Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

During my university years I lived in Northbridge and had to move out of the area due to low to no supply of more affordable units/apartments in Castlecrag and Northbridge. I rented a unit in Northbridge and enjoyed the community however the lack of supply of units.apartments meant i had to move out of the area when I could afford to buy my own place. A development such as this would benefit the community and the young professionals and allow them access to a selection of apartments/units that would suit various budgets and give them the opportunity to stay close to where they grew up.

Hi,

My family and I have been living in Castlecrag as well as across the road (literally) in Willoughby East for 8+ years and love the area. The proposed development of 100 Edinburgh road will DESTROY the public transport situation! They plan to build 150 appartments and with at least an average of 2 people per apartment that's 300 people. And since there's no trains or metros and things, if half these people take the bus in the morning into the CBD like a lot of us there's no way we'll all get to work on time and we'll have to queue for like 30-45 mins I'm sure! It's insane with that one bus stop going into the city that you want to squeeze hundreds of more people commuting at peak hour! It'll make my, my wife and our two young adult childrens' lives hell in the morning (and evening? who knows..) and we'll probably choose to shorten our living in the area (and we are home owners not renters, wonder if we'll end up with more people selling up or leasing out their houses because they don't want to live here anymore).

Also, key other concerns;
* The proposal does not address affordable housing crisis because there's only 10 affordable housing units, the other 150 are going to be expensive high-end units
* An approved development (DA-2024/13) already exists for a lower-scale, mixed-use project (3-5 storeys) that fits the site and respects the local environment.
* The proposal conflicts with the heritage of the Griffin philosophy of buildings being part of and subservient to the environment
* The proposal conflicts with planning controls that limit height to around 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road.
* Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in state or local planning strategies.
* As I mentioned, the site is not in a transport-oriented development (TOD) zone and has limited public transport access.
* The site is not subject to Low & Mid Rise Housing Policy being more than 800m from Northbridge local centre
* The site is not near a train station and has limited bus services outside peak hours
* The proposal does not align with Council's planning framework or heritage preservation priorities.
* The scale and design are inconsistent with established planning and design

Please don't let this greed (which was submitted quickly and made big changes without community consultation) go unchecked and ruin our neighbourhood and set bad precedences in the process.

Thanks a lot in advance for your consideration and feel free to reach out if you have questions or I can help!

Kind regards,
Daniel

Submission – Objection to State Significant Development
NSW Planning Portal
Project: 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag
Subject Property: 95 Eastern Valley Way, Castlecrag NSW 2068 (also known as 20 The Postern, Castlecrag)
(Access via 18A The Postern, Castlecrag)

1. Introduction
My husband and I are the owners and occupiers of the above property, which is located downslope and in close proximity to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. My property is directly within the potential impact zone for stormwater, construction, visual and amenity impacts arising from this proposal.

This submission is made under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and in consideration of relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, including the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Resilience and Hazards 2021, as well as the applicable provisions of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Willoughby Development Control Plan 2023 (as guiding, non‑binding considerations in the assessment of State Significant Development).

2. Stormwater, Drainage and Flooding Risk (Critical Concern)
Our property is located downslope within the natural hydrological catchment of the development site.
Having regard to:
* Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (likely impacts of the development)
* SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 – provisions relating to water management and flood risk
* Principles of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual

We raise serious concern that the proposal creates an unacceptable stormwater and flooding risk for downstream properties.
Key concerns include:
* Increased impervious surfaces leading to higher peak stormwater discharge volumes
* Alteration or redirection of overland flow paths toward lower‑lying residential properties
* Existing drainage infrastructure in Castlecrag being inadequate to accommodate high‑density redevelopment impacts

Potential consequences include:
- Increased runoff intensity and velocity
- Concentration of stormwater flows toward Eastern Valley Way properties
- Failure of on‑site detention and drainage systems during extreme rainfall events, including 1% AEP events and climate‑changed rainfall conditions

Requests:
* An independent review of hydrological and hydraulic modelling, including 1% AEP and climate change scenarios
* Formal certification that downstream properties, including mine, will experience no worsening of flood behaviour
* A legally enforceable inspection and maintenance regime for stormwater infrastructure for the life of the development

3. Excavation, Vibration and Geotechnical Stability
Having regard to:
* SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 – land stability provisions
* Australian Standard AS 2187 (Explosives and Vibration Control), where applicable
* The common law duty to prevent nuisance and property damage

We are seriously concerned about excavation‑related impacts on our property.
Demolition and excavation works have already commenced, however:
- No pre‑construction dilapidation report has been undertaken for my property
- Ground‑borne vibration is already perceptible within my dwelling
- Physical damage has occurred, which I reasonably associate with construction activity

These matters raise concerns regarding:
* Vibration impacts exceeding acceptable structural and human comfort thresholds
* Slope stability and excavation‑induced ground movement affecting downslope receptors
* The absence of baseline condition documentation to protect affected neighbours

Requests:
* Immediate independent dilapidation surveys of my property (pre‑ and post‑works comparison)
* Continuous vibration monitoring in accordance with BS 7385 and/or DIN 4150 standards
* Independent geotechnical certification confirming no adverse impacts on downslope properties

4. Dust, Air Quality and Amenity Impacts
Having regard to:
* Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
* Relevant principles of AS 4282
* Standard SSD consent conditions requiring best‑practice air quality management

Current impacts at my property include:
- Significant dust deposition on building surfaces and outdoor areas
- Contamination of swimming pool water
- Reduced ability to use outdoor residential spaces, including for drying laundry

These impacts represent an ongoing and material loss of residential amenity.

Requests:
- A strictly enforceable Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) with effective dust suppression and mitigation measures
- Real‑time dust monitoring during demolition and excavation phases
- Accountability for cleaning and rectification of dust‑affected neighbouring properties

4A. Construction Hours, Noise and Sleep Disturbance
In addition to dust and vibration impacts, we raise serious concern regarding construction timing and noise impacts.
During demolition works already undertaken, there have been repeated instances of heavy machinery mobilisation and operation during early morning hours. Despite any general construction notices, the lived impact on nearby residences remains unacceptable.

Observed impacts include:
- Early morning noise disturbances
- Sleep disruption caused by reversing alarms, machinery movement and associated activities
- Cumulative amenity impacts over extended construction periods

These impacts are inconsistent with:
* The NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG), particularly in relation to sleep disturbance
* Standard SSD expectations that construction activity minimises off‑site impacts during early morning and evening periods

Requests:
- Strict enforcement of approved construction hours
- Prohibition of early morning machinery mobilisation or deliveries prior to permitted start times
- Noise monitoring and compliance reporting throughout demolition and excavation activities
- Clear and enforceable penalties for repeated breaches of construction hour conditions

5. Traffic, Parking and Construction Access
Having regard to:
*Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
* TfNSW Guide to Traffic Generating Developments
* SSD Construction Traffic Management Plan requirements

Key concerns include:
- Increased congestion at the The Postern / Edinburgh Road roundabout
- Restricted and unsafe ingress and egress from my property
- Informal and intrusive parking of construction workers within surrounding streets
- Cumulative impacts arising from multi‑stage construction activity

Requests:
* Approval and enforcement of a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
* Designated off‑site worker parking arrangements
* Measures to protect resident access during peak traffic periods

6. Loss of Sunlight
Having regard to:
* NSW Apartment Design Guide solar access objectives (O4 and O5)
* Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The scale, bulk and height of the proposal raise serious solar access concerns, including:
* Reduced direct sunlight to my property
* Increased overshadowing during winter months

Requests:
* Detailed shadow diagrams at 9am, 12pm and 3pm on the winter solstice
* Demonstrated compliance with Apartment Design Guide solar access objectives
* Design refinement to minimise overshadowing impacts

7. Privacy Impacts
Having regard to the Apartment Design Guide visual privacy objectives (O2 and O3), we are concerned about:
* Direct overlooking into private outdoor living areas
* Loss of visual privacy from elevated building elements above my property

Requests:
- Increased setbacks, screening or built‑form adjustments
- Careful window placement and articulation controls to minimise overlooking

8. Visual Bulk, Ridgeline Impact and Neighbourhood Character
Having regard to:
* Section 4.15(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
* Objectives of the Willoughby LEP 2012 relating to landscape setting and character
* State design principles supporting context‑responsive development

We object to the proposal due to:
* Excessive visual dominance of the built form along the ridgeline
* Significant departure from the established low‑rise, landscape‑integrated character of Castlecrag
* Visual intrusion when viewed from valley‑floor and downslope residential properties

Castlecrag is a heritage‑influenced planned suburb, and the proposed scale is fundamentally inconsistent with neighbourhood character expectations.

9. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, we object to the proposed development due to significant and unresolved impacts relating to:
* Stormwater management and flood risk to downslope properties
* Geotechnical stability, vibration and structural impacts
* Dust, air quality degradation and amenity loss
* Noise and sleep disturbance
* Traffic congestion and access constraints
* Loss of sunlight and privacy
* Visual bulk and character impacts inconsistent with Castlecrag’s planning context

These matters engage key considerations under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, relevant SEPP provisions, and established NSW planning and design guidelines.

We respectfully request that the consent authority:
* Require independent verification of all technical and environmental reports
* Impose strict, enforceable conditions of consent
* Ensure that the development results in no net adverse impact on surrounding residential properties, particularly those located downslope

Thank you
Julie Langford-Brown and Tom Horne

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to the State Significant Development application lodged by Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd for the proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way in Castlecrag.

The proposal seeks approval for two 11-storey residential towers above a four-storey podium (13 storeys overall), reaching a height of 48.96 metres, with five basement levels, 150 apartments, 376 car parking spaces and a substantial retail component. In my view, this represents a development of a scale and intensity that is entirely inconsistent with both the existing planning controls and the physical, infrastructural and heritage constraints of the site.

Under the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012, the maximum permitted building height for the site is 9 metres. The proposed height of 48.96 metres is more than five times this limit. Similarly, the permitted floor space ratio is 1:1, whereas the proposal seeks an FSR of 4.2:1, more than four times the allowable density. These are not minor or technical variations; they represent a profound departure from the statutory planning framework. While Council has previously considered a more modest uplift for the site, that proposal was for significantly lower height and density, and the current application exceeds even that position by a substantial margin. The applicant has not sought to justify these departures through a clause 4.6 variation request, but instead relies on a “concurrent rezoning” approach that has not been made, has not undergone the required statutory process, and does not alter the fact that the proposal must be assessed against the current legal controls, under which it is clearly non-compliant.

The applicant also seeks to justify the scale of the proposal by reference to the Housing SEPP, including the Low and Mid-Rise Housing provisions and the Infill Housing bonus provisions. However, these provisions do not apply to this site. The applicant’s own Environmental Impact Statement acknowledges that the site is approximately 850 to 900 metres from the Northbridge town centre, which is beyond the 800 metre walking distance threshold required to trigger eligibility under the Low and Mid-Rise Housing provisions. The applicant also explicitly states that surrounding land, and land between the site and the town centre, is subject to these provisions, effectively acknowledging that the subject site itself is not. Further, the applicant concedes that it deliberately chose not to pursue the Infill Affordable Housing pathway because the requirement to provide 15 per cent affordable housing was considered “not feasible”, and instead elected to proceed under the Housing Delivery Authority pathway to achieve greater density with a lower affordable housing contribution. Even if the Low and Mid-Rise provisions did apply, which they do not, the maximum permissible height and floor space ratio under those provisions are significantly lower than what is proposed. In this context, it is clear that the applicant has selected the pathway that maximises development yield while minimises public benefit, and has sought to justify this outcome by reference to provisions that do not in fact apply. There is no statutory basis currently in force that supports a development envelope of this scale on this site.

In addition to these fundamental planning issues, the proposal raises serious concerns in relation to heritage impact. The site sits directly on the boundary of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area and immediately adjoins a listed heritage item, the Griffin Centre at 120 Edinburgh Road. Castlecrag is an internationally recognised Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin-designed garden suburb, with its significance defined by the principle that development is subordinate to the landscape. The Willoughby planning controls and heritage guidance emphasise that buildings within this area are typically single storey, or in rare cases two storeys, and are designed to be harmonious with the natural setting.

The applicant’s own Statement of Heritage Impact acknowledges that the site directly adjoins the Heritage Conservation Area and is located at a gateway to it. It also admits that there will be a clear visual contrast due to the scale disparity between the proposed development and the surrounding low-scale heritage dwellings. Critically, it concedes that heritage-appropriate roof forms cannot be applied at this scale, effectively acknowledging that the proposal is too large to respond appropriately to its context. The report further confirms that overshadowing of dwellings within the conservation area will occur, and identifies the existence of significant views both into and out of the conservation area, including views across Middle Harbour, yet no detailed harbour view assessment has been undertaken.

The methodology of the heritage assessment itself is also concerning. The site inspection was undertaken in October 2023 and is now significantly out of date, having occurred prior to demolition works. The assessment was limited to the public domain and did not consider impacts from within the conservation area, including from private dwellings and gardens where the experience of place is most meaningful. The analysis focuses narrowly on the physical fabric of individual heritage items and does not adequately address impacts on setting, curtilage, skyline or the broader landscape context, which are central to the significance of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Clause 5.10 of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan requires the consent authority to consider the effect of development in the vicinity of a heritage item or conservation area on its heritage significance. A development of this height and scale, positioned at the gateway to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, is fundamentally inconsistent with the values the planning framework seeks to protect, and even on the applicant’s own evidence cannot be reconciled with those values.

The proposal also fails to adequately address the capacity of local infrastructure, particularly the road network. The applicant’s own Traffic Impact Assessment states that the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already operating at Level of Service F during the morning peak, with a degree of saturation exceeding capacity. It is acknowledged that right-turn traffic is already spilling into through lanes. Importantly, the applicant’s consultant concedes that the traffic modelling used is not reliable under these conditions, meaning that the impact of the development cannot be accurately assessed. In effect, the application does not demonstrate what will happen when a substantial number of additional vehicle movements are introduced into an already failing intersection.

The assumptions underlying the traffic assessment further undermine its reliability. The use of outdated trip generation data and the classification of the site as having very high accessibility do not reflect the reality of its location. The site is more than 2.5 kilometres from the nearest railway station, is not within walking distance of rail or light rail, and is served by limited and inconsistent bus services. These factors indicate a high reliance on private vehicles, which will place additional strain on already constrained infrastructure.

The application also fails to properly consider cumulative impacts. A number of other residential developments in the surrounding area have recently been approved or constructed, contributing to a significant increase in local population and traffic demand. The Willoughby local government area more broadly has already experienced substantial housing growth in recent years, placing increasing pressure on local infrastructure, roads and services. Despite this, the application does not provide a meaningful cumulative impact assessment, particularly in relation to traffic and intersection performance.

From a personal perspective as a resident, I am already experiencing the strain on both the local road network and public transport. Traffic congestion at and around the Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way intersection is a daily issue, particularly during peak periods. The addition of a development of this scale will inevitably worsen these conditions. Equally concerning is the impact on public transport. Bus services in the area are already limited and often operate at capacity during peak hours. It is increasingly difficult to board a bus to the city without waiting for multiple services, and the additional population generated by this proposal will only exacerbate this issue. The lack of reliable, high-frequency public transport means that many residents will continue to rely on private vehicles, further compounding congestion and reducing the overall livability of the area.

Taken together, these issues demonstrate that the proposal is not appropriate for this location. It is inconsistent with the statutory planning controls, incompatible with the heritage significance of the surrounding area, unsupported by credible infrastructure analysis, and fails to consider the cumulative impacts of ongoing development in the locality. The scale and intensity of the proposal are simply not suited to the site or its context.

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

Yours faithfully,
Local Resident

I grew up in Castlecrag as did most of my family. We loved living in this neighbourhood because of its community and Burley-Griffin style housing, streets, paths and nature reserves. We love the way the community was developed which is low lying and beautifully integrated within the native bushland creating a seamless flow throughout the neighbourhood and it's nature reserves. A development such is this would completely destroy that entire aspect of the Castlecrag community and I am completely opposed to it as it my entire family who call this community home.

There are two areas close to Castlecrag, (Crows Nest and Chatswood), that have been designated for medium and high density dwellings. The proposed development is a better fit in Crows Nest or Chatswood, it is out of place in Castlecrag and is inconsistent with the heritage values, history and focus on natural environment that Castlecrag embodies.

Castlecrag is a unique suburb in Sydney, this development will destroy its character and add very little to general housing affordability.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 15-storey development at 100 Edinburgh Rd in Castlecrag.

While I acknowledge and support the broader need for increased housing supply across Sydney, it is critical that such development is delivered in a manner that is appropriate to the local context, infrastructure capacity, and planning framework. In this instance, the scale and nature of the proposed development are fundamentally unsuitable for this location.

It is also worth noting that earlier proposals for development in the range of 3–5 storeys represent a far more appropriate and balanced approach. A development of that scale would better align with the surrounding environment, place significantly less strain on infrastructure, and more closely reflect the intended character of the area.
------------
1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Intent

Castlecrag is a low-density, architecturally distinctive suburb characterised by modest residential dwellings and a strong connection to its natural bushland setting. The proposed 15-storey structure is wholly inconsistent with the existing built form and scale of surrounding development.

Such a building would:

Visually dominate the streetscape
Disrupt the cohesive architectural identity of the suburb
Undermine the planning intent that has preserved Castlecrag’s unique village character

The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site and does not demonstrate sensitivity to its context. By contrast, a 3–5 storey development would provide increased housing while maintaining a scale that is more consistent with the surrounding built form.
------------
2. Traffic and Road Network Constraints

The proposed development would generate a substantial increase in traffic volumes that the existing road network is not designed to accommodate.

Key concerns include:

The development is located on a small junction not designed for high-density traffic flows
Increased congestion at already constrained intersections
Reduced safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and local residents
Potential delays for emergency services access

Castlecrag’s road network is inherently limited, with narrow, winding streets and constrained junctions. The scale of the proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with this infrastructure. A lower-scale development would significantly reduce these impacts.
------------
3. Lack of Supporting Transport Infrastructure

Unlike higher-density precincts in Sydney, Castlecrag does not have access to:

A rail network
A metro system
High-capacity public transport alternatives

Residents in the proposed development would be heavily reliant on private vehicles, further exacerbating traffic congestion and placing unsustainable pressure on local roads.

Without significant upgrades to transport infrastructure—which are not proposed as part of this development—the increased population density cannot be supported. A mid-rise development (3–5 storeys) would be more proportionate to the available transport options.
------------
4. Infrastructure Capacity and Services

Beyond traffic, the proposal raises broader concerns regarding local infrastructure capacity, including:

Stormwater and drainage systems
Local utilities and services
Community infrastructure (schools, healthcare, public spaces)

There is no clear evidence that these systems can accommodate the scale of population increase associated with a 15-storey development. A reduced scale would better align with existing infrastructure capabilities.
------------
5. Environmental and Amenity Impacts

The scale of the proposed building would also result in:

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties
Loss of privacy for surrounding residents
Visual bulk and loss of scenic quality
Potential impacts on nearby bushland and natural landscapes

These impacts are inconsistent with the environmental sensitivity that defines Castlecrag and would be significantly mitigated under a lower-rise development model.
------------
Conclusion

While increased housing supply is an important and necessary objective, it must be achieved through well-planned, context-sensitive development supported by appropriate infrastructure.

The originally proposed scale of 3–5 storeys represents a far more appropriate outcome for this site. It would deliver additional housing while respecting the character of Castlecrag, maintaining amenity, and aligning more realistically with existing infrastructure.

The current 15-storey proposal represents a significant overreach in scale and intensity. It fails to align with the established character of the area, places undue strain on inadequate infrastructure, and would introduce unacceptable traffic and amenity impacts.

For these reasons, I strongly urge th NSW Gov to refuse the current application and encourage a return to a more appropriate, mid-rise development consistent with earlier proposals.

I am totally opposed to the scale of the newly proposed 13-14 story twin tower development which is suited to a Town Centre or a City Centre and not a Local Centre such as Castlecrag, all the more so given the uniqueness of Castlecrag. The already approved 2-3 story development is the appropriate scale given the nature of Castlecrag.

In the last ABS data Castlecrag had only 2965 residents and 1060 homes. Hence 150 apartments with 376 car spaces would comprise a 15% increase in homes, approximately 25% in vehicles and about 10% in residents which is not something the suburb can physically support.

The site zoned Local Centre E1 abuts the Griffin Conservation area C4 and low density residential R2 on the south side both of which would be totally overshadowed and dominated by the proposed development. It is noteworthy that the 2 other adjacent developments on the E1 zoning, one old and one recent, are 2-3 stories which enables them to fit in appropriately with being in a Local Centre and with the R2 and C4 adjacent properties.

The adjacent land on the northern side of Edinburgh Road is also zoned E1. Together the two sites should form an appropriate low scale entry into this unique peninsular suburb.

Castlecrag is a national, state and local treasure and adjacent development must be sensitive to this and what Walter and Marion Griffin and the Griffin Conservation Area stand for- low rise, flat roofs, fitting in with nature, pathways and parks. In fact the suburb has celebrated the 150 year anniversary of Walter Burley Griffin’s birthday with visitors coming from all over Australia and beyond.

In fact one of the Griffin reserve pathways ends into the site which has always provided connectivity through the site to Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way from the walkways from further down Castlecrag, these public access pathways are a major feature of the suburb. The adjacent pathway now very sadly ends obstructed by fencing around the site. Why has this been blocked?

The proposed scale of the development apart from being ugly and inappropriate for the area will make traffic congestion getting out of and into the Castlecrag peninsular which relies almost entirely on Edinburgh Road as the single point of access, almost impossible given the proposed 25% increase in vehicles. A few years ago NSW Transport spend a very long time getting the sequence of traffic lights to work at the adjacent intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way given the amount of traffic after a near fatal accident. Vehicles trying to enter and exit the site would find it impossible to do so due to the banked up traffic waiting on Edinburgh Road at the lights during peak hours.

The scale of development is inappropriate for the area which relies on only buses for public transport. Development of this scale should be in Chatswood and St Leonards where Willoughby Council has already provided for significant development adjacent to train and Metro transport options and which has enabled the Council to have met its NSW Planning target for housing density.

Because of the unique scale of Castlecrag and its existing village, 100 Edinburgh Road must maintain the appropriate 2-3 story scale of the approved development which will adequately provide for local residents and not try to be of such a scale appropriate for a big Town Centre.

The proposed development is nothing more than a private equity bid to build and sell very expensive appartments with minimal affordable housing provided below policy expectations in order to maximise profit at the expense of this unique gateway site to this historic suburb and its local community.

Please do not allow this beautiful, unique and historic Sydney suburb be ruined.

The proposal aligns with NSW housing policy direction, the Greater Sydney Region Plan, and the intent of the Housing SEPP: deliver new supply in well-serviced, established suburbs rather than on the urban fringe. With only around eleven apartments among Castlecrag's 1,000 dwellings, the site offers a rare and appropriate opportunity to broaden housing choice without encroaching on heritage or bushland areas.

As a local Castlecrag resident, I am writing this submission to strongly object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag.

The proposed development of 12-14 storeys will irreparably change the character and amenity of the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation area which is unique in Sydney and Australia. It is irreplaceable and is therefore unacceptable.

Additional information is in the attachment.

I write in strong support of the proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, from a commercial and retail leasing perspective.
This site represents the only genuine village core within Castlecrag. Its performance is critical to the delivery of local services and the overall functionality of the suburb. The current proposal provides a commercially viable pathway to achieving this outcome.

Public and Economic Benefit to the Area
The proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road delivers clear, tangible benefits to Castlecrag by addressing both existing gaps in local amenity and the long-term functionality of the village centre.
1. Strengthening the Local Village Core
This site already functions as the suburb’s focal point, but it lacks the scale and mix of uses required to operate as a true, self-sustaining village centre. The proposed development formalises and strengthens this role by introducing a critical mass of activity, ensuring the centre is consistently active and commercially viable.
2. Delivering Essential Local Services
The inclusion of appropriately scaled retail and service-based tenancies will provide day-to-day convenience for residents, reducing reliance on surrounding centres. This is particularly important for a suburb like Castlecrag, where access to local, walkable services is currently limited.
3. Supporting Local Businesses and Employment
The development creates a platform for small businesses and local operators to establish within the suburb. By aligning tenancy sizes and formats with proven demand, it increases the likelihood of long-term occupancy and stable trading conditions.
Importantly, the proposal will directly increase local employment opportunities across retail, hospitality, and service sectors. These are accessible, community-based jobs that support the local economy
4. Enhancing Daily Activation and Safety
A mix of residential and retail uses ensures the site is active throughout the day and into the evening. This increased activation improves passive surveillance, strengthens perceptions of safety, and contributes to a more engaged and usable public domain.
5. Aligning with the Local Lifestyle
The proposal responds directly to Castlecrag’s bushland character and outdoor-oriented community. By enabling retail and hospitality uses that integrate with outdoor spaces and informal gathering, the development reinforces—not detracts from—the suburb’s identity.
6. Reducing Travel and Supporting Walkability
By consolidating services within a central, accessible location, the development reduces the need for residents to travel the suburb for everyday needs. This supports a more walkable, sustainable local environment and reduces traffic pressure on surrounding roads.
7. Delivering a Sustainable Long-Term Outcome
Importantly, the proposal is not just well-designed—it is commercially viable. This ensures the centre will be occupied, maintained, and active over the long term. An under-scaled or compromised development would risk vacancy and underperformance, ultimately failing to deliver these same community benefits.
Conclusion
This application represents a commercially viable, strategically aligned, and site-appropriate outcome. It has been calibrated to meet both market demand and the unique characteristics of Castlecrag.
Council should be mindful that reducing or diluting the proposal carries real and lasting consequences—namely, the risk of underdevelopment, vacancy, and a failure to realise the site’s role as the suburb’s functional centre.
I strongly support the application in its current form and encourage Council to approve a scheme that delivers a sustainable, activated, and economically resilient village core.

I support additional housing options for Australians particularly younger Australians. Howver I find this proposal way out of proportion for the Castlecrag area which has limited car traffic options and is far away from any rail link. The proposed size of this development would so much larger than any other recent developments.
It also seems to ignore any heritage aspects of the area.
Lastly it alos apprears that it will be a high end developments o the price of the apartments will be way out of range for those that have limited housing options.

I strongly object to the project as presented.

I am a resident of Northbridge for 14 years, with 6 of those living in central London. I therefore have both the perspective of living in the area immediately adjacent to Castlecrag as well as living in one of the busiest capital cities in the world along with the dense pollution that comes with that. At the outset I am not opposed to medium density housing and do not qualify for NIMBY status. I am a realist and pragmatic and it has been evident for some time that something needs to be done at Local, State and Federal levels to address the current housing crisis. However the submission by the Developer for 100 Edinburgh Rd will not serve any purpose other than to be a permeant scar on the horizon and landscape and line the pockets of said Developer. If approved by the NSW Government it will be a decision which I believe will have intended and unintended consequences and one that will be deeply regretted.

It is evident that the submission by the Developer has been lodged with complete disregard for current development rules, is grossly incompatible on a number of levels with the community and environment, will be an eyesore on the ridge line, and if it is allowed to proceed, will cause irreparable harm and I suggest the Governmentwill regret the decision to allow it to proceed in this current social and political setting.

I highlight some key points below

- the site is clearly OUTSIDE the designated area for LMR and is therefore NOT eligible for the associated height and density benefits proposed . Critically they have seized upon the Northbridge scenario which is a designated growth centre to seek to justify the proposed development. The development fails at the first hurdle.
- the site is NOT serviced by train or metro only buses ,which based on real experience are irregular and infrequent.
- the height, scale and bulk of the proposed development does not comply with the current zoning and statutory controls. What is proposed is in flagrant disregard and dismissive of the E1 Local Centre standards in place and in turn the expectations of the Willoughby Council and community
- the nearest buildings that are of the same height proposed 13-15 levels, are located in Chatswood, St Leonards, Crows Nest and North Sydney. All of those suburbs are serviced by rail and the metro and have current zoning and statutory controls in place to consider and accommodate high rise developments such as this.
-At the moment this is a unicorn for Castlecrag. I suggest other suburbs will quickly find themselves in the same situation if it is approved as it will serve as a precedent which other developers will seize upon to justify other ill considered and unintended developments.
- the heritage significance of Castlecrag is well known. This development completely flies in the face of the long established, adopted and practiced philosophy of landscape integrated development in the area. The EIS has seemingly deliberately glossed over the heritage impacts or sought to obfuscate the obvious reality that this bulky high rise development will have on the gateway to Castlecrag
-increased traffic issues will obviously arise with the creation of 150 units and 376 car spaces , not just in the immediate vicinity but in the already congested arterial roads in and around Castlecrag, Northbridge and Willoughby. To state the obvious there is one road in and out of Castlecrag. The busy intersection with Eastern Valley Way is often gridlocked during weekly peak hours and on weekends particularly on Saturdays. The added volumes of people and cars will undoubtedly increase the risk of unsafe traffic behaviour, create rat running, and give rise to pedestrian safety concerns.
- Affordable housing is an important issue and needs to be addressed at a Local State and Federal level. This development allows for just 6.7% of units to be earmarked as affordable which is below policy expectations. Notwithstanding that, the high market rates for rental properties in the area ,even factoring in the marginal discounts will unlikely be affordable for low - medium income earners. The development is marketed as high end luxury which will come with the commensurate price tag - this will not assist first home buyers or those seeking affordable rental accommodation. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
- environmental impacts on the site insofar far as tree removal and overshadowing to numerous homes to the southern elevation is alarming. The reports are factually incorrect and inconsistent.
- there has been a distinct lack of genuine interaction and engagement with the community and none with the broader community ie Northbridge. The level of obfuscation, disregard, bordering on arrogance on the part of the developer is instructive and deeply concerning
- the loss of genuine community and public space is of significant concern. There will be no genuine community gathering space which if done well can be a real asset to large scale developments. The side walk next to commercial tenancies cafes, restaurants etc is not the same as a well considered, centrally and safely located designated community space . Again this lack of genuine consideration for by the Developer for the community is instructive .

In summary I object to this Development as it fails on so many levels - it does not comply with the current planning rules, it will create irreversible harm to the landscape, will be an eye sore, cause traffic and pedestrian chaos, won't service the community adequately, won't assist the housing crisis, and more concerning if approved it will set a precedent for other developers to do the same in every suburb in the Sydney Metropolitan area.

I therefore implore the Government to do the right thing and reject the Development Proposal of 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag in its current form.

I’m writing to support the SSDA for the former Quadrangle site. The proposal makes effective use of a long-underutilised brownfield location and thoughtfully combines commercial revitalisation with new housing. Activating the ground floor with retail while locating residential uses above reflects well-established mixed-use planning principles. Overall, the project offers clear public benefits, including the return of key services, the addition of affordable housing, and upgrades to the public domain, with impacts appropriately focused around a major transport hub.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 100 EDINBURGH RD CASTLECRAG

Our home is in the Conservation area on the block next to the development. We have original Burley Griffin designed homes just a few houses away from our home. Heritage groups visit our block to view these unique homes on a regular basis.

I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

LOSS OF ENJOYMENT/COMFORT/VISUAL DOMINANCE
This project will be visible from every west facing window of our home, including our private lounge/recreation area and back yard. Future residents at 100 Edinburgh Rd will be able to see right into our home, bedroom and yard. Our home will require extra heating in winter and spring months because of the long shadow (mentioned later) cast by the huge buildings. The bushland aesthetic and character of the suburb will be erased for our home as the proposed large buildings will be visible from every west facing room and recreational space.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the scale and bulk of the project to a more modest size to lower the visual and other impacts to our home.

OVERSCALE
The project scale is overwhelmingly tall and will dominate the landscape. It will sit well above any future treeline and overwhelm surrounding houses and shops. At the top of the hill it will be visible to many hundreds of houses and buildings with a window or recreation space facing it.

I urge the Minns Government to insist that the developer brings down the height so that it sits within the landscape, not dominating it.

INCREASED SHADOW
Our home at 128 Edinburgh Rd will be in afternoon shadow from the huge bulk of this development in winter/spring, blocking our light and requiring extra heating in the afternoon/early evening. It will spoil our comfort both inside and in the outdoor area and garden, and increase household costs for a large period of the year.

I urge the Minns Government to require the developer to lower the scale, bulk and height of the project so that it doesn’t raise the cost of heating in our home or cut the light and sun in the afternoon and evening to our home and yard.

LOSS OF HERITAGE
The project sits at the entrance to a unique bushland suburb designed by world renowned architects. It is next to two heritage areas; the Griffin Centre and the Conservation area, which are visited regularly by history and heritage groups. We have no footpaths, no fences, no garages and large green space limitations among other planning requirements to preserve the unique features of this suburb. The development is completely out of character with its bulk, dominance, and there is a lack of an architectural design link to the environment or its unique architectural heritage.

I urge the Minns Government to insist the developer redesign the project to a modest scale in keeping with the Burley Griffin ethos, which is to be “subordinate” to the landscape. I urge the Minns Government to require the developer to submit a design that ties in thematically with the Burley Griffin design aesthetic, and to the unique bushland ridgetop setting.

TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS
Living as close to the development as we do, I am concerned about traffic safety. With one main road into the suburb, Edinburgh Rd is already choked at peak times with long queues to exit the suburb. With so many luxury units proposed at the entry to the suburb, extra cars from the units would add to the traffic density and increase queuing at peak times. It is already difficult to exit our home by car at peak times. I am concerned about the safety of exiting our home and the suburb, especially in an emergency.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the number of units in the proposal to lower the impact to the traffic at this already busy intersection on the grounds of traffic safety, and to consider the impacts to traffic especially during emergencies.


NOT A TRANSPORT HUB OR TOWN CENTRE
The site is too far from a town centre or train station to justify such a large-scale development. It is more than 2 km to Chatswood or Crows Nest train stations, and public transport to those centres is impractical and infrequent. It is more than 800 metres to Northbridge shopping precinct. Buses from this intersection are scarce during the day, and often overcrowded or cancelled. To justify this scale on the grounds that this intersection is a functioning town centre is disingenuous at best. Future residents will have to use cars to access transport hubs and shopping centres.

I urge the Minns Government to reduce the number of apartments in the development as the site does not act as a town centre or transport hub, and will require residents to use cars to access trains and shopping centres, thereby increasing traffic choking at this busy intersection. This will also put pressure on emergency services as there is only one main road in and out of the suburb.

I object to this project - its scale and impact will have significant negative impact on our community. I have detailed my concerns in the attached document.

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD 90134958 at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag.
The proposal for two 11 storey towers, 150 dwellings, a floor space ratio of 4.2:1 and five basement levels constitutes an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site.
This scale bears no reasonable relationship to:
• the approved development outcome already granted for this land,
• the surrounding built form, which is overwhelmingly one to three storeys, or
• the established character of Castlecrag as a low rise, landscape dominated suburb.
The height increase from approximately 15.75m to nearly 49m represents a profound and unjustified departure from what has been considered appropriate for this site.
The proposal provides no credible transition to adjoining low density residential land or the nearby Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Instead, it introduces a visually dominant, skyline altering form that would permanently erode local character.
The proposal would also place significant additional pressure on already constrained local infrastructure, particularly the surrounding road network and public transport system. Roads such as Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way already experience congestion during peak periods, with queuing and delays common at key intersections and access points. The introduction of approximately 150 additional dwellings would materially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion, reducing safety, and impacting local accessibility.
In addition, the local bus network servicing Castlecrag is limited in both frequency and capacity, particularly outside peak periods. These services are already heavily relied upon by residents, including school commuters, and are not designed to accommodate a substantial uplift in population density. Increased demand would likely result in overcrowding, reduced service reliability, and longer wait times. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate how these impacts would be mitigated or supported by meaningful infrastructure improvements.
Approval would create a serious precedent, It would signal that established planning controls, approved envelopes, and community expectations can be overridden through the SSD process to facilitate extreme intensification.
For these reasons, the application is not in the public interest and should be refused.

Objection to Proposed SSD — 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

There is something instructive in how this application began. A thoughtful, low-rise design had already been approved for this site, one that respected the Griffin Conservation Area, retained nearly all its trees, and sat comfortably within the scale of the suburb. Then Conquest bought the site, looked at the approved plans, and decided the problem with them was insufficient profit. The proposed 11-storey towers now before you is the solution to that problem. Not a planning solution. A financial one.

That reframing matters, because the SSD Housing Pathway was never intended as a mechanism for private uplift. It was designed for suburbs with rail, metro, frequent buses and genuine transport capacity. Castlecrag has one road in and one road out, no train station within walking distance, and bus services that residents describe with the weary affection one reserves for a relative who is always late. Designating it a housing hub because a neighbourhood supermarket once operated on the site is not strategic planning. It is a policy applied without judgment.

Castlecrag is not precious about change. The Griffin philosophy was never about stasis, it was about buildings that defer to landscape, that sit below the canopy, that arrive in a suburb rather than announce themselves above it. Two 11-storey towers at the gateway of a low-rise heritage conservation area does not defer to anything. They dominate the ridge line, permanently alter the sense of arrival, and cast the kind of shadows that trees, which provide filtered, living light, do not.

Twenty-two trees will be removed, including eight high-value indigenous canopy trees. Deep soil zones will be reduced, meaning whatever is planted in their place will not, in any of our lifetimes, become equivalent. The EIS knows this, which is perhaps why it has not provided a Tree Management Plan. What you cannot measure, you need not defend.

The affordable housing offer, 6.67% for 15 years, at rents still beyond most moderate-income earners, is the fig leaf on an otherwise naked act of overdevelopment.

The Department is being asked to override local planning controls, discard an already-approved sympathetic design, and permanently alter one of Sydney's most architecturally significant suburbs. In exchange, the community receives a couple of towers it never asked for and housing it cannot afford.

That is not a trade-off. It is an imposition.

I urge the Department to refuse this application.

The proposed development is too big, both in its height and the number of units.
This is amplified by being located on one of the highest points in the suburb, thereby causing detrimental shadowing effects and visual blight.
It will be there for generations to come.
Will it be like Eddie Obeid's developments?
And be remembered by the public for a long time as Scully's Scourge or Minns' Monster?
Would it not be better to provide a development that leaves a positive legacy for current and future generations?
Thank you,
Lesley Naimo

Objection to Development by Conquest at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag 2068

Personal background
Grandfather and Grandmother purchased property in Castlecrag in 1924, my mother was born in Castlecrag ( 87 yrs there ) as were her children. I spent sixty-five years (65) there, moving out a couple of years ago. My grandparents knowing Walter & Marion Mahony Griffin personally arranging for Marion to set up the first school in their home in 59 Sunnyside Cres., Castlecrag called the K.O.L. (Kingdom Of Love) the home is still standing.
It is from what I’ve learnt through this family history I draw my objections
In my opinion the Government must be mad to approve Conquest plans for a 13 storey apartment building to be built here at Castlecrag. It would destroy our heritage and destroy Walter Burly Griffins Plans for the aera and the environment which they so eagerly fought to preserve, OR does the NSW Government not understand the importance of Walter Burly Griffin who along with his wife designed the Capital City of Australia.
• Walter and Marion Griffin designed Castlecrag as a low density community based suburb.
• This 13 storey monstrosity would have Walter and Marion Burley Griffin turning in their graves to see something they planned and loved totally destroyed
• There is absolutely no necessity for a 13 storey block of units to be built or even thought about being constructed here at Castlecrag
PARKING and CARS
• Conquest says there will be ground and lower ground floor space for retail shops
1 Conquest does not offer parking for people expected to use these retail shops, where are they going to park! “on cloud nine”?? they wont be able to use Edinburgh Road or the off streets as these are already chocked even when the ‘Quadrangle Shopping Centre’ was there. Which had roughly same for the spaces than what Conquest is suggesting for residence alone.

2 Conquest does not even supply enough parking for the residence either, expecting people not to own cars and defiantly not to have visitors. . . in this day and age people will be purchasing electric cars, Conquest should be supplying more parking - have they made provision for car charging in the units car spaces

3 CAR MOVEMENT The no of permeant residents expected to live here (most will have 2 cars, but nowhere to park them) where are they going to park? Conquest says that people over 65 don’t drive, who’s ivory tower are they living in . . . this will create havoc getting out of and into Castlecrag.

• To my understanding the maximum should be 3 stories as in Northbridge
The Government has not approved 13 storey apartment buildings on Penshurst Street where there is better and faster transport either to Chatswood Station for Metro or Train. Or direct into The CBD.

• Conquest plans to cut down old trees that have been around for many many moons thus destroying the environment which the NSW Government is so intent on retaining..

• What trees are they planting and what open space are they going to provide????

• It would become an eye sore just like the block of units right on the tip of McMahons Point, Which is totally out of place and should never have been built in the first place. The only difference between this building and the proposed one to be built st Castlecrag is that they are both well out of character with the surrounding area, that has destroyed the area as a whole at McMahon’s Point, this one to be built would do the same totally wreck the character of Castlecrag and surrounds while sticking out like a sore thumb.

• I can not think of anywhere in the Willoughby City Council area other than Chatswood that has high rise to this extent. Castlecrag is well outside the area designated for developments of this type of 13 stories

David Robertson