Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

I am a nearby resident and I strongly object to this proposal.

At a fundamental level, this development does not align with the planning framework that applies to Castlecrag. The scale, height and density being proposed are far beyond what is envisaged for an E1 Local Centre, which is intended to support small-scale, village-style development. This is not a designated growth area, and it is not supported by the level of public transport infrastructure that would justify a development of this intensity. Despite this, the proposal appears to rely on planning logic and uplift provisions that apply elsewhere, but not here. This creates a strong impression that the controls are being stretched to accommodate a development that is out of place from the outset.

The most immediate and serious impact for residents is the sheer scale of the building and how it sits within its surroundings. An 11+ storey form adjacent to low-rise homes, with no meaningful transition, is not a minor variation — it is a complete departure from the existing and intended character of the area. This will have direct consequences for neighbouring properties, particularly in terms of overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Based on the information provided, it is likely that nearby homes will lose significant winter sunlight for extended periods. This is a substantial impact on amenity and liveability, and it has not been transparently or adequately assessed in the documentation.

Equally concerning is the environmental impact. The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established trees, including mature canopy trees that contribute significantly to the character and ecological function of the area. In a suburb defined by its landscape setting, this level of tree loss is not a minor issue — it is a permanent and irreversible change. The ability to replace this canopy is limited by reduced deep soil areas, meaning the long-term environmental loss is likely to be far greater than what is suggested.

Traffic and safety impacts also raise serious concerns. The proposal represents a substantial increase in density and parking, yet the surrounding road network is already congested and operating under pressure. The claim that traffic impacts will be reduced or manageable is difficult to reconcile with the scale of the increase. It is far more likely that this will lead to worsening congestion, increased rat-running through local streets, and heightened risks for pedestrians, particularly around shops and schools. These are not theoretical concerns but practical, everyday impacts on the safety and function of the এলাকায়.

There are also broader concerns about the credibility and completeness of the proposal. Key information appears inconsistent or incomplete, including the way compliance with planning controls is presented. In some instances, metrics appear to have been manipulated or selectively interpreted to meet requirements. Important impacts, such as overshadowing and visual bulk, are not clearly or directly compared with the already approved scheme, making it difficult to properly understand the extent of change. Community consultation also appears to have been limited and has not resulted in meaningful design changes, which further undermines confidence in the process.

Taken together, these issues point to a proposal that is not simply a marginal variation, but one that is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning intent for the area and would result in significant and lasting impacts on residents, the environment, and the character of Castlecrag.

For these reasons, I strongly urge that this proposal be refused.

After years of intense and ultimately productive negotiations, a DA was approved by Willoughby Council for a 3-5 story development which largely met the needs of residents and the (previous) owner. Now, this new proposal emerges with no notice, no negotiation and no meaningful consultation with Castlecrag residents. The proposal can only be described as preposterous: in its scale and in its total disregard of the impact on Castlecrag residents and the century-long heritage of the area. The proposal, which is non-compliant on so many levels, has one aim, and one aim only: to maximize the commercial return to the developer.
I have no objection to the re-development of the site, given the demolition of the previous Quadrangle which was clearly past its use-by date. I also sympathise with the State Government's need to increase housing stock in NSW. However, this development is simply in the wrong place and will have lasting negative impacts on all who live in Castlecrag, many of whom are long term residents who have fought hard (with Willoughby Council's ongoing support) to preserve the unique character of Castlecrag as established by Burley Griffin.
The proposal falls short of an acceptable development in numerous ways, amongst them:
TRAFFIC IMPACTS: the addition of 150 plus households will potentially add 300 plus extra vehicles to an intersection that is increasingly problematic. The inclusion of a full-scale supermarket will also significantly increase visitor traffic to the area. It is highly likely that access to the suburb, given that this is the only realistic access point, will be severely affected, and commuter traffic to and from the city will also be adversely affected as the intersection becomes more congested
COMMUNITY SPACE: the development does not provide adequate community space/facilities. This is crucial as this is the ONLY location in Castlecrag where a village-atmosphere cab be created
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS: The development is adjacent to low rise buildings (which is THE regulatory plan for Castlecrag entirely) and has a scale that has no precedent anywhere near the site. Further, the site is not within the remit of LMR and TOD zonings so has no justification under any current State Government zoning initiatives
ADVERSE VISUAL AND SHADOWING IMPACTS: The site is the only gateway to a unique suburb. The proposed buildings will dominate the landscape by their inappropriate height and bulk. Further, nearby residents, especially on the southern side, will be severely affected by overshadowing
HERITAGE IMPACTS: The development is completely at odds with the Griffin plan, one which is recognized worldwide as a major success in urban planning in its ability to create a living environment which is sympathetic with the fundamental nature of the landscape and its pre-existing biodiversity. There is nothing about the proposal which gives due regard to the Grifin plan, the central tenet of which is that the built form is secondary to the existing landscape. (It is interesting to note that at one of the public meetings I attended, the Heritage expert within the developer's team openly acknowledged that the plan had completely inadequate regard to the Griffin legacy. It was also at that meeting that the developer's main representative essentially acknowledged that the meeting was just "a box-ticking exercise")

With the inclusion of additional issues, including significant tree loss, inadequate setbacks and insufficient affordable housing allocation, it can be seen that the proposal is completely unacceptable and must be rejected. Should the development proceed unaltered it has the real potential of ruining the whole character of the suburb and its livability.

I would like to object to the project on a number of grounds including incompatibility with surrounding built form, significant increase in traffic generation, parking shortfall, questionable affordability outcomes, public transport limitations, excessive tree removal and lack of meaningful engagement. The original approved development was the result of lengthy community consultation, whilst tenuous, the outcome was acceptable to the local community given the height, amenity and access to meaningful retail space which has been removed from the area.
The recent developments along Eastern Valley Way have been respectful of the local built form compared to the height of this development which sets an excessively high precedent and is not compatible with the local Burley Griffin planning philosophy that defines the Castlecrag streetscapes. The original approved DA was more respectful and there is concern that this will create a precedent for an abundance of high rise buildings which conflicts with the Castlecrag heritage.
The number of apartments will add pressure to an already strained main road and intersection. The residents fought hard to get a right hand turn at the Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way intersection due to major safety concerns. The Motor Transport Authority was reluctant to introduce due to the added strain placed on Eastern Valley Way. This level of additional traffic from the apartments will add further to a very congested thoroughfare and could pose additional safety concerns with cars trying to turn right into Eastern Valley Way from the apartments against the lights.
Furthermore, parking is an issue the local vicinity and the multitude if occupants and lack of adequate parking in the proposed building will create parking issues and local residents will lose amenity as parking spreads into the residential streets. The public transportation in Castlecrag is also inadequate without access to trains, the bus service is already inadequate and therefore, traffic pressure will inevitably increase. This is clearly trying to take advantage of the TOD planning guidelines but the transport infrastructure does not qualify for such guidelines.
The likelihood of selling/renting homes in the for affordability purposes is unlikely to meet the legitimate needs of local healthcare and service employees and is clearly being used as a means to obtain approval for a development that does not meet the local planning guidelines.
The loss of 22 trees also impacts the local landscape of Castlecrag particularly as this intersection is the gateway to Castlecrag and the loss of landscape only adds to the unsightly impact of the high rise which is uncharacteristic with the local conservation area.
The developer has openly commented that they will not consider any community input in its proposal. Given the extensive consultation previously and the mutually acceptable amenity of the approved development this proposal defies community planning principles. I understand that the SSDA relies on past consultant reports relating to the previous development - these reports should be redone taking into account the revised scale of this development including refence to setbacks and traffic volumes.
The heritage of Castlecrag should be respected Whilst I am not against development and change the previous approved scheme and developments recently completed or underway are much more respectful of the heritage of Castlecrag particularly noting the. strict heritage overlays on a number of the buildings in the area including Castlecrag Private Hospital. I strongly object the development and urge consideration be given to declining teh application and reverting to the previously approved scheme.

A quote from the late James Valentine, radio presenter on 702Sydney- "where will the cars be parked?"
To quote from an article by HG Nelson in the SMH on Saturday 26th April
"James established an umbrella group the Even Greater Sydney Planning Committe (EGSPEC), a weekly half hour must listen on ABC702.This committee oversaw sydney's enthusiasm to knock everything down . Persuading governments of all colours to bend development & finance rules. Rinse & repeat.
Citizens were distraught every time they stepped out their front door wondering which clowns in the big house had allowed that heap of S... to be hurled skywards Without any oversight."
When I read this and the whole article,it is so applicable to the current development proposed in Castlecrag.
The scale of the development is the most outstanding error in my opinion.
1.The visual impact of an 14 storey high twin towers on top of a ridge, which will be seen for multiple kms around, in a heritage area where tree canopies and nature lead the way is crazy, sticking up like a sore thumb. The question of shadowing & loss of light has not been addressed in this new proposal.
2.. Where are all the residents parking their cars? And parking they will need, as Castlecrag is NOT a transport hub. Not near a railway station & has buses which regularly don't stop to pick up passengers, as they are already full.
3. There is an approved development proposal already in place. It is for a low to midrise block of apartments. the current proposal has used many of the dimensions of that proposal and not changed the dimensions for many of the aspects of the building.
From the Incorrect methodology for setback to failure to adjust for increased height & others.
4. Traffic snarls are a common occurrence at the one set of traffic lights where the majority of residents exit the suburb.
There is a 2 lane exit strategy, one to turn right & one to turn left & straight ahead. With the addition of cars from the development, the ability to exit the suburb safely & in a timely manner will be impacted in a negative manner.
5. The aspect of safety is not addressed - Castlecrag has a lot of bushland, in the event of a fire emergency - the ability of residents to leave will be impacted.
6. Affordable housing in this proposal ? The first home buyers are struggling bigtime with expensive mortgages- these apartments will not be affordable given the location in Castlecrag.
7. In the construction of the underground carparks, Castlecrag has already experienced the lack of compliance by the developer in following the requirements for sensible, safe & minimal disruption. The noise, the dust & the traffic snarls were an example of lack of compliance.

While supporting the NSW Governments initiatives to provide more housing, especially for first home buyers and families at an affordable level, this needs to be done with a clear respect to the small amount of of very significant architectural heritage we have in Sydney. Acknowledging the whole of Sydney should share the housing intensification, it must be done where there is good public transportation and with sensitivity to the quality of the public domain and must not be done while destroying irreplaceable heritage.

Castlecrag is an exemplar of where the original developers created sub-divisions with strict caveats to ensure the low rise housing fitted sympathetically into the very special, rocky, native flora, steep harbour side landscape. The design and layout of the roads and inter-connecting bush paths was planned to retain as much of bushland character as possible.

The developers weren't any developers, Walter Burley Griffin and Marian Mahoney Griffin had won a international completion for the design of the nation's capital in Canberra. Their design for Canberra paid great respect for and enhanced the natural features of the site. Their legacy in creating Castlecrag must be protected not only for its intrinsic value but for its heritage connection to Canberra. With little built environment heritage of this quality, we can't afford to loose it or have it severly impacted on, because once this happens we will never get it back.

The houses they designed themselves were made of local sandstone with mainly flat roofs and sited in a staggered way to make sure they sat firmly in the landscape, didn't dominate the Eucalyptus trees and maintained views between them and/or over the top to either the surrounding retained bush or the water.

The proposed development on the corner of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Rd is the complete antithesis of this by completely dominating the landscape and surrounding low-rise development , which by careful conservation have maintained the very high design quality of this unique garden suburb.

The current approved DA shows how the community can be provided with a new mixed development in a way that is sympathetic to the surrounding Griffin and Haven Conservation Areas.

While Willoughby City has clearly shown in the Chatswood Town Centre and other places it can take its share of the additional housing required, the State Government must not make Castlecrag a showpiece for where the 'burden must be shared'!

I strongly object to the project.
The building height is excessive and will result in significant overshadowing, reducing natural sunlight to neighbouring properties. The increased density will also place additional pressure on local traffic and parking.
Furthermore, the proposal is inconsistent with the established character of Castlecrag and does not respect its unique environment.
For these reasons, I request the proposal be refused.

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.

My family and I have resided in Castlecrag for 15 years and, like many of our neighbours, were originally attracted to the suburb because of the artistic and social vision of Walter and Marion Burley Griffin, who laid out a suburb with homes that are meaningful to and respectful of their environment, interconnected by accessible walkways and offering a village atmosphere with highly egalitarian access to the waterside, something that is not available in almost any other part of Sydney.

The proposed 'state significant' development at 100 Edinburgh Rd would seem to be the antithesis of Burley Griffin's vision and, if approved, would represent a shocking betrayal of trust to those that reside in this unique and historic suburb.

I am in no way a NIMBY or anti-development and am well aware of the need for all areas of Sydney to work to accommodate our increasing population. However, for all parts of Sydney, development must be handled with nuance and be appropriate to the areas in question.

Redevelopment of this site (previously the Quadrangle shopping centre) has been on the cards for many years and I confess to being entirely disappointed at the highly contested process that led to a previous, quite lovely and appropriately scaled, structure being shouted down by the local progress association, which I suspect has brought Castlecrag to this alarming juncture.
Nevertheless, a modified proposal was ultimately approved offering 3 storeys at the street level (5 at the low side) with retail and accommodation offerings that seemed to be of an appropriate scale to the suburb and the community.

I think it is fair to say that no resident of the suburb, or region, would ever have imagined that the approved development could possibly be overturned with a development proposal of two towers climbing 12-14 storeys from what is already the high point of the suburb. It reads like a dystopian movie rather than an appropriate development process, and has shades of Blues Point Tower, still one of the great eyesores of NSW.

If the local approval process is not considered efficient then it should, of course, be amended. What it should NOT be is thrown out with the bathwater as appears to be the risk in this case. What even was the point of having an approval process if this is something that an incoming developer could grasp, take to the ‘state significant’ level and then completely overrun in the manner that is currently contemplated? This is not reasonable, and I would contend that there is nothing even remotely ‘state significant’ about this site given the tiny handful of homes (none of which would genuinely be low cost) that could ever be squeezed out of such a small area. The ‘state significant’ moniker should be reserved for areas that can provide meaningful development over the long term, with good access to infrastructure, public transport hubs and proper room for growth.

Castlecrag offers none of these things.

Leaving aside the opinions of residents, I would contest that no typical citizen anywhere in NSW would look at this proposal and consider it reasonable or appropriate.

Castlecrag is an area with homes that are typically 2 storeys, possibly 3 depending on local geography given the hilly terrain. The main entry point to the suburb has historically been 1-2 storeys. The move to the approved 3-5 storey development took several years and seemed appropriate, particularly as the approval would in time encourage the owners' group on the other side of the road to create something similar in scale, the combined impact of which would represent a meaningful addition to the suburb and the state. However, it is inconceivable that this could be disposed of in favour of a 12-14 storey development, perched on the crest of the highest point in the suburb, destroying all of the effort and goodwill that went into the original approval process in the first place.

I make the following specific points:

1. Castlecrag is a suburb with a single main thoroughfare which would be utterly overwhelmed by a development of this scale.

2. Castlecrag is not a transport hub in any way. It offers one main bus stop on Eastern Valley Way that realistically can only handle one bus at a time before traffic on Eastern Valley Way is disturbed.

3. The proposal is entirely out of scale with the suburb. Indeed, it is out of scale with ALL surrounding suburbs, including Northbridge which has far greater density and transport amenity, but which seems to be managing with development limits of circa 4 stories.

4. The proposal will be detrimental to the village atmosphere of the suburb.

5. The proposal will be detrimental to the heritage aspects of the suburb.

6. The proposal would seem to fly in the face of all local development limits and the Griffin Conservation protocols.

I completely support the sympathetic, appropriately scaled redevelopment of the 100 Edinburgh Rd site. The suburb needs to have its shopping/retail capacity returned and I agree that it needs to play a part in supporting the growth of housing stock in Sydney. However, I am completely opposed to the inappropriate and oversized development suggested by the Conquest group.
Sadly, one doesn’t need to travel far in Sydney to see the impact of ruinous planning decisions over the decades, decisions that are made in a hurry and which leave a long legacy of resentment, from Blues Point to unstable high rises at Dee Why to the disaster that is Parramatta Road. I trust that the NSW government will side with the community in this debate and bring the scale of this development down to something more suitable and more in line with recent approvals.

I thank you for your consideration of my submission.

John McGhee

This project goes against everything that Castlecrag is and Walter Burley Griffin designed it. It is clear that this is not a housing issue, with apartments prices well above the means of those that are trying to buy into the market. If this was to benefit the housing crisis there would be more affordable housing options provided.
This is also a place with little to no infrastructure for public transport and a suburb designed with a 1 road in and out layout which will lead to unmanageable traffic congestion and further pressures on the buses that are accessible. It is no where near a train or metro line.
It is clear this is just a mask for money hungry developers!

I strenuously object to this project as it is completely ludicrous and out of character with the local area failing to meet Zoning and statutory controls. Firstly the amount of units is way too high for this location. A) There is limited public transport ONLY BUSSES which at best are not coping with the existing demand. B) An additional 213 CAr spaces will make it very difficult to enter or leave Castlecrag at peak times, there is only 1 entry into this area serviced by traffic lights and I fear it will create a huge road block. C)Ther is NO METRO or other serviceable alternative. C) There will a significant need to rat run through the other main entrance to Castlecrag. D) The site is not within a LMR designated area E) Excessive Height and failure to adjust setbacks, overshadowing concerns with no comparative analysis with approved DA, non-compliance solar access standards, excess loss of sunlight for properties to East and South of development, failure to test shadow impacts. F) There is an incompatibility with the surrounding built form. This development is purely greed and profit driven and lacks the ability to solve affordable living issues. There is no need for this excessive height 5 stories would be the maximum this site could reasonably sustain. This is a heritage area and the development is completely out of Character. I am a Property Investment Specialist with a Masters Degree in Real Estate Investment from UTS and on the UTS Masters Of Real Estate Investmetn and Development. Furthermore, I have recently been the Executive Director of Capital Markets at The Property Council of Australia. I believe my relevant experience and qualifications give me a strong voice and that is this development fails on all measures and should not proceed. It would be a huge mistake for the NSW Planning Department and the premier's office to approve this development falling on uncontainable conduct. The excuse that this will help solve the housing crisis is completely false. What we need is more high rise development with affordable components near Metro and rail stations NOT in and area unserviceable. An argument to increase BUS services will NOT solve one of the main issues. This development will destroy Castlecrag which is a peninsular suburb and is completely NOT FIT FOR THIS LOCATION. I urge the Minister to take this rejection VERRY seriously and am willing to meet in person to discuss and give my professional opinion. THIS DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS PROPOSED MUST BE STOPPED.

It is hard to know where to start here because there are so many components of this proposal that are inconceivable. And to be honest, I not only vehemently object to it, I am also appalled and saddened that our city (and country) has come to this, where we as individuals have to 'fight' just for common sense and good planning to be considered. And to state right upfront, this is not about not wanting to support the city in accommodating more people because I 100% support, and always have, the initial Community and DA approved 3-5 storey development that was to be 100 Edinburgh Rd. This plan made sense - provided for the community; assisted with providing more homes; structurally sound; minimal impact on Environment and Heritage etc. Why and how can we possibly support something that is the complete antithesis of these needs? And since the housing quota has been already met in the Willoughby area, this can only be about 2 things for the Govt and the Developer….and that is tick-a-box and money! There is no other value to this latest plan other than those 2 things. Well, that is far from a reason to go ahead with something that will destroy everything it initially set out to do. The word 'extortion' comes to mind if Conquest and the State Govt say yes to this! ("Extortion = the criminal act of obtaining money, property, or services through coercion, threats of future harm, or misuse of authority.")

Let me explain further about my key concerns and why they de-value and extort our community:
- there is only 1 way in and 1 way out of Castlecrag, which is already congested. The intersection will not cope with the planned amt of cars and pedestrians of a 12-14 storey building. Imagine peak hr times when you have existing traffic; cars are trying to pull out of their new unit block driveway and merge in; workers crossing the street trying to get to the overflowing bus-stop; children crossing the street trying to get to school from the overflowing bus-stop; all this means stand-stills every way you look. Meanwhile cars are trying to get back in but the roundabout is blocked also creating a stand-still, so turning left or right off EVW is jammed blocking traffic all the way back to who knows where; and then because EVW is blocked cars coming straight across the intersection will be banked back blocking poor cars who just want to turn left onto EVW and avoid the debacle but alas no, there will be no avoiding serious traffic havoc at every corner around the area.
- dangerous roads: with the above happening, it is actually going to become an even more dangerous intersection for pedestrians and vehicles
- Castlecrag is a bush-fire zone, so with all of the above happening of not being able to get in or out……disaster! Not even Emergency Services can escape that traffic debacle
- Castlecrag Hospital: like above, it seems no consideration has been made for our health workers including the doctors, and patients to be able to have ease of access, especially in an emergency
- Transport: very limited offering (just buses) and the network we do have is mostly not reliable. We are so far from a 'Transport Hub' that is required for large developments, there is no way the area can 'transport' another 150 units-worth of people.
- Sunlight: there has been no consideration for the huge amt of houses impacted by the shadows these building will create. I am lucky I am not one of them however have to speak on their behalf because I'd be mortified. I bought my house because of the lightness and brightness it has and that was a core purchasing criteria. To have that taken away completely, to no fault of your own, is appalling. And Conquests pathetic attempt at doing a shadow study (only because the community demanded it) that they showed us at the Community Presentation, was like a kindergarten drawing that demonstrated clearly their lack of skill, thought or assessment they gave to such an important value
- Heritage: how can we even contemplate destroying the area of the Griffin Conservation site? The govt asks of us to always be respectful, value others beliefs, not forget our history, treasure 'treasures', act with integrity, and from the govt website, "ensure the public interest is prioritized over personal gain'……all of these are what make Australia great! Well, if this plan goes ahead, you are acting completely in opposition to your own value-set! How 'un-Australian' and unethical is that!
- Look/design (to a lesser importance of all of the above but still a 'de-valuer'): no-one can say the proposed 12-14 storey building is going to look good or is in-sync with the Middle Harbour vibe. 2 rectangle blocks sticking up from nowhere. Yes, can see it at a train station or in central hubs which is where high-rise stye fitsbut what a hideous site for the suburbs and community to see every day; the passers-by to see everyday and visitors from other cities domestically and internationally. That is not what Middle Harbour is about nor is it why any resident living in the broader community lives here. And no, I am not a NIMBY as referred to by you - I am all for development and growth and change……just sensible value-add win/win solutions.

This proposal is a win/lose money-driven tick-box activity that has no common-sense or justification to it! Please be sensible in your decision and revert back to the initial win/win Community and DA approved 3-5 storey plan.

My main concern is with the traffic problems this development will create. I live in the Parapet and the only way out is via Edinburgh Road. The additional traffic will inevitably create back ups through the roundabout at The Rampart and make it difficult to exit The Parapet. Further when turning right into Eastern Valley Way only 3 cars at a time can get through the lights. Adding to the traffic in Edinburgh Road will exacerbate this problem.
It seems excessive to me to put an 11 storey development in suburb that is currently limited to 2 stories. Developments of 4 or 5 stories would be more appropriate such as the developments at Northbridge.

i support appropriate scale of development in this location
I don't support the scale of development being proposed for the following reasons:
the overshadowing the the properties to the south is a significant detriment to those properties
The scale of the development is not appropriate for the site given the location and suburb 6- 7 stories would be more appropriate
If this site was an LMR site this scale of development would not be approved, in fact and LMR zoning would be more appropriate for this site
The site is adjacent to a Heritage Conservation area and as such the scale is inappropriate It litterly dwarfs the adjoining site

The cars from 150 apartments will add massively to traffic congestion in a peninsula suburb with one main street of entry and egress. Edinburgh Road is already congested at peak times.
There are safety concerns in a bushfire zone where Castlecrag has a hospital, one school and two kindergartens.
Impact on a national heritage site, the Griffin estate. Overshadowing part of the Griffin estate
Gross overdevelopment of the site. Two towers of 12-13 storeys does not align with Walter Burley Griffin’s vision for Castlecrag.
Castlecrag is not a transport hub. We have bus services to the city and Chatswood running every 30 minutes or less frequently. We don’t have trains, or a metro service.

Submission to the NSW Planning Committee
Re: Opposition to Proposed Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag NSW
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.
My principal concerns relate to the excessive scale of the proposed apartment development and the significant traffic impacts it will impose on an already constrained local road network within a small residential community.
Castlecrag is a unique suburb characterised by low-density housing, narrow winding streets, significant tree canopy, and a village atmosphere that reflects the original planning vision of the area. Developments of this scale are inconsistent with the established character of the suburb and risk permanently altering the nature of the community.
The number of apartments proposed for this site is excessive relative to the size of the land parcel and the surrounding residential context. A development of this density will inevitably create a level of activity, vehicle movement, noise, and population concentration that is not in keeping with the surrounding area. While thoughtful growth is important across Sydney, it must occur in locations with the infrastructure and transport capacity to support it. Castlecrag is not such a location.
Traffic is already a genuine concern for local residents. Edinburgh Road and surrounding streets are narrow and experience congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, commuter periods, and weekends. Additional vehicle movements generated by a high-density apartment development would worsen delays, reduce safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and create further difficulties for residents entering and exiting local streets, given the dead end nature of Castlecrag.
The suburb has limited public transport options compared with higher-density centres, meaning many future residents are likely to rely heavily on private vehicles. This makes traffic generation a particularly serious issue that should not be underestimated in any assessment.
There are also broader concerns regarding parking overflow, pressure on local amenities, increased delivery and service vehicle activity, and the cumulative impact of overdevelopment in a suburb not designed to accommodate this intensity of use.
I respectfully request that the Planning Committee reject the proposal in its current form, or at minimum require a substantial reduction in scale and dwelling numbers together with a comprehensive and realistic traffic impact review.
Future development should respect the existing character of Castlecrag, preserve amenity for current residents, and ensure infrastructure capacity is not exceeded.
Thank you for considering this submission.

The criteria for SSD is not appropriate to this site:
1. There is no available public transport hub within 800 meters of this site- the current bus service does not service the Artarmon industrial area or provide regular services to the CBD or other potential places of business. Conquest’s traffic expert has not provided a reliable assessment and was unable at the consultation process to speak to the existing bus services. The developer has said that this is a matter for TfNSW. Yet proposes at least an additional 320 occupants.
2. Conquest has not properly addressed traffic congestion at the intersection of Easter valley way and Edinburgh Rd. It is acknowledged that the traffic lis now at its maximum and Conquest acknowledges that it can not address the extra congestion. Which will impact adversely on the small businesses, residents, the hospital, firefighters and cause a significant public cost. There are 376 extra parking spaces but likely, given lack of public transport, probably at least 320 extra vehicles. This will likely result in traffic banked beyond Rutland ave roundabout , this is where traffic currently banks up. With Conquest providing only one entry and one exit near the intersection of Edinburgh Rd, eastern valley way and adjacent Raeburn Av the congestion will create a traffic hazard .
3.Affordable Housing. Conquests states it will provide 10 affordable dwellings. The average dwelling size is 100sq meters. Given that the medium price of dwellings in Castlecrag is close to $5million , so even in the current high interest environment and slow down in growth in house prices, Castlecrag is not affordable to average working families or first home buyers. This simply means that Conquest will be building two 14 story towers to maximize private profit.not to provide any additional to accessible housing stock. A small discount off market value in Castlecrag will not give rise to ‘ affordable’ housing.
4. The public consultation process was by any measure a tick the box exercise but raised significant issues with the proposed development. Amongst these were (1)All feedback the planner acting for Comquest said would be ignored. No assurance would be given that a community assessable place would be created;(b) no outside seating or gathering space could be guaranteed as this would depend on the lessees. So of course if a high end jewellery store or watch shop paid more no restaurants or other public venues would be provided for the community;(c) Conquest has hired PR firms and many experts and will push this development through and the community should accept it because it may provide jobs while it is built ;(d) the traffic will not be bad said Conquest because people do not drive at the same time, this is not a reasonable reply to a genuine concern nor does it address the fact that Conquest has not approached the Government to provide more car access to the site given the 375 parking spots, instead Conquest has merely topped the DA approved low rise with two 14 storey towers (e) Conquesthas stated that the development will have no heritage impact. This is because its heritage consultant stated at the consultation that the building is next to but not in the heritage zone. This is a myopic and feeble basis as the two towers will dominate and act as entry sentinels to Castlecrag a poor legacy to town planning and an abuse of a heroic effort by the government to increase housing supply. In short there was nothing in the consultation process that suggested an attempt to address the standards for a SSD.
5. Community. This proposed development will inevitably destroy the heart of a community. The village created by the previous approved DA or that that existed before, provided the heart for the community. To meet, to engage with neighbours, discuss the state of the neighbourhood and provide each other support. For many of the older residents it was one of the few places they could engage socially. Conquest is not in my opinion in the business of creating a community. With a high density 160 dwelling proposal on average at 100 sq meters it must and will recoup on its investment. It will do this by minimising spaces that provide a low yield ie public community meeting spaces and maximising the return on its per sq meter cost. This is how our capitalis system works. However this is also balanced by the hand of public benefit. That hand is the Government and the Panel exercising its power of approval to constrain the private profit motive by extracting conditions on the development. Those conditions should preserve public benefits. The community needs a heart. The panel should not give away the licence to build above maximum heights and FSR s without getting something back to our community. The heart of the community is a living thing , its blood is public community spaces ; including conditions to provide not just a pedestrian walkway but spaces for outdoor dinning, benches for out door sitting, a notice board for community interaction, reducing fumes from excessive congestion, shady spots for people to gather and have a coffee. These things are at the heart of a community. It’s incumbent on the Panel not to give these public goods away and allow Conquest to privatise and profit from community assets.
6. The community has expressed its unity and has interestingly almost uniformly risen against this proposal. Mainly because it is an abuse of a worthy and admiral SSD scheme. But like pink batts, NDIS, solar panel subsidies it must be carefully and thoughtfully applied. Otherwise it leads to an abuse by developers who siphon profits overseas to private investors leaving the community to live under the shadow of a development which is ill suitable.
7. I believe the Panel can sensibly place conditions on Conquest. These should include at leasr15% affordable housing at the “expensive “ end of the development, requiring guarantees on open seating including caffe, restaurants 9 as these require oil traps etc so need to be incorporated, provide two years of bus transport at regular intervals to the nearest metro station on a continuous loop, address the traffic congestion with more entry and exits .any of these will enable the community continue to thrive.
8. Lastly Conquest will make a massive profit given the current value of housing in Castlecrag.So as to ensure that Conquest has not simply created 100sq meter units in order to maximise the price of a few pant houses the Panel should address in its conditions what the Panel considers will prevent Conquest exploiting the current government policy. The housing shortage may come to an equilibrium but no one wants another massive tower on the highest point of a suburban low rise estate.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to our state
Leon Pasternak

Submission — Objection to State Significant Development Proposal
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (former Quadrangle site)
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Castlecrag Resident - 22 Morotai Crescent, Castlecrag
Date: 21 April 2026
---
I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. I write as a resident of Castlecrag with a young family. The proposal, as exhibited, represents gross overdevelopment of a constrained suburban site and a wholly inappropriate use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway.
1. Inappropriate use of the HDA / SSD pathway
The HDA provisions were designed to accelerate well-located housing supply adjacent to adequate transport infrastructure and services. 100 Edinburgh Road fails that threshold on every objective measure:
• The site is not within walking distance of a heavy rail station, metro station, or light rail stop.
• Bus services along Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way are infrequent and cannot absorb the additional trip generation from 150 apartments.
• There is no planned transport upgrade to service the proposal within the relevant horizon.
Using the SSD pathway to bypass Willoughby Council’s LEP height and FSR controls — controls which were deliberately set through a proper Planning Proposal process only two years ago — sets a corrosive precedent. A 3x uplift from the recently approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey scheme to an 11-storey, 150-apartment tower is not “housing delivery”; it is a circumvention of legitimate local planning controls in a location the framework was never intended to capture.
2. Gross overdevelopment incompatible with the Griffin Conservation Area
The site sits within, and adjoins, the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation Area — a precinct of national and international heritage significance. An 11-storey tower of approximately 15,852 sqm GFA would:
• Dominate the low-rise, landscape-led character the Griffins deliberately designed.
• Be visible from most public vantage points in the suburb and across Middle Harbour.
• Irreversibly compromise the heritage values the WLEP and State Heritage listings exist to protect.
With at least 180 dwellings already approved, under construction or recently completed within 400 metres of the site, the cumulative impact on suburb character, infrastructure and services has not been properly considered.
3. Unacceptable impact on KU Castlecrag Preschool
KU Castlecrag Preschool on The Rampart sits immediately adjacent to the site. An 11-storey built form at this location would:
• Overshadow the preschool’s outdoor play areas for significant portions of the day, particularly in winter months when solar access is most critical for young children.
• Degrade the quiet, low-scale setting in which the centre currently operates.
• Impose years of construction noise, dust and vibration impact on a sensitive early-childhood use directly abutting the site.
Any solar access, acoustic and construction management modelling submitted by the proponent must be independently verified against KU Castlecrag’s actual play yards and learning spaces — not merely the property boundary.
4. Traffic and access — the site cannot absorb the additional load
Castlecrag is a peninsula with effectively one arterial feed (Eastern Valley Way) and one local collector (Edinburgh Road). The proposal will generate in the order of 200+ additional vehicle movements concentrated on these roads, on top of the already-approved 38-apartment scheme and the 180+ recently approved dwellings nearby.
Specific, unresolved issues include:
• Eastern Valley Way / Morotai Crescent intersection — already difficult and unsafe to navigate, with no traffic signals and poor sight lines. The existing intersection cannot accommodate the increased turning movements this development will generate, particularly during school peak times.
• No signalisation or intersection upgrade is proposed or funded as part of the SSD.
• Edinburgh Road is the subject of a proposed High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) and 40 km/h zone — objectives which are directly inconsistent with funnelling hundreds of additional daily vehicle movements through the village centre.
5. Pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate
Pedestrian footpaths along Eastern Valley Way — the primary walking route to the site from the northern and eastern parts of the suburb — are narrow, discontinuous in places, and not designed to handle the pedestrian volumes implied by a 150-apartment development with a supermarket anchor. There is no pedestrian infrastructure upgrade commensurate with the intensification proposed. This is a direct public safety concern, particularly for children walking to Castlecrag Montessori, KU Castlecrag, Willoughby Girls, and the local shops.
6. Architectural design does not exhibit design excellence
SSD approval is predicated on demonstrable design excellence. The exhibited scheme does not meet that test:
• The built form reads as a generic, value-engineered apartment block transplanted into a highly specific heritage landscape context.
• Materiality and articulation are inconsistent with the Griffin architectural language and the considered sandstone, timber and landscape-integrated character of the surrounding streetscape.
• The scheme looks cheap and commercially driven, not contextually designed.
• There is no evidence of a competitive design process, design review panel endorsement, or serious engagement with the Griffin Conservation Area DCP provisions.
The previously approved 3–5 storey FJC Studio scheme demonstrated what a contextually appropriate response looks like on this site. The current proposal is a substantial step backwards in design quality.
7. Basement and construction impact on adjoining properties
A basement sized to service 150 apartments plus retail and a full-line supermarket on a sloping, sandstone site of this scale will require extensive rock excavation immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, KU Castlecrag, and the public domain. Foreseeable impacts — which in my professional experience on comparable sites are consistently underestimated at DA stage — include:
• Structural risk to adjoining footings and retaining structures during excavation and shoring.
• Ground water interception and long-term dewatering impacts on surrounding properties and landscape.
• Rock-breaking noise and vibration over an extended construction period in a quiet residential setting.
• Heavy vehicle movements on roads (Edinburgh Road, Eastern Valley Way, The Rampart, The Postern) that were not designed for sustained construction traffic of this intensity.
A dilapidation, geotechnical, vibration and groundwater regime commensurate with the scale of excavation proposed has not been demonstrated.
Conclusion
The already-approved 38-apartment, 3–5 storey mixed-use scheme is the correct response to this site — it delivers housing, renews the retail village, and respects the Griffin Conservation Area. The SSD proposal currently on exhibition is a fundamentally different project: it is a gross overdevelopment on an infrastructure-poor site, enabled by a pathway never intended for locations like Castlecrag, and it would cause unacceptable and irreversible impact on an adjoining preschool, the local road network, pedestrian safety, heritage character, and adjoining properties.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and, more broadly, reconsider the appropriateness of applying the SSD / HDA framework to sites that plainly do not meet its locational criteria.

We ask you to please seriously consider the above, we will separately be reaching out to local government to make sure that State Government Planning Assessment team are seriously considering our submissions

Submission — Objection to Proposed State Significant Development
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Date: 21 April 2026

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the State Significant Development proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. As a resident of the area and a parent raising young children in the neighbourhood, I am concerned about the scale of the proposal and the way it conflicts with the planning framework, infrastructure capacity and established character of Castlecrag.

While I recognise the importance of delivering additional housing, the proposal currently on exhibition appears excessive for this location and inconsistent with the planning intent for the area.

1. The site is not suitable for the HDA / SSD pathway

The Housing Delivery Authority pathway is intended for sites that are well connected to public transport and supported by sufficient infrastructure. In my view, this site does not meet those expectations.

Castlecrag does not have direct access to rail, metro or light rail services within walking distance of the site. Public transport in the area relies primarily on bus routes along Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road, which operate relatively infrequently and already serve a wide catchment.

A development of around 150 apartments would generate a large number of additional daily trips. However, there is no clear evidence that transport infrastructure will be upgraded to support this increase.

In addition, the proposal represents a very substantial increase compared with the development controls that apply under Willoughby Council’s Local Environmental Plan. Those controls were established through a formal planning process relatively recently. Moving from the previously approved 3–5 storey, 38-apartment development to an 11-storey building with approximately 150 apartments is a dramatic change in scale.

2. Impact on the Griffin Conservation Area

Castlecrag is internationally recognised for its association with Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. The suburb’s planning principles emphasise landscape integration, modest building scale and sensitivity to the natural environment.

A building of approximately 11 storeys and more than 15,000 square metres of gross floor area would be highly visible and out of proportion with the surrounding streetscape. The proposal risks undermining the distinctive character that makes the Griffin Conservation Area significant.

The development would introduce a level of visual prominence that is inconsistent with the low-rise, landscape-dominated setting that has historically defined Castlecrag. Once a structure of this height is introduced, the impact on the character of the area would be permanent.

It is also important to consider that there has already been a significant amount of residential development approved or completed within close proximity to this site in recent years. The cumulative effect of these projects on the suburb’s character and infrastructure should be carefully assessed.

3. Effects on KU Castlecrag Preschool

The development site sits immediately next to KU Castlecrag Preschool on The Rampart. This proximity raises several concerns regarding the environment in which young children learn and play.

A building of this height may cast substantial shadow over the preschool’s outdoor play areas, particularly during the winter months when sunlight is limited. Access to sunlight and outdoor space is an important aspect of early childhood learning environments.

The scale of construction required for a project of this size would also bring prolonged noise, vibration and dust to a site directly adjoining a childcare facility. These conditions are not ideal for a sensitive use such as a preschool.

Any environmental modelling presented by the developer should be independently verified to ensure it accurately reflects the real conditions experienced within the preschool grounds.

4. Road network and traffic pressures

Castlecrag’s road network is relatively limited, with most traffic relying on Eastern Valley Way as the main arterial connection and Edinburgh Road acting as a key local route.

The addition of around 150 apartments is likely to increase traffic movements considerably. This is particularly concerning when considering existing congestion and safety issues at the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Morotai Crescent. The intersection currently operates without traffic signals and has restricted sight lines, making turning movements difficult.

No clear proposal has been put forward to improve this intersection or upgrade surrounding road infrastructure as part of the development.

There also appears to be a contradiction between the expected increase in vehicle movements and the proposal to establish a High Pedestrian Activity Area with a lower speed limit along Edinburgh Road. Encouraging more pedestrian activity while simultaneously increasing traffic volumes through the village centre creates a potential safety conflict.

5. Pedestrian safety and footpath capacity

Pedestrian infrastructure in the surrounding area is limited. Footpaths along Eastern Valley Way in particular are narrow in several sections and are not continuous in others.

A development of this size, especially one that includes retail and a supermarket component, would likely generate significantly higher levels of pedestrian activity. However, the proposal does not appear to include substantial upgrades to the surrounding pedestrian network.

This is concerning given that many children and families walk through this area to access nearby schools and childcare centres, including Castlecrag Montessori, KU Castlecrag Preschool and local shops.

6. Questions around design quality

State Significant Development approvals are generally expected to demonstrate a high level of architectural quality and contextual design. The scheme presented in the exhibition material does not appear to meet that standard.

The building form and overall appearance resemble a typical apartment building that could be placed in many urban locations rather than something carefully designed for the unique setting of Castlecrag. The proposed materials and façade treatment do not strongly reflect the architectural language or landscape integration associated with the Griffin heritage area.

It is also unclear whether the design has undergone a rigorous design competition or independent design review process.

The earlier proposal prepared by FJC Studio, which involved a 3–5 storey mixed-use development, appeared to respond more sensitively to the context of the site.

7. Construction impacts and excavation

Developing a basement structure large enough to accommodate parking and services for 150 apartments and retail uses will require significant excavation into sandstone on a sloping site.

Such excavation has the potential to affect neighbouring properties and surrounding public areas. Possible issues include structural impacts during excavation, groundwater disruption, and extended periods of rock breaking.

Construction traffic is another concern. Heavy vehicles travelling to and from the site would likely use nearby streets such as Edinburgh Road, The Rampart, Eastern Valley Way and The Postern. These streets were not designed to accommodate long-term construction activity of this magnitude.

More detailed consideration should be given to geotechnical risks, vibration impacts and protection of surrounding properties.

Conclusion

The previously approved development consisting of approximately 38 apartments across 3–5 storeys represents a more balanced and appropriate outcome for this location. It provides additional housing while remaining broadly consistent with the scale and character of the surrounding area.

The State Significant Development proposal currently under consideration is significantly larger and raises a number of serious concerns relating to infrastructure capacity, traffic, pedestrian safety, heritage character and the amenity of neighbouring uses such as the preschool.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department decline the application. I also encourage the Department to reconsider whether the SSD/HDA framework is appropriate for locations that lack the transport infrastructure and planning context typically associated with this pathway.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission and the concerns raised by members of the Castlecrag community.

Yours sincerely Blanche and Greg

I object to the proposed development on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the applicable planning controls, the established character of the area, and the recognised heritage significance of its surroundings.
An approved development (DA-2024/13) already exists for the site, demonstrating that a lower-scale, mixed-use project of approximately 3–5 storeys can be delivered while respecting the local environment. In contrast, the current proposal seeks a substantially larger development of 12–14 storeys, representing an overdevelopment of the site that would overwhelm the existing low-rise character.
The site’s proximity to the Griffin Conservation Area is a critical consideration. This area is of recognised heritage value, reflecting the design philosophy of Walter Burley Griffin, where built form is intended to be integrated with and subordinate to the natural landscape. The proposed height, scale, and bulk are incompatible with these principles and would result in unacceptable impacts on the heritage significance of the area.
The proposal also conflicts with established planning controls, including height provisions that generally limit development to around three storeys above Edinburgh Road. It is inconsistent with local and state planning strategies, as Castlecrag is not identified as a location for significant housing growth or increased density.
In addition, the site is not suitable for a development of this intensity from a transport perspective. It is not within a Transport-Oriented Development zone, is located more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre, and does not have adequate access to high-frequency public transport. The absence of a nearby train station and limited bus services, particularly outside peak periods, will likely increase reliance on private vehicles and contribute to traffic congestion and reduced accessibility.
The proposal does not align with Council’s planning framework or heritage conservation priorities, and its scale and design are inconsistent with relevant planning and design policies. Approval of this development would set an undesirable precedent for similar high-rise developments in low-density suburban areas.
Furthermore, the development is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to housing affordability, as it proposes predominantly high-end dwellings.
Overall, the proposal represents an inappropriate and excessive development that would cause irreversible harm to the character, amenity, and heritage values of the area. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application be refused.

I’m a Castlecrag resident and I’ve read the EIS for this proposal. I want development on this site - I’m not writing to stop that. I’m writing because three things in this document genuinely concern me and I don’t think they’ve been properly addressed.

The first is the design. The proposal places two residential towers side by side on a site of just over 5,000 square metres. Twin towers of this height on a site this size creates a wall of built form across the Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way frontage - dominating the streetscape, compressing the public domain below, and bearing no relationship to the scale or character of anything around it. A single well-designed building of lower height would deliver comparable housing numbers with far less impact on the street, the neighbours and the heritage precinct next door. The twin tower configuration appears driven by floor plate efficiency rather than good urban design outcomes. The Design Review Panel raised concerns about height and scale - those concerns were not resolved, they were dismissed. That is not a design excellence outcome.

The second is the scale. This building is nearly 50 metres tall in a suburb where the surrounding streets are one to three storeys. The EIS justifies this throughout by describing the site as a “well-established town centre.” I live here. It is not a town centre. It is a residential suburb with a local shopping strip. The Griffin Heritage Conservation Area is immediately next door. Once a building of this scale is approved it cannot be undone and the planning justification for it should be airtight. In this document it is not.

The third is the shadow impact on properties to the south. My neighbours down the hill from this site will be significantly affected by a nearly 50 metre building and the EIS has produced nothing to quantify it. No hours of sunlight measured. No individual properties assessed. No before and after comparison. The document dismisses the entire impact with a single line - that shadows are similar to the previously approved building. The previously approved building was 15.75 metres tall. This one is three times that height, on a site that slopes toward those same properties. That is not an assessment. I am asking DPHI to require a proper quantified shadow study for every affected property to the south before any decision is made.

I’m asking DPHI to require proper answers to all three of these before consent is considered. I’m all for development - but this will be a case study of SSD’s gone wrong if approved.