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

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

My name is Frano Bacic, and I am a resident of Castlecrag since 2011. We have built our family home at 53 the bulwark Castlecrag, proudly following all council regulations to preserve and maintain the heritage perspective of Castlecrag. 5 years go I took my children to ACT to visit the national museum of Australia, there I proudly showed them the display of Castlecrag, which is the only Australian suburb displayed in the museum. I was really proud to see how the government of Australia recognise the suburb we call our home. 5 years after, I have to explain to my kids that 13 story tower will be built in the suburb that we bought in for its natural beauty and heritage aspect. I would really like to know if this development would go ahead, would the Australian government remove this display from the national museum as it clearly would make no sense to be there. Under NO circumstances should this development go ahead.

I am a resident of Raeburn Avenue, Castlecrag. My street connects Edinburgh Road directly to Sunnyside Crescent, which feeds onto Eastern Valley Way, the main arterial road for the area. The Edinburgh Road entry to Raeburn Avenue sits directly opposite the proposed vehicle exit from the development.
I OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION ON THREE GROUNDS:
1.) SCALE,
2.) TRAFFIC IMPACT, AND
3.) MISREPRESENTATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS.
1. Excessive Height and Scale
The developer's Design Verification Statement asserts that the proposal achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. That claim does not withstand scrutiny.
The street currently contains no buildings higher than two storeys. In the broader surrounding area, including Willoughby and Northbridge, no building exceeds six storeys. Northbridge carries a higher planning classification than Castlecrag, yet even its height limits are exceeded by this proposal. There is no existing or emerging character in this locality that could justify a development of this scale. The developer's own framing of "existing or desired future character" has no planning basis here.
The Design Verification Statement also relies on the application of Low to Medium Rise (LMR) and Infill Housing 30% provisions to justify additional height and density. The site is not within an LMR designated area and is not eligible for those bonuses. The EIS imports planning logic from designated growth centres that does not apply to this location. Castlecrag's E1 Local Centre zoning anticipates small-scale, village-based mixed use. It does not support high-rise intensification.
I urge the Department to refuse this application on the basis of non-compliance with local and regional height benchmarks and the misapplication of planning provisions that do not apply to this site.
2. Traffic Generation and Road Safety
The proposal increases on-site parking from 163 to 376 spaces: 204 residential car spaces, 172 retail car spaces, 21 motorcycle spaces and 2 loading bays. This represents a 130 per cent increase in vehicle capacity. The EIS claims this results in reduced traffic impacts. That conclusion is not credible.
The traffic assessment underpinning this proposal was conducted on a single day, 16 October 2025, covering only two time windows: 7am to 10am and 3pm to 4pm. A one-day snapshot across five hours is an insufficient basis for assessing the ongoing traffic impact of a development of this scale on a local road network.
Critically, the assessment's own findings note that the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road is already operating below desired standards during the morning peak. Despite this, it concludes that the development will not have any significant or unreasonable impact on the local road network. That conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented.
Edinburgh Road and the surrounding local street network are already operating at or near capacity. During peak periods, vehicle queues extend back past the Rutland Avenue roundabout and the Post Office shops. The claim that a development with 376 parking spaces will not be a main attractor of new vehicle trips is directly at odds with the parking provision it includes. A development that accommodates 204 resident vehicles and a retail car park of 172 spaces will inevitably generate substantial new vehicle movements.
My direct concern is Raeburn Avenue. Because my street connects Edinburgh Road to Sunnyside Crescent and onto Eastern Valley Way, it forms a viable rat-run for drivers seeking to avoid the Edinburgh Road traffic lights. Raeburn Avenue is a quiet local street not designed for through traffic. It has no footpath on one side, limited sight lines, and is used daily by children and local residents. A significant increase in cut-through traffic would create genuine safety risks that are not acknowledged anywhere in the EIS.
The developer's Design Verification Statement asserts that Principle 7, Safety, is satisfied because the design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. Safety cannot be confined to the boundaries of the development site. Raeburn Avenue, Sunnyside Crescent, and the connecting local streets are part of the public domain. The proposal has disregarded its obligation to the broader community in which it sits.
This point is compounded by the inadequacy of local bus services. As outlined below, the majority of routes serving this area operate at peak hours only, with limited or no weekend coverage. Residents of the proposed development will be car-dependent for the vast majority of their travel needs. Retail visitors, including those accessing the proposed supermarket, will similarly arrive predominantly by car. The traffic assessment does not account for either of these realities.
The traffic assessment is not a sound basis for approval. I urge the Department to refuse this application.
3. Misrepresentation of Public Transport Access
The EIS claims the site is well-served by public transport, describing routes 194, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 260 and 275 as mainly providing services between North Sydney and Chatswood. This is a misrepresentation. Routes 194, 205 and 206 do not serve either North Sydney or Chatswood. Routes 267 and 275 serve Chatswood but not North Sydney. The characterisation of the network is factually incorrect.
The site is located 3 to 4 kilometres from the nearest rail stations, making rail an impractical daily option for residents. The actual timetable for each cited route is as follows:
Route 203 — Four services to North Sydney between 06:30 and 08:30, Monday to Friday only, with peak-hour returns in the evening. No weekend service.
Routes 205 and 206 — Do not serve North Sydney or Chatswood. No weekend service. These routes serve the same corridor and should not be counted as separate services.
Route 207 — Half-hourly Monday to Saturday from 05:28 to 18:37, and hourly on Sundays. Serves North Sydney. This is the strongest service in the network.
Route 208 — One departure to North Sydney at 04:58, Monday to Friday, with no further service until 19:35. Infrequent on weekends. This is not a functional commuter service.
Route 209 — Peak hour only, Monday to Friday, between 7am and 9am. No weekend service.
Route 260 — Two morning services between 07:12 and 08:57 only. No service for the remainder of the day.
Route 267 — Half-hourly during peaks and mid-morning on weekdays, hourly at other times. Hourly on weekends. The only route providing consistent access to Chatswood.
Route 275 — Four services per day to Chatswood, running between 9am and 2pm on weekdays and Saturdays. No Sunday service.
Of the eight routes cited, only routes 207 and 267 provide a frequency and span of hours that could reasonably support daily travel needs. The remaining six routes are variously peak-only, morning-only, weekday-only, or limited to a handful of services per day.
Furthermore, the EIS's own construction planning documentation acknowledges inadequate transport access to the site, directly contradicting the planning justification submitted in support of this application. A transport network that cannot support car-free or low-car living is not a minor gap in the assessment. Combined with a 376-space car park, it points to a development that will place an unacceptable and unassessed burden on the local road network. I urge the Department to refuse this application.
Conclusion
This proposal fails on scale, traffic management, and transport access. The developer's own design principles claim compliance with standards of height, character and public safety that the evidence does not support. The traffic assessment is based on a single day of data, acknowledges existing network failure, and reaches conclusions that contradict the parking provision included in the proposal. The public transport network serving this location is materially weaker than the EIS represents.
The impacts are not hypothetical. They are specific, local, and significant for the residents of Raeburn Avenue and the broader Castlecrag community. I respectfully but firmly request that this application be refused.
Pauline Bernard
7 May 2026

I have been living in casltecrag for all my life, and to see this development be put in place is truely devastating and MUST not go ahead. It will ruin all elements of Castlecrag that all the community love so dearly including the atmosphere, greenery, quiet escape, and a close sense of home. This development can simply not go ahead. Protect casltecrag.

I am deeply concerned and upset that as a long time Castlecrag resident this proposed development is completely and utterly damaging to the intended suburb and environment that Walter Burley Griffin had in mind. The height of the proposed towers is excessive and simply unnecessary. I feel this entire project is driven by corporate greed.

* CONSERVATION
Castlecrag is recognised internationally as a unique example of architecture in harmony with the surrounding natural landscape.
Walter Burley Griffin was a visionary who could see the benefits his work would offer to both the residents and the environment.
For over 100years the homeowners and others have kept his vision alive, maintaining his houses, nurturing the local bushland while supporting and enjoying the village atmosphere.
The proposed development is massive,the scale and excessive height make the development totally unsympathetic to the village shops around it.
The size of the project requires removal of many trees which will be damaging to the fragile local environment by reducing shade and wildlife habitat.
WE SHOULD BE EMBRACING BURLEY GRIFFIN'S LEGACY AND LEARNING FROM IT, NOT ALLOWING IT TO BE DESTROYED BY GREED.

*TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT
The development is to be on the corner of an already very busy intersection.
There is no train station nearby and only limited bus services so the large number of residences would result in many more vehicles passing though the intersection.
MANY CHILDREN NEED TO CROSS THIS INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION TO GET TO AND FROM SCHOOL.

*PARKING
INADEQUATE

*HOUSING
The residences proposed are High End. The project will have no positive impact on the Housing Crisis as Castlecrag is an expensive area with high cost of living and high property prices so even the few proposed 'affordable' units will be beyond first home buyers and those on low to medium incomes.
NO POSITIVE IMPACT ON HOUSING CRISIS

IT APPEARS THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN A LACK OF INTEGRITY IN REGARD TO COMPLIANCE AND THE TRUE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPMENT, AS PROPOSED HERE, IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE.
WHAT A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT THIS WOULD BE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE AREA.

While I accept that suburbs such as Castlecrag need a range of housing - I do not think 2x 11 story apartments reflect in any way this need for a range of choices to help Castlecrag have a sustainable community.