I'm objecting to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd for the following reasons;

1) The proposal for 12+ storeys is vastly out of scale compared to the surrounding developments. While the developer justifies 12+ storeys on the basis that there is potentially scope for up to 8 storeys further south on Eastern Valley Way these potential developments (none of which are approved/underdevelopment/completed) are all on ground much lower than 100 Edinburgh Rd. The overall height therefore vastly exceeds any potential developments in that area. It would stand as an isolated set of twin towers dominating the landscape from Castlecove, Northbridge, Willoughby, Willoughby East, Naremburn.

The proposed development is on a ridge line marking the high point of the suburb, it is the highest ridgeline to that point directly north of the Sydney CBD. From Centrepoint Tower looking north there would be three standout buildings, 100 Edinburgh Rd, Northern Beaches Hospital, Bahaí Temple. The height and bulk will create major overshadowing issues on a large area of Castlecrag to the south and east of the building.

2) The current bus service for Castlecrag is inadequate at current levels, there are queues in the morning peak, buses are in frequent, so much so that even though I'm only 400 metres from the bus stop at the corner of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way my partner walks 800m to Willoughby Road for the 120 service which is more frequent and no queues. There are no other public transport options for Castlecrag. I don't understand that a development of this size could be approved when it is not on a significant transport corridor. My understanding from all the coverage of the governments housing plans was that mass public transport was a requirement for this scale of development, buses, heavy rail, metro, all working together which is not the case here.

3) Existing traffic issues through the one main exit road from Castlecrag will be exacerbated with additional residential and shopping traffic. Inadequate public transport will only add to this as new residents will be forced to drive, if not to work directly, then to existing transport hubs such as Crows Nest, St Leonards, Chatswood. There are already large traffic queues in morning peak stretching back 400m into Castlecrag. The rat run through side streets to Sunnyside Crescent will only become busier and these streets are small suburban streets not designed for continuous through traffic.

4) The additional housing stock will all be high end relative to Sydney median prices, therefore even "affordable" housing will be out of reach for any Castlecrag Hospital nurses, Willoughby Firefighters, Willoughby school teachers or any other nearby services personnel. I can't see how this development has any direct impact providing additional housing stock for anyone in the Sydney median category. It simply seems a straight profit opportunity for the developer facilitated by legislation that seems too broad to force correctly targeted development.

5) Simply put the design itself is ugly and combined with scale as noted in 1) above it is reminiscent of the impact of that other planning failure Blues Point Tower. There has been no real attempt to create a livable environment. Again, the developer seems to be focused on purely profit by building two showbox structures with no consideration of community amenity.

6) I would draw attention to another recently completed development in Willoughby, Hyegrove (https://www.hyecorp.com.au/our-collection/heart-of-willoughby/) this is a 5 storey development, attractively designed, includes green spaces and community facilities. I'm not against development and welcome the current council approved plans for 100 Edinburgh Road and would not be against raising the height from its currently approved 3 storeys to 5 or possibly 6 storeys with 60-70 apartments. Even though this would still have detrimental impacts compared to the current approved DA they could be more easily lived with.

regarding the proposed development and specifically in regards to Appendix F
i note and confirm the below inconsistencies with the Sepp 2021 Schedule 9 and other inconsistencies with regard to the submission.
i object to the massing and height of the proposed development and the impact on the local community.
Sepp 2021 schedule 9
Non compliance with Principal 2 – has not achieved a scale, bulk and height
appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings
non compliance with principal 3 – has not achieved a high level of amenity for
residents and each apartment (30% of apartments or 45 apartments do not receive direct sunlight in Mid Winter), density is not appropriate to the site and its context
non compliance with principal 4 - design does not met the ventilation criteria and is incorrectly calculated. Design does not achieve the required sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents
non compliance with principal 5 - Good design recognises that landscape and buildings operate together as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in development with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. The scale and height of the building do not result in a integrated system.
Principal 8 non compliance – this proposed development will not provide for a mix or choice for different demographics as the development is marketed and will be priced to accommodate luxury demographic and not provide for housing choice.
Non compliance with principal 9. The proposed development does not achieve a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements,
The visual appearance of the proposed out of context apartment building does not respond to the existing or future local context.

The increased height and density are not consistent with the NSW Housing SEPP objectives and will not support greater housing diversity and affordability. The development is intended to be a luxury product with only 10 affordable classed products. 9 out of 10 will receive no sunlight in winter and will receive little to no sunlight in summer.

Through out of context massing and height , ensures that the new residential components sit completely out of context with the surrounding topography and fail to minimise visual impact from key viewpoints.

The site falls within the study area for Castlecrag and is not within a location for higher density and will not meet the anticipated urban strategy targets of the state and the proposed development is not supported by Willoughby City Council.

The current trend does not show that Castlecrag’s population is set to drastically increase over the next few years. There is no available or zoned appropriate land that would allow for castlecrags population to drastically increase and the population growth in fact is specifically being forecasted for St Leonards, Crows Nest and Chatswood. This statement within appendix F is misleading and incorrect.

The site size has been artificially increased via using E1 and RE1 zoning land to increase the size.

The site is located on a prominent ridge line and the height is out of context with the surrounding 3km of low rise development.

The site is surrounded by 1 and 2 storey dwellings The buildings within the local
centre are in the form of a traditional shop top housing with 1-2 storey mixed
use. The proposed development is completely out of context with the surrounding built form. The proposed redevelopment of the Quadrangle must retain a similar character
with a community focus and this proposal does not maintain a “similar character
with a community focus”

key view corridors will be impacted including middle harbour looking back to Castlecrag. The scale and height of the proposed development will be visible from middle harbour.

Does not comply with Communal open space requirements of 3d, achieving only 21%
Does not comply 50% direct sunlight requirement.

Major non compliance with solar access requirements

I am a resident of Raeburn Avenue in Castlecrag and directly impacted by the proposed development given my proximity to the site and the fact that my street is connects Edinburgh Road and Sunnyside Crescent, the only entry and exit points to / from the Castlecrag peninsula. I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds of scale, traffic impact and misrepresentation of objectives and facts.
As a preamble, it is shameful that a development approved by Council and supported by the Castlecrag Community has been discarded for a new development, more than twice the scale, with limited (and arguably token) community consultation.
My objections:
1. The scale of the proposed development significantly exceeds any current or recent development in the area, including Northbridge, from which the development proposal appears to base its planning context and growth assumptions. Castlecrag carries a lower planning classification and higher heritage sensitivity than Northbridge given the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation Area. I would question whether the proposed development complies with the E1 Local Centre expectations.
2. The Traffic Impact Assessment is highly questionable. First, the whole assessment is based on traffic data from a single survey on Thursday 16th October 2025. A robust validation of the traffic volume baseline to inform the traffic assessment would have required multiple data points at least over different days of the week. My own observations as a user of the bus routes 205/206/207 to go to the city and back for work suggest that traffic on Monday-Wednesday (as well as the volume of people using the bus services) are typically higher that the Thursday-Friday period. I would also note that recent developments which are coming to completion on Easter Valley Way just south of the Edinburgh Crossing are going to add traffic volume in the vicinity. I do not recall this was factored in the traffic impact assessment. The analysis conducted by ptc. suggests a marginal increase in traffic due to the development with hardly any change to the Level of Service (LoS) rating. This is not credible considering the volume of dwellings and retail car spaces, and the fact that there will only be a single entry and exit point to and from the car park. My other concern is with regards to the volume of traffic and car parking which will spill over into the streets connecting Edinburgh Road and Sunnyside Crescent (Raeburn Avenue, Rutland Avenue). The models are again based on a single data point and failed to reflect that changes to the single entry / exit point from the development will impact both volumes and flows (e.g. it will be impossible to right turn from Raeburn Avenue into Edinburgh Road). I also note that Raeburn Avenue is a not designed for traffic flowing through the street. It has no footpath, limited line of sights given residential car parking on both sides and any material increase in traffic flow creates genuine safety risk. Finally, the submission is short and vague on mitigations: the developer seems content on government or council authorities to figure it out.
3. The submission states a number of objectives and cites provision of affordable housing as a key objective, yet the ratio of affordable housing to total housing is low (<7%). The statements made regarding the Community Consultation are frankly misleading. The submission refers to Community Survey and letterbox drops and emails issued to all residents. Well, I did not get any of these despite living in Raeburn Avenue and within 3-minute walking distance of the development site. I was only made aware of the Community Consultation sessions via the Castlecrag Progress Association, not via the development company.

On the basis of the above, I strongly object to this proposed development and I urge the relevant Government authority to do so.

The proposal is completely out of context for the area in every aspect possible. It does not visually align with the Castlecrag streetscape or appreciate the historical architecture of Walter Burley Griffin and history of the suburb, secondly there is the BLARINGLY obvious issue of MORE traffic congestion in the area, both private and public.
The planning is non-compliance and certainly not suitable for a small-scale village area, this is not a high density suitable area, I am not opposed to a low density development (such as the one recently completed in the Postern, Castlecrag).
The traffic impact this proposal is signifficant, the proposal of an additional 376 carspaces, let along traffic to go is completely unrealist in a small area. Edinburgh Road is 1 lane of traffic with Eastern Valley Way being 2 - how is this going to handle an additional amount of residential and commerical cars and pedestrians who will be using the area. This large increase in traffic to the area, both motor and pedestrian is certainly going to cause high risks to accidents with people trying to "Rat run" traffic lights, around corners/short cuts to beat the traffic, this is a highly populated area with a lot of young children, families and elderly who are not are mobile and choose to stay here due to the village feel. The public transport in the area is already struggling with buses, full, cancelled or not turning up, Buses are the only form of public transport within walking distance. We are not Chatswood with buses, metro and trains readily available to move commuters quickly and efficiantly.

This proposal is totally greedy and completely disrespectful to the community. It does not provide affordable housing or any benefit to the community, Castlecrag is not a high density area, this is the reason people move to Castlecrag, it is prided on beautiful bushland, nature and community and in one fell swoop you allow greedy developers to ruin the original propsal of LOW DENSITY just so they can line their pocked with "affordable housing".

Low density - within reason and keeping with the heritage, history and beauty of Castlecrag - more agreeable to the residents.
High density - does not belong in Castlecrag.

I support redevelopment as it contributes positively to the neighbourhood character

See attached submission

I am a 23 year old male in Castlecrag and I believe this development is what the suburb need to grow in the future. We need more great options for people my age to be able to live in.

I see value in new retail and housing options

As a longtime former resident of Castlecrag, I have a deep appreciation of the suburb’s natural beauty and maintain strong familial connections to the suburb.
Castlecrag is a small suburb with a single bus route that runs through it.
A project of this scale with destroy what is in effect a heritage suburb, designed by Walter Burley Griffin, of Canberra city fame. It will also have a significant impact on local native wildlife. Positioned at the top of the hill at the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road, it will tower over buildings everywhere in a 5km radius.
Moreover, the ostensible social/affordable housing benefits suggested by the proponents are minimal and will do nothing to address the housing shortage in NSW.
The Castlecrag community has negotiated with developers in good faith, but this has been taken advantage of in light of the state government’s allowance for an increase in density.
I am personally a strong believer in density as an answer to the housing crisis, but this does nothing to address this and will have untold consequences on the ecological menagerie that has been carefully protected for many decades, as well as scarring the beautiful landscape of the area. An in-person assessment of the site will indicate immediately how absurd a development of this scale is.
Nothing of this level of scale has been approved in the surrounding area, before taking into consideration the lack of amenity and transport necessary to accommodate a project of this size.
The proposed bill has no discernible value-add to the area and instead will do unspeakable damage to a historic suburb and native wildlife.
The developers have used underhanded means, with minimal community consultation, to seek SSD approval, and this behaviour should not be rewarded by the approval of a project that will cause such damage.
I urge in the strongest terms that the Department and HDA rejects the application of 100 Edinburgh Road in its current form.