Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

There is already an approved development for this site (DA-2024/13) which demonstrates a contextually appropriate outcome. That scheme adopts a scale of approximately three to five storeys and delivers a mixed-use result that integrates with the surrounding environment. It provides clear evidence that additional housing can be achieved on this site without excessive height or bulk, and without compromising the character of the locality.

By comparison, the current proposal represents a substantial and unjustified increase in scale, extending to between twelve and fourteen storeys. This level of height and mass is inconsistent with the existing built form and would dominate the surrounding area. Rather than contributing to the streetscape, it would overwhelm it, resulting in a built form outcome that is incompatible with the established character of the suburb.

The approved development pathway also confirms that housing delivery on this site can occur while maintaining and respecting local heritage values. This is particularly significant given the site’s immediate relationship to the Griffin Conservation Area, which holds recognised and widely acknowledged significance. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Griffin planning philosophy, which is founded on buildings being integrated with, and subordinate to, the natural environment. The scale and visual prominence of the proposal directly conflict with this principle.

The proposal does not align with applicable planning controls relating to height and scale. Existing controls, particularly in relation to Edinburgh Road, anticipate a much lower built form, generally in the order of three storeys. The extent to which the proposal exceeds these controls is material and cannot be reconciled as a minor variation. It represents a clear departure from the intended planning outcome for the site.

From a strategic planning perspective, the location does not support development of this intensity. Castlecrag is not identified as an area for significant housing growth under either state or local planning strategies. The site is not within a transport-oriented development zone and is located more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre. As such, it does not meet the criteria typically applied to justify higher-density outcomes.

Access to public transport is limited, particularly outside peak periods, and there is no proximate rail infrastructure. In this context, the proposal would increase reliance on private vehicles, placing additional pressure on the local road network. This introduces a foreseeable risk of increased congestion and constrained access, including for emergency services.

More broadly, the proposal is not consistent with Council’s established planning framework or its approach to heritage conservation. The scale, form, and intensity of the development are not supported by the applicable controls or the strategic intent that underpins them. Approval of a development of this magnitude would represent a significant inconsistency in the application of those controls.

There is also a material precedent risk. Approval would signal that developments of a substantially greater scale than currently permitted may be acceptable in low-rise suburban environments. This would undermine the integrity and predictability of the planning framework and create pressure for similar outcomes on comparable sites.

Finally, while the proposal is positioned in the context of housing supply, it does not demonstrably contribute to housing affordability. The nature and scale of the development indicate a higher-end product offering, limiting its relevance to broader housing accessibility objectives.

Taken together, the proposal is inconsistent with established planning controls, strategic intent, and the defining characteristics of the locality. The scale of the departure is significant, and the resulting impact on character and heritage would be permanent and irreversible.

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: Submission of Objection - SSD-90134958 – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objection to the State Significant Development Application (SSDA) SSD-90134958 for the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

The scale and bulk of the proposed development are entirely inappropriate for this site. The subject land is not zoned to accommodate a development of this magnitude, and the proposal fails to align with established NSW Government Planning Policies. Specifically, this site is not designated as a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site, nor does it fall under the provisions of the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy. Forcing this level of density onto a site that lacks the requisite strategic planning overlay is a fundamental breach of planning principles.

The current proposal represents a significant overreach that undermines the integrity of the NSW planning system. If a development of this height and density is approved in direct contradiction to local zoning and strategic frameworks, it would signal that planning controls are effectively redundant. Approval of this SSDA would illustrate that there is no longer a need for a consistent planning system, as it would allow developers to bypass established community and council standards at will.

Furthermore, the proposal will have a devastating impact on the Castlecrag Heritage Conservation Area. Castlecrag is an internationally recognised estate, celebrated for the visionary work of architect Walter Burley Griffin. His "planning with nature" philosophy dictated that all built forms must be subordinate to the landscape, preserving the rocky outcrops and native canopy that define the suburb’s character. The proposed 11-storey towers would dominate the ridgeline, destroying the delicate balance between the built environment and the natural landscape that Griffin fought to protect.

I wish to state my support for the previously approved Development Application (DA-2024/13). That approval provided a responsible three-storey shop-top housing model that respected the local tree line and stayed within the established principles of Castlecrag's height limits. The current SSDA is in no way reflective of that original approval; instead, it seeks to triple the height and vastly increase the bulk, ignoring the sensitive context of the "Gateway" to Castlecrag.

Finally, I believe the SSDA application is fundamentally misleading. The true environmental and heritage impacts have not been clearly articulated in the applicant's documentation. The devastating reality of this proposal has been well-documented by eminent professionals and heritage experts who have publicly voiced their concerns regarding the irreversible damage this development would cause. I urge the Department to reject this application and uphold the integrity of the Castlecrag Heritage Conservation Area.

The proposed project falls outside the intended building scope and involves a bulky 12-storey structure, while the surrounding buildings are only three storeys high. This significant height and scale mismatch is likely to result in substantial negative environmental impacts.

In addition, the development is located on the corner of a busy road that serves as the only exit route for local residents. This is expected to cause increased traffic congestion and significantly disrupt the daily lives of people in the area.

In addition, there are insufficient service shops and dining options in the area, making it inconvenient and less suitable for residents.

I object to the project on 2 major grounds. These are:
The project will create significant traffic issues for the community as well as transit through the intersection. 150 units one a small footprint serviced by a bus rather than rail does not make sense.
The project is out of context with the look, see and feel of the Castlecrag, and surrounding 2068 suburbs. The original DA at 3 - 5 stories makes sense and provides the sort of development that will be sympathetic with the area and provide needed alternative accommodation to stand alone homes and as well provide a sensible increase of density that can be replicated in non rail serviced parts of the community.

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

I speak as someone who has just spent over two years in the trenches of the Sydney property market. I have attended hundreds of inspections and been outbid at dozens of auctions. I finally secured an apartment recently, but only after a grueling struggle.

I am a staunch advocate for increasing housing supply—I know firsthand how desperate the need is. However, having spent two years analysing every new development in this corridor, I can say with certainty: this is not the housing we need.

1. A Misuse of the "Supply" Argument
During my two-year search, I saw many "luxury" developments like this one. They don't help people like me.

Pricing Out the Market: This 12–14 storey proposal isn't designed to be accessible. By cramming 150 high-end units into towers, the developer is targeting offshore investors and downsizing "wealth-lockers," not the young professionals or families trying to get a foot in the door.

The "Affordability" Fig Leaf: Providing only 10 affordable units out of 150 is insulting to those of us who have struggled to buy. It’s a transparent attempt to use the SSD (State Significant Development) pathway to bypass local heritage rules without providing a meaningful social return.

2. Density Without the "Transport"
As someone who prioritised being near a commute, I find this location baffling for a high-rise.

This site is 4km from the nearest train or Metro.

Density works when it's built on top of transport hubs. Building 150 apartments here just means 200+ more cars fighting for space on Eastern Valley Way every morning.

3. Supply Should Not Mean the Destruction of Heritage

The previously approved 3–5 storey plan (DA-2024/13) was the perfect compromise. It offered 38 new homes in a way that respected the Griffin legacy.

Dumping twin 14-storey towers into a low-rise heritage village doesn't "fix" the housing crisis; it just destroys the very reason people want to live in Sydney’s unique suburbs in the first place.

4. Rewarding Bad-Faith Planning
As a buyer, it is incredibly frustrating to see a developer buy a site with an approved, sensible plan, and then use a government loophole to try and triple the size. This SSD proposal feels like an opportunistic "land grab" that ignores the years of community work that went into the original, environmentally conscious design.

Conclusion
I want more apartments in Sydney. I want my friends to be able to buy homes without it taking two years of their lives. But we need smart density, not greedy density.

This proposal is a massive overreach that ignores transport realities and environmental and heritage protections. I urge the Department to reject this SSD and hold the developer to the scale of the original, community-supported 3–5 storey approval.

Sincerely,
An exhausted first homebuyer

I am one of 5 generations of my family to have lived in this suburb. We are not all old nor are we rich. I have personally been a union member all my working life
I strongly OBJECT to this proposal for the following reasons :
It is too big and too high and too bulky and is completely inappropriate for this site.
It destroys the unique, internationally renowned heritage precinct of W. B Griffin, who as you must know, designed our nation’s capital and is a pioneer of modern architecture. Also, as you must know, his design and layout respect the natural landscape which this development does NOT.
CASTLECRAG is a uniquely designed community of world significance. Great cities are NOT created by trashing heritage.

NEXT it is inconceivable that anyone could believe this site is appropriate in respect of congestion and traffic chaos at the entrance of this peninsula suburb with one road in and out. There are two kindergartens, a school and a hospital and the suburb is in a bushfire zone. ALREADY peak hour traffic causes dangerous congestion at the intersection. It would be irresponsible for a government to allow such a huge development at this site. It is not near a train station or metro. There is already an approved scheme of 3 to 5 storeys with shops . The community has agreed to this. We are not NIMBIES. Moreover we have been told that Willoughby City Council has already exceeded its housing goals without this development being built.

The housing is advertised as luxury. Hard to see how it can be called affordable. I know from lived experience that nurses, teachers and other workers could not afford to buy one of these apartments. The development will not assist easy flow of goods and services around this city but it will just cause a huge bottleneck and also ruin a unique area that was called “Paradise on Earth “ by its founders

Dear Assessment Officer,
I am a resident of Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, and I write to formally object to the planning proposal submitted by developer Conquest for twin 12–14 storey luxury apartment towers at 100 Edinburgh Road. I reside on the same street and will be directly and materially affected by its impacts.
1. TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NOISE POLLUTION, AND LOSS OF STREET ACCESS
The proposal increases dwellings from 38 to approximately 150 — nearly four times the approved density. This will generate significant additional vehicle movements on Edinburgh Road during peak hours, creating chronic noise pollution from excessive honking, engine noise, and aggressive driving at the Edinburgh Road intersection. Existing residents will be unable to safely exit driveways, and residential amenity will degrade to levels incompatible with Castlecrag’s character as a quiet bushland suburb. Under NSW planning law, excessive traffic noise and amenity impacts are material planning considerations.
2. INADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSPORT — FAILURE FOR RESIDENTS AND SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
The site is more than 4km from the nearest train or metro station, served only by limited buses especially 205,206,209,194 with erratic availability.Adding 150 households will overwhelm existing bus capacity, leaving insufficient seating for commuters and school-age children. This forces residents — particularly parents — to rely on private vehicles for school runs and commuting, compounding traffic congestion on Edinburgh Road. This violates the Housing Delivery Authority’s stated objective of delivering homes “well-located, close to transport, amenities and services.” It creates a self-defeating cycle: insufficient public transport forces car dependency, which then generates the traffic congestion that makes Edinburgh Road unsafe and unliveable.
3. BREACH OF PREVIOUSLY AGREED PLANNING OUTCOME
A DA already exists for a 3–5 storey scheme developed through years of genuine community consultation. The Conquest proposal discards that entirely with no equivalent community process.
4. FAILURE TO MEET HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OBJECTIVES
Only 10 of 150 units are designated “affordable.” The remaining 140 are luxury apartments.
REQUEST
I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning reject the Conquest proposal and uphold the existing Development Approval.
Yours faithfully,
Badre

I am a long-term resident of Castlecrag and write to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road.

Having lived in the area for many years, I have a strong understanding of the local character, built form, and infrastructure constraints. My objection is based on the inappropriate use of the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway, as well as the scale, heritage impact, and traffic implications of the proposal.

⸻

1. Inappropriate Use of the State Significant Development Pathway

The use of the SSD pathway for this proposal is not appropriate and appears to be leveraged to enable a scale of development that would not otherwise be permissible under local planning controls.

The SSD framework, as outlined by the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, is intended for projects that deliver genuine state or regional significance, such as major infrastructure or developments with clearly defined strategic benefits.

This proposal does not meet that intent. It is fundamentally a site-specific residential and mixed-use development, with impacts that are overwhelmingly local in nature.

Importantly:
• The site is not within a transport-oriented development (TOD) zone
• It is not within easy walking distance of rail or metro infrastructure
• Public transport access is limited, particularly outside peak periods

Higher-density development is appropriately located in centres such as Chatswood, where it is supported by major transport infrastructure and strategic planning frameworks. Castlecrag does not share these characteristics, reinforcing that this proposal is not of state significance but rather a mislocated intensification of a local site.

Further, an approved development (DA-2024/13) already exists for this site. That proposal delivers a lower-scale (3–5 storey) mixed-use outcome that aligns with planning controls and respects the local environment.

This clearly demonstrates that:
• Housing can be delivered on this site without invoking SSD
• A compliant and appropriate development outcome is already achievable

The current proposal instead seeks to:
• Override established planning controls, including height limits of approximately 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road
• Introduce a scale of development that is not contemplated by local planning frameworks
• Use the SSD pathway to achieve an outcome that would not be supported under standard assessment

This represents a misapplication of the SSD process and risks setting a precedent for its use as a mechanism to bypass appropriate planning controls.

⸻

2. Scale and Height – Fundamentally Out of Character

The proposed development—at up to 13 storeys—is dramatically larger than both the approved scheme and the surrounding built form.

There are no comparable buildings of this height on Edinburgh Road or in the surrounding area. To my knowledge as a long-term resident, the existing and approved context is low-rise, generally around 3–5 storeys at most, and often significantly less.

Compared to the approved DA:
• The proposed building is substantially taller and bulkier
• It introduces a level of density and scale that is entirely out of keeping with the locality

This proposal would:
• Create a visually dominant structure that overwhelms its surroundings
• Be highly visible across a wide area, interrupting established sightlines and dominating the skyline
• Undermine established planning controls designed to maintain scale and character
• Set a precedent for high-rise development in low-rise suburban areas

The approved DA demonstrates that development can occur here in a way that is appropriate and contextual. This proposal represents an unjustified escalation in scale.

⸻

3. Cultural and Heritage Context of Castlecrag

Castlecrag is of exceptional cultural and planning significance, conceived by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin.

Their philosophy emphasised:
• Buildings that are integrated with and subservient to the natural environment
• A low-scale built form that respects topography and bushland
• A cohesive and considered planning approach

The site is located adjacent to the Griffin Conservation Area, a place of recognised heritage value.

The proposed development directly conflicts with this legacy:
• Its scale and bulk are incompatible with the Griffin philosophy
• It disrupts the relationship between built form and landscape
• It risks causing irreversible harm to the cultural and heritage character of the area

By contrast, the approved DA demonstrates that development can proceed without compromising these heritage values.

⸻

4. Traffic and Local Road Network Impacts

Local roads, including Edinburgh Road, already experience:
• Congestion during peak periods
• Limited capacity due to road width and layout
• Constrained intersections and access points

The proposed development will:
• Generate a significant increase in vehicle movements
• Further exacerbate congestion and delays
• Potentially restrict access for residents and emergency services

These are not speculative concerns—they reflect existing, observed conditions.

⸻

5. Limited Public Benefit

The proposal does include a component of affordable housing; however:
• The majority of the approximately 150 apartments are market housing
• The scale of the development and its impacts are substantial and permanent

The claimed public benefit should therefore be carefully weighed against the significant local impacts, particularly given the availability of a compliant, lower-scale approved development for the site.

⸻

Conclusion

In summary, I strongly object to this proposal on the basis that it:
• Represents an inappropriate and unjustified use of the State Significant Development pathway
• Seeks to override established planning controls and an already approved, appropriate development outcome
• Is grossly out of scale with the surrounding area
• Will cause significant and irreversible harm to the heritage and cultural character of Castlecrag
• Introduces density without the infrastructure to support it
• Will worsen traffic conditions and reduce accessibility
• Risks setting a precedent for further inappropriate high-rise development

I urge the consent authority to:
• Reject the proposal in its current form, or
• Require a substantial reduction in height and scale consistent with the approved DA and local planning framework

Castlecrag is a suburb of unique cultural, environmental, and planning significance. This proposal represents an unjustified and irreversible departure from those values.

I object to SSD-90134958 and respectfully ask that it be refused.
The planning system, at its best, is what protects places like Castlecrag from decisions that cannot be undone. You are the people who get to make that protection real. That is what this submission is asking of you.
Castlecrag is the Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin suburb. The whole point of the place is that buildings sit under the treetops, subordinate to the landscape, harmonious with the bushland. The Griffin Heritage Conservation Area is on the immediate boundary of this site. The Griffin Centre is next door. The applicant's own heritage report admits the site occupies "a gateway into the Conservation Area" and admits "visual contrast due to the scale disparity between the new building and the lower-scale heritage dwellings". A 13-storey, 48.96 metre tower at the gateway to the Griffin area is the kind of decision that, once made, cannot be reversed.
What worries me most is the traffic. The intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is the single, narrow signalised corner that the entire community uses to enter and leave Castlecrag. There is no other route. The applicant's own traffic consultant admits the intersection is at Level of Service F (the worst possible rating) in the morning peak, and admits, in the same report, that their traffic model "is not representative" at that level of service. In plain terms, they cannot quantify the impact of 150 new apartments and 376 car spaces on this intersection. They have said so themselves. The Department is being asked to approve a major development on the basis of a traffic assessment that the applicant has admitted cannot measure its own impact. I find it hard to imagine a clearer reason for the precautionary principle to apply.
There is more in the attachment. The proposal exceeds the LEP height by 5.4 times and the FSR by 4.2 times, with no clause 4.6 written request and only an un-gazetted "concurrent rezoning" report to lean on. Thirty per cent of the apartments will receive no winter sun, double the maximum permitted by the Apartment Design Guide. The applicant's own community survey found that only 2 of 66 residents had no major concerns.
I am asking you to refuse the application. If for any reason it cannot be refused at this stage, please refer it to the Independent Planning Commission so the community can put its case at a public hearing.
The Griffins built something extraordinary in Castlecrag. Please help us protect it.
Thank you for considering this submission.

I object to this project due to various reasons as stated below:
This particular development is grossly inappropriate for this particular suburb which is just a small peninsula and the height and bulk of 2 13-storey towers would really be out of scale in comparison to newly constructed dwellings around here of just 4-storey high.
Edinburgh Rd is the only road in and out of the suburb. Currently, specially in the mornings, we experience a long queue of cars getting out. With the hospital and surgery on the same street with ambulance vans, it will be congested with an addition of an estimated 350 vehicles from this development.
We only have few buses going to the city and a couple to Chatswood.
Castlecrag is a unique suburb and its historical value, landscape and design should be kept and maintained as a legacy to its reknown architects, Walter Burley and Marion Griffin who designed Canberra as well. This is the only suburb they designed world wide with its undulating landscape with native trees, shrubs and plants. With 2 imposing 13-storey towers at its gateway, these will really destroy the uniqueness, character and beauty of this internationally recognized example of "prairie style" architecture and civic designed community.
Currently, the streets are already heavily parked on. It will be chaotic specially with a proposed grocery.
In keeping with the environment, Council rarely allow cutting down our valuable trees. This development propose to increase removal of matured trees to 150%.
Also, our community and local council have been ignored, disregarded and bypassed by this development application. Conquest went straight to the State for approval.
The already approved 2024 DA of 3/5 storeys with 38 apartments would be most appropriate.
I humbly request your goodselves to take into consideration our concerns about this development.
Thank you for your attention and understanding.

This proposal will create increased traffic and congestion which would limit access for residents and emergency services. Our suburb currently does not have sufficient bus services. This large scale development proposal will make the public transport situation much worse. I support previously approved DA-2024/13. New proposal will adversely affect character and Griffin heritage of the area. This proposal has very few affordable units as compared to high price units.

Draft Objection Submission – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

To: Willoughby City CouncilRe: DA‑2024/13 – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. While I support appropriate and sustainable development within the area, this proposal is excessive in scale, incompatible with the character of Castlecrag, and poses significant environmental, transport, and amenity impacts that cannot be reasonably mitigated.

1. Excessive Height – 11 Storeys Completely Out of Character
Castlecrag is a low‑rise suburb with a strong landscape and heritage identity. An 11‑storey building is entirely inconsistent with the established built form, which is predominantly 1–3 storeys.
Such a height:
Dominates the natural ridgeline
Disrupts the visual character of the peninsula
Conflicts with the planning principles that have shaped Castlecrag for decades
Sets a dangerous precedent for future high‑rise development in a sensitive area
The proposed height is fundamentally incompatible with the suburb’s scale and character.

2. Overdevelopment – Excessive Number of Apartments
The number of apartments proposed is far beyond what the local infrastructure, road network, and public transport can support.
This density is inappropriate for a peninsula with:
No rail access
Limited bus capacity
A single road in and out
Environmentally sensitive bushland surrounds
A suburban street network not designed for high‑density living
The scale of the development is disproportionate to the site and the suburb.

3. Transport Limitations – No Rail, Overloaded Buses
Castlecrag is not serviced by rail, and the existing bus services to the city are already at capacity during peak hours.
Adding a large number of new residents will:
Overwhelm already full buses
Increase reliance on private vehicles
Exacerbate congestion on Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way
Reduce public transport reliability for existing residents
The transport network simply cannot absorb the additional demand.

4. Traffic Gridlock – Only One Road In and Out
Castlecrag is a peninsula with one entry and exit point. This is a critical constraint.
The proposed development will significantly increase vehicle movements, leading to:
Severe congestion at peak times
Increased travel times for all residents
Safety risks at intersections
Reduced emergency access and evacuation capacity
The road network cannot support the traffic generated by a development of this scale.

5. Insufficient Parking – Overflow Onto Local Streets
The proposal provides only one car space per apartment, which is unrealistic for a development of this size in a suburb with limited public transport.
This will inevitably result in:
Overflow parking into surrounding streets
Congestion and reduced safety on narrow residential roads
Loss of amenity for existing residents
Increased conflict between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists
Local streets are already under pressure and cannot absorb additional parking demand.

6. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity
For residents living in The Rampart like myself, the proposed 11‑storey height will cause:
Significant overshadowing
Loss of natural light
Reduced privacy
Diminished enjoyment of homes and outdoor spaces
The scale of overshadowing is unacceptable in a low‑rise residential area.

In Conclusion, For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road. The height, density, traffic impacts, transport limitations, parking shortfalls, and overshadowing effects make this proposal unsuitable for Castlecrag.

I respectfully request that Council refuse the application in its current form.

Castlecrag is a relatively small local community with limited infrastructure.
While I support the idea of a mixed development project such as this with retail and accommodation including affordable housing,, the number of apartments and particularly the height of the 2 blocks seems excessive and distinctly out of proportion to the rest of the street and the suburb in general.
I also am uncertain about the effect of such an increase in resident numbers on the limited infrastructure.
Particularly some sort fo reduction in the height of the two blocks would lessen the visual and structural impact

25 April 2026
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.
My objection is based on the significant traffic and safety impacts, the lack of adequate transport infrastructure, and the excessive scale of the proposal compared to existing planning controls.
The proposed development will introduce 150 apartments and 376 car parking spaces into a location that is already experiencing traffic stress. Edinburgh Road is the main arterial road through Castlecrag and already carries heavy traffic, particularly during peak periods. The nearby Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way intersection is currently operating at Level of Service F, meaning it is already failing. The applicant’s own Traffic Impact Assessment acknowledges this condition, noting the intersection is already performing at an unacceptable level, reinforcing that the surrounding road network cannot accommodate additional traffic. The addition of substantial new vehicle movements from this development will further degrade traffic conditions, increasing congestion, delays, and driver frustration.
The transport infrastructure in this area is already poor and unable to support a development of this scale. Public transport options are limited, infrequent, and unreliable. The site is not located near a train station or a major transport hub, meaning future residents will be heavily reliant on private vehicles. The existing public transport network would not be able to cope with the influx of additional commuters generated by this proposal. This directly contradicts the intent of high-density developments, which are typically located in areas with strong transport accessibility.
The impact on Sunnyside Crescent is of particular concern. This street is commonly used by local residents for walking and does not have a footpath, requiring pedestrians to walk on the road. Any increase in traffic using Sunnyside Crescent as an alternative route or overflow from Edinburgh Road will create a serious safety hazard. Increased vehicle volumes in a street without pedestrian infrastructure will significantly increase the risk of accidents and is not appropriate in a residential environment.
The road network in Castlecrag is also geographically constrained, with effectively one main road in and one road out of the area. This limits traffic dispersal and increases the likelihood of congestion and bottlenecks. Introducing a development of this scale into such a constrained network is inappropriate and fails to properly consider cumulative impacts on local residents.
In addition to traffic concerns, the proposal represents a significant departure from existing planning controls. The proposed height of approximately 48.96 metres is 5.4 times the permitted height under the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012, which allows a maximum of 9 metres. This level of exceedance is excessive and demonstrates a clear disregard for the established planning framework and the intended character of the Castlecrag.
As a local resident, I already experience significant traffic congestion along Edinburgh Road, particularly during peak periods, with regular delays at the Eastern Valley Way intersection. I also frequently walk along Sunnyside Crescent, where there is no footpath and pedestrians must share the road with vehicles. An increase in traffic through this street will create a serious safety risk for myself and others who rely on it for daily movement. This development will have a direct and negative impact on both my safety and my daily routine.
From a planning perspective, these issues raise concerns under section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, particularly in relation to traffic, safety, and suitability of the site. The proposal does not adequately address these impacts and is not appropriate for this location.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the application and request that it be refused in its current proposed form and density. The proposal should instead be reconsidered at a significantly lower scale that is consistent with the capacity of the local road network and compliant with the height and floor space ratio controls under the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012. In the alternative, I request that the application be deferred until a comprehensive and realistic assessment of traffic and transport impacts is undertaken.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Proposed SSD for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag


I’ve lived in Northbridge for almost 30 years. I regularly drive along Eastern Valley Way, and I have friends who live in Castlecrag. Castlecrag is a unique suburb and is home to many Walter Burley Griffin designed homes. It is a quiet suburb with many bush tracks and leafy gardens.

The proposed development for 100 Edinburgh Road is completely out of character with the suburb and will adversely affect the significance of the adjoining Conservation Area. The scale of the buildings (towers) is overbearing given the low-rise buildings in its vicinity. It will also overshadow buildings to the south and will be an eyesore on the horizon when viewed from Northbridge. Due to the substantial ground level difference to the south of the development, there will be a significant loss of privacy for many homes in the area.

Five levels of basement parking for 150 units will have a huge negative impact on traffic flows in and around Edinburgh Road. Any planning approvals for major developments at the entrance to peninsular suburbs needs to take account of restricted egress from the area in the event of an emergency. These suburbs were never designed to accommodate huge developments like the one proposed.

I understand that an earlier approval was granted for a low rise development and this was accepted by the local community. It provided a substantial increase for accommodation without being obtrusive. What we are seeing here is the epitome of avarice. The proposal is shocking for the area where there is no adjacent shopping centre and the only access to public transport is a limited bus service. The scale of development proposed is more appropriate in a town centre setting, not in an low-rise primarily residential location with important heritage attributes.

The inability of the Council to meaningfully participate in the development approval process is a travesty of the democratic process. Allowing the developer an extra two floors because of the small addition of time-limited affordable units is a policy that needs to be urgently reviewed. It doesn’t allow for proper planning or design and the only beneficiaries are the developers. It is planning by numbers without any consideration to design.

The developer should be required to resubmit their designs and submit something that complements the character of the suburb rather than the current design which will destroy Castlecrag’s unique character.

Castlecrag is a unique suburb with significant heritage value, designed by Walter and Marion Burley Griffin, who also designed Canberra. I support the existing Development Application (DA-2024/13) for a 3-5 storey building (including 35 apartments) at 100 Edinburgh Rd, which was submitted by previous site owners Greencliff and approved by Council. I also support the need for more housing in Sydney, and I fully agree with the state government's policy that that this should be provided in areas where there is existing (or easy to scale in the future) transport access close to transport hubs.

Castlecrag does not fit this criteria. It is a peninsula, with only one major road in and out of the suburb to connect to busy Eastern Valley Way, a road which is already under significant pressure. The addition of 150 apartments, the owners of which will undoubtedly also own cars, will lead to excessive traffic entering and leaving the suburb, particularly in rush hour. This will adversely impact residents going to work or school.

For public transport, there is no easy access to rail, with infrequent buses to Chatswood and Artarmon. The existing bus services are barely adequate for the suburb currently, without the addition of so many new residents occupying 150 apartments.


Further exacerbating traffic and access problems, Conquest is planning to add supermarket and other retail shopping in the hope of turning the development into a destination (with 376 car park spaces!), which is neither necessary nor desirable given the proximity of existing shopping centres such as Chatswood and Northbridge.

The twin towers will create significant shade over neighbours, impacting the quiet enjoyment of their properties.

Conquest is emphasising its commitment to providing much needed affordable housing. This is in itself a laudable aim, but the reality is that only 10 of the 150 apartments - less than 10% - will be earmarked for affordable housing, and only for 10 years. And with the statement from Conquest CEO Michael Akkawi in his 11 March 2026 letter to the Sydney Morning Herald that "When you combine $1.5 million in upfront costs with $35 million in government levies, a 12 storey building is no longer viable. We are forced to propose 30 or 40 storeys just to pay the government's own entry fees.", it seems very likely that there will be a subsequent renegotiation of this commitment if the requested amendments to the DA are approved.

So in summary, yes Castlecrag needs a development at 100 Edinburgh Rd, but one in keeping with the logistics, amenities and character of the suburb. The existing Council approved DA-2024/13 is the perfect development for this site.

I am a resident of Castlecrag and have lived here for 17 years.
100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag was a small suburban shopping centre known as The Quadrangle. It was built in the 1970s and in a state of disrepair. It is a good location for redevelopment into a mixed use location comprising shops/restaurants/community facilities and housing but the proposal being pursued by Conquest is so far beyond what is suitable for the site it is almost laughable.
Castlecrag is not located anywhere near a train, metro or light rail service.
To/from the city there is a 207 bus service at 30 minute intervals outside peak hours. Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different. Due to bus driver shortages the 207 service is regularly cancelled.
The 194 bus from St Ives also runs at 30 minute intervals. Castlecrag is one of the last stops on this service and the bus is often crowded or too full to stop.
The 203 bus which runs between Castlecrag and North Sydney only operates four services in the morning and four services in the late afternoon Monday to Friday. This service does not operate on weekends or evenings.
The bottom line – Castlecrag is not well serviced by public transport options.
Conquest is bending/breaking so many rules and regulations with this application and they are so arrogant they even acknowledge this is parts of their proposal plus they are using old/outdated metrics to measure so many things.
This site is not within the 800m radius of the Government’s LMR policy yet they are trying to claim the developer benefits of this policy and the SEPP rules.
They are proposing less affordable housing than the government policy mandates and what they are proposing is not suitable for families.
For residents of the complex cross ventilation and sunshine at winter solstice both fail the guidelines.
For neighbours the impact of such a tall structure will be significant and this has not been accurately assessed.
Transport impacts (motor vehicles) are not correctly assessed and do not take into account the influx of new residents Conquest is proposing.
In the last 12 months at least one local primary school has closed (St Philip Neri Northbridge) and for public schools they are all at/beyond capacity so where do the developers expect and child residents to be educated?

I urge you to reject this application from Conquest. The plan has not been prepared with due care and diligence. By their own admission they do not meet many of the standards required yet are arrogantly expecting everything to be given the green light. IT should not happen.
The site at 100 Edinburgh Rd needs developing and a mix of retail/residential/restaurants etc is perfect but not of this scale/size/lack of thought.

Jenny Drennan
16 Charles St Castlecrag.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure Subject: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD-90134958) – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

As a resident of Castlecrag for over 30 years and a parent of two young adults currently navigating the impossible Sydney property market, I am writing to express my profound objection to the current 13-storey proposal for the "Quadrangle" site.

My objection is not based on a "not in my backyard" sentiment. I recognize that our suburb must evolve. However, this particular proposal is a gross departure from the community-supported plans and the fundamental design principles that make Castlecrag unique.

1.Violation of the Griffin Legacy
For three decades, I have lived within the master-planned vision of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. Their philosophy—integrating architecture with the natural bushland—is why people visit from around the world.
• The Problem: An 13-storey "twin tower" development is an urban imposition that completely ignores the height and scale of the surrounding Griffin Heritage Conservation Area.
• The Impact: It sets a dangerous precedent for "spot rezoning" that could dismantle the heritage character of our entire village.

2. Lack of Affordable Housing and Infrastructure
As a parent of two young adults, this proposal does not solve the housing crisis for local first-home buyers.
• Lack of Genuine Affordability: Despite the massive increase in scale to 150 apartments, the proposal includes only a token 10 "affordable" units, likely still priced out of reach for average workers. By cramming 150 high-end units into towers, the developer is targeting offshore investors and wealthy downsizers, not the young professionals or families trying to get a foot in the door.
• Infrastructure Mismatch: This site is over 4km from the nearest train or metro station. Dumping 150 luxury apartments here without high-frequency transit will only lead to gridlock on Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way.

3. Disregard for the Existing Approval (DA-2024/13)
The community has already demonstrated its willingness to compromise. In late 2024, a 3-storey, 38-apartment project was approved for this site.
• The Consensus: That plan was the result of years of consultation and was designed to be sympathetic to the village scale.
• The Objection: The developer, Conquest, purchased the site with that approval in place, only to bypass local council oversight via the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway to seek nearly four times the density. This is an opportunistic "uplift" that disregards the community's good-faith engagement. This new proposal is not a minor adjustment; it is a "wholesale rewrite" that bypasses Council oversight and ignores the extensive good-faith consultation already conducted.

________________________________________

Conclusion
I urge the Department to reject this over-scaled proposal. Development at 100 Edinburgh Road should be restricted to the previously approved 3-storey limit. We need "well-located" homes, but this site—disconnected from transport and vital to our national heritage—is not the place for high-rise towers.

We must protect the "bushland suburb" for the next generation of residents rather than allowing it to be permanently scarred by short-term developer profit.

Sincerely,
Castlecrag Resident (30+ years)

An approved development plan already exists and there is no reason whatsoever to change that proposal, as Castlecrag is not a housing growth area in New South Wales.
The only reasons for this application are greed, greed and more greed. Conquest, the developer, is a private equity firm whose shareholders are anonymous - is there a good reason for that? They state that they have "strong connections within the labour and development sectors" - I wonder what they really mean by that.

Castlecrag Development at 100 Edinburgh Rd
I have lived in the suburb for almost 20 years and agree that the site at 100 Edinburgh Rd should be redeveloped for mixed use, but with a project that fits with the area and takes account of the poor public transport and existing traffic congestion in the area, The previous 4 storey apartment and mixed use development I believe would meet these criteria.
• This proposed 13 storey development would dwarf any other building in the suburb. It is on a ridge line, so would be even more prominent as a result. It does not comply with the Willoughby LEP of 2012 and it appearsd the applicant has not made a proposal to vary these.
• It is an incompatible development with the area generally, but in particular overshadows Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. In addition the aerial photographs and shadowing diagrams used in the proposal are outdated and do not show the overshadowing of significant number of properties in the recently completed housing development behind 100 Edinburgh Rd.
• The vibrations report in development proposal uses a 6 year old photograph. This does not have the residential complex now sited directly behind the proposed development site included in it.
I struggle to see how this qualifies as a state significant development project given:
• The site is not on a major public transport route. It is on a minor suburban bus route only and is not close to a train line or the metro. In fact the nearest train station is over 2.5 kms away. The ability of buses to move an addition 320 residents is further compromised by the fact that buses operate infrequently outside the limited peak hour services Monday to Friday (typically only every 30 minutes on weekdays and less frequently on weekends).
• The proposed development incorporates a small supermarket, but there is already a major shopping centre including Woolworths 800m up the road in Northbridge. This is not a significant attraction for either existing or new residents.
• The traffic studies suggest the intersection of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley way is already saturated. This admission is contained in the applicant’s submission. The proposed development with 376 addition car spaces will deliver gridlock to this intersection.
• The applicant appears to have submitted a plan which seeks to minimise the number of “affordable dwellings” in the complex. They are predominantly smaller one bedroom units and will still cost well above the average dwelling price of $730,000 – $900,000 in the greater Sydney area. In short, these are not affordable dwellings for most people and will do nothing to help solve the housing shortage.
• Several schools in the area have closed in recent years including the public school and most recently St Philip Neri School in Northbridge. There is no obvious alternative to educate children of new residents since other local schools are already above capacity.
I have no reportable political donations to declare.
Matthew Drennan
16 Charles St
Castlecrag