DCP provisions.
The previously approved 3–5 storey FJC Studio scheme demonstrated what a contextually appropriate response looks like on this site. The current proposal is a substantial step backwards in design quality.
7. Basement and construction impact on adjoining properties
A basement sized to service 150 apartments plus retail and a full-line supermarket on a sloping, sandstone site of this scale will require extensive rock excavation immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, KU Castlecrag, and the public domain. Foreseeable impacts — which are consistently underestimated at DA stage on comparable sites — include:
•Structural risk to adjoining footings and retaining structures during excavation and shoring.
•Ground water interception and long-term dewatering impacts on surrounding properties and landscape.
•Rock-breaking noise and vibration over an extended construction period in a quiet residential setting.
•Heavy vehicle movements on roads (Edinburgh Road, Eastern Valley Way, The Rampart, The Postern) that were not designed for sustained construction traffic of this intensity.
A dilapidation, geotechnical, vibration and groundwater regime commensurate with the scale of excavation proposed has not been demonstrated.
Conclusion
The already-approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey mixed-use scheme is the correct response to this site — it delivers housing, renews the retail village, and respects the Griffin Conservation Area. The SSD proposal currently on exhibition is a fundamentally different project: it is a gross overdevelopment on an infrastructure-poor site, enabled by a pathway never intended for locations like Castlecrag, and it would cause unacceptable and irreversible impact on an adjoining preschool, the local road network, pedestrian safety, heritage character, and adjoining properties.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and, more broadly, reconsider the appropriateness of applying the SSD / HDA framework to sites that plainly do not meet its locational criteria.
We ask the DPHI State Significant Assessments team to genuinely consider this objection on its merits — not treat it as a tick-box exercise. The community has invested significant time and care in setting out substantive planning grounds, and those grounds deserve a substantive response. If this proposal is progressed in its current form, we will escalate the matter to our local State Member, the Minister for Planning, and Willoughby City Council, on the basis that it constitutes a gross misuse of the planning controls and the SSD / HDA framework.
Yours sincerely,
Morotai Crescent, Castlecrag NSW 2068
Jill Newton
Object
Jill Newton
Object
CASTLECRAG
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the SSD project at 100 Edinburgh road Castlecrag for the reasons I've given in the attachment.
Attachments
ana melo
Object
ana melo
Object
CASTLECRAG
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.
I want to make clear that I am not opposed to development or increased housing in principle. Thoughtful and appropriately scaled development can benefit the community. However, this proposal is far too large for the existing infrastructure and transport capacity of Castlecrag.
The most significant concern is traffic congestion and access. Castlecrag already experiences serious traffic bottlenecks due to the suburb having only one or two practical exit routes. The proposed development is located directly at one of these existing bottlenecks, which will inevitably worsen congestion for residents every single day.
The traffic impacts presented in the developer’s submission do not reflect the lived reality of residents. It is difficult to believe that whoever prepared the report has any genuine understanding of daily transport conditions in Castlecrag. Anyone who regularly commutes from the suburb, particularly by bus, knows how limited and unreliable the current public transport options are.
Castlecrag has:
- No train services
- No metro access
- Very limited bus frequency outside peak periods
- Even fewer services on weekends
Residents are already heavily dependent on private vehicles because public transport is inadequate. Increasing density on this scale without first improving transport infrastructure will place unsustainable pressure on local roads and significantly reduce residents’ quality of life.
The proposal also references “wide footpaths” and walkability. This is misleading. Footpaths only exist along the main road, while much of the suburb has little or no pedestrian infrastructure at all. The area is not designed to support the level of increased pedestrian activity that this development would generate.
There is currently no supporting infrastructure to justify a development of this scale. Roads, transport services, and pedestrian access are already insufficient for the existing population. Approving this project in its current form would negatively affect the entire community’s daily life for many years to come.
I urge you to reject the proposal in its current form and instead consider developments that are appropriately scaled to the realities of Castlecrag’s infrastructure and transport limitations.
I want to make clear that I am not opposed to development or increased housing in principle. Thoughtful and appropriately scaled development can benefit the community. However, this proposal is far too large for the existing infrastructure and transport capacity of Castlecrag.
The most significant concern is traffic congestion and access. Castlecrag already experiences serious traffic bottlenecks due to the suburb having only one or two practical exit routes. The proposed development is located directly at one of these existing bottlenecks, which will inevitably worsen congestion for residents every single day.
The traffic impacts presented in the developer’s submission do not reflect the lived reality of residents. It is difficult to believe that whoever prepared the report has any genuine understanding of daily transport conditions in Castlecrag. Anyone who regularly commutes from the suburb, particularly by bus, knows how limited and unreliable the current public transport options are.
Castlecrag has:
- No train services
- No metro access
- Very limited bus frequency outside peak periods
- Even fewer services on weekends
Residents are already heavily dependent on private vehicles because public transport is inadequate. Increasing density on this scale without first improving transport infrastructure will place unsustainable pressure on local roads and significantly reduce residents’ quality of life.
The proposal also references “wide footpaths” and walkability. This is misleading. Footpaths only exist along the main road, while much of the suburb has little or no pedestrian infrastructure at all. The area is not designed to support the level of increased pedestrian activity that this development would generate.
There is currently no supporting infrastructure to justify a development of this scale. Roads, transport services, and pedestrian access are already insufficient for the existing population. Approving this project in its current form would negatively affect the entire community’s daily life for many years to come.
I urge you to reject the proposal in its current form and instead consider developments that are appropriately scaled to the realities of Castlecrag’s infrastructure and transport limitations.
Ann Bottrell
Object
Ann Bottrell
Object
Petersham
,
New South Wales
Message
The multi story proposal is overbearing and disruptive to the significant Heritage value of the castlecrag suburb designed by internationally, celebrated architects, Marion and Walter Burleigh Griffin. The layout and integration of Castlecrag with the Australian bush setting is unique and does not exist anywhere else in the world. The cookie cutter Multi story proposal bears no reference to the heritage Character of the site and could be located in hundreds of alternative locations in Sydney. On its own, it makes a negligible contribution to the housing crisis and yet would have major irreversible and detrimental impacts on the precious heritage location and buildings.
Benjamin Churcher
Object
Benjamin Churcher
Object
CRESTWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
The development is not suitable for the urban characteristics of Castlecrag. It is too dominating, has an uninspired architectural form, and the scale is too large at the entry to a conservation area.
Sally Penfold
Object
Sally Penfold
Object
CASTLECRAG
,
New South Wales
Message
Please find attached file, an objection to the development at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag NSW 2068 with supporting reasons.
Kind regards,
Sally Penfold
0488 126 333
Kind regards,
Sally Penfold
0488 126 333
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Castlecrag
,
New South Wales
Message
I’ve grown up living in Castlecrag and am extremely disappointed to see the current proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road. Development of the site is very important but this oversized proposal is far too big and cumbersome for the area. The proposed 150 units cannot be supported by the current infrastructure. Traffic is already at a peak at the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way making exiting and entering the peninsular at peak times nigh impossible. There are limited buses and no other public transport options. Emergency vehicle access is already compromised and will be more so causing a serious safety concern for timely arrival of fire and Ambulance or police services if the need arose.
The area butts into the Griffen Conservation area which is recognised throughout the world. This development has no respect for this and has not taken into account any of the vision that the designers of this historical suburb had envisaged. Community consultation has been minimal and no thought or conversation has occurred with the people that already live in the area.
For these reasons (and many more) I cannot support this proposal in its current form
The area butts into the Griffen Conservation area which is recognised throughout the world. This development has no respect for this and has not taken into account any of the vision that the designers of this historical suburb had envisaged. Community consultation has been minimal and no thought or conversation has occurred with the people that already live in the area.
For these reasons (and many more) I cannot support this proposal in its current form