Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

I strongly support this development as this is what our area needs its diverse housing with essential retail amenities, the architecture is world class and the real images look amazing not like the fake propaganda the Castlecrag anti progress association is showing locals which is a real shame the lies being spread about this project, it meets all the criteria and it’s time to get on with it. I strongly support this development. We need it for our area to survive.

The Quadrangle site at Castlecrag presents a genuine opportunity for renewal. The community would benefit from a revitalised village hub with improved amenity, vibrancy, and thoughtful activation. At the same time, I recognise Sydney’s broader need for additional housing and support well-considered development that responds appropriately to its surroundings.

For this reason, I support the approved development at 100 Edinburgh Road (DA-2024/13). The existing approval strikes a sensible balance, delivering a mixed-use outcome of 3–5 storeys that is in keeping with the character of the area and respectful of the local environment.

However, I strongly object to the current development application lodged by Conquest for a 13-storey twin-tower proposal.

My concerns are as follows:

Bushfire risk: I reside in a designated Flame Zone, the highest bushfire risk classification under NSW regulations, and have been required to undertake significant expense to ensure my home is compliant. These efforts are undermined if evacuation routes are compromised. Castlecrag has only one road in and out, and the substantial increase in traffic generated by this proposal would pose a serious safety risk in the event of a bushfire, while also impeding emergency service access.

Traffic congestion: The suburb’s single access point already creates constraints. While some increase in traffic is expected with development, the scale proposed would place untenable pressure on local roads. Public transport options are currently limited and inadequate, and are not equipped to accommodate the significant increase in demand that would result.

Road safety: I have personally witnessed two serious traffic incidents at the intersection near the proposed site, including one involving a school child. Increased congestion leads to driver frustration and risk-taking behaviour, further heightening safety concerns at an already problematic intersection.

Lack of transport infrastructure: The site is not located within a transport-oriented development zone and has limited access to public transport. It is not within proximity of a train station, making high-density development inappropriate.

Scale and visual impact: The proposed 13-storey twin towers represent a dramatic departure from the approved scheme. The height and bulk would dominate the surrounding area, overshadow the locality, and erode the distinctive bushland character that defines Castlecrag.

Heritage considerations: The approved development provides additional housing while respecting heritage values. The site adjoins the Griffin Conservation Area, a place of significant cultural and historical importance, both nationally and internationally.

Planning controls: The proposal conflicts with existing planning controls, which limit building heights to approximately three storeys above Edinburgh Road.

Policy inconsistency: The scale of the development is inconsistent with established planning frameworks and design principles governing the area.

Precedent risk: Castlecrag is not identified as a growth area in state or local planning strategies. Approval of this proposal would set an undesirable precedent for high-rise development in low-density residential areas across NSW.

Policy applicability: The site does not fall within the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy and is located more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre.

Housing affordability: The proposed development appears to target the high-end market and is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to housing affordability.

In closing, I respectfully ask that my objections be given due consideration. The currently approved development represents a balanced and appropriate outcome for the site and community. In contrast, the scale and nature of the proposed scheme are excessive and incompatible with the character and constraints of Castlecrag.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I support the proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. The project appears to be a well-considered addition to the area, providing a balance of residential and commercial space while making efficient use of the site.

Importantly, it does not appear to disrupt the existing character and feel of Castlecrag, and seems to respond appropriately to its surroundings and planning requirements. Developments like this can contribute positively by increasing housing supply and supporting local businesses.

I encourage its approval.

I object to the above submission - the proposal conflicts with planning controls that limit height to around 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road. There is limited public transport, and the proposal will cause increased traffic and congestion. Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in state or local planning strategies. There is not sufficent infrastructure and the price of the apartments is well above the average price for apartments in Sydney. The project is purely a profit-driven initiative, it is not in support of the government relief program towards housing.

It feels significantly oversized for the local area. I support mixed-use development and wasn’t opposed to the original proposal, but 11 storeys is pushing beyond what’s appropriate.

Traffic is already a real issue, and with limited public transport in the area, it’s difficult to live here without relying on a car. That only adds further pressure to an already strained environment.

As a business owner across the road at Bar 81, I’m not opposed to more people in the area — that’s a positive. But there’s a difference between thoughtful growth and overdevelopment, and this feels like the latter.

I object to the proposed development for the following reasons.
1.The scale of the proposed development , 11-13 stories , is excessive for the area, and is inconsistent with its character, which has significant heritage values
2. An appropriately sized development (3-5 stories) has already been approved and has widespread community support.
3. Provision of 150 parking spaces on the site will cause significant traffic congestion in the surrounding area of the adjacent Edinburgh Rd shopping centre.
4. Mass transit public transport i(rail, metro) is not available in the area . The bus service is insufficient outside peak hours.
5. There will be significant shading of houses located to the south of the proposed development.
6. The proposed development is inconsistent with current planning controls.
I am not opposed to appropriately sized redevelopment of the site but the proposed redevelopment does not enhance the amenity of the local area.

Dear Planning Team
I write in relation to the above State Significant Development application.
I am not opposed to redevelopment of this site. I support a mixed-use outcome that delivers additional housing and local amenity. The previously approved development (DA-2024/13), at approximately 3–5 storeys, demonstrates that this can be achieved in a way that is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
My concern is the scale of the current SSD proposal, which represents a substantial and unjustified departure from both the approved scheme and the established planning context.

Disproportionate scale
The proposed development of approximately 12–14 storeys (with two towers above a podium) is a step-change in built form, not an incremental increase.
The issue is not height in isolation, but that the additional scale introduces materially greater impacts—visual, heritage and traffic—without a proportionate increase in public benefit.
The approved 3–5 storey scheme already demonstrates that:
• housing can be delivered
• a mixed-use centre is viable
• local character can be respected
There is no clear justification for doubling the scale and if approved will be a permanent scar on the area.

Character and heritage impact
The site adjoins the Griffin Conservation Area, which is defined by a landscape-led planning philosophy.
While the application claims to respond to this context, it also acknowledges that the proposal is substantially taller than surrounding development.
The introduction of high-rise towers is fundamentally inconsistent with a setting where buildings are intended to be subservient to the landscape, not dominant within it.

Inconsistent with planning intent
Castlecrag is:
• not identified as a housing growth area
• not within a transport-oriented development zone
• not supported by high-capacity public transport
Despite this, the proposal seeks a level of density more typical of areas with significantly greater infrastructure capacity. While the SSD pathway allows flexibility, development must still be appropriate to its context, which this is not.

Traffic constraints are structural
Castlecrag is fundamentally constrained in transport terms:
• no rail, metro or light rail access
• reliance on a limited road network
• bus services operating within that same constrained system
The Traffic Impact Assessment relies on assumptions such as “link trips” and behavioural change; however, these do not alter the underlying reality that increased density translates directly into increased vehicle movements.
Given the peninsula geography and existing congestion points, even moderate increases in traffic can have disproportionate impacts on travel times, safety and access, including for emergency services.
This is not a marginal issue — it is a structural limitation of the location.

Impacts acknowledged but not resolved
The application documentation consistently:
• identifies impacts
• proposes mitigation
• concludes they are acceptable
For example
• the EIS confirms a development of significant scale with two 11-storey elements above a podium , and other reports rely on mitigation measures to manage resulting impacts.
• wind impacts require mitigation strategies to achieve acceptable outcomes
• heritage impacts are acknowledged but framed as mitigated through design
Mitigation may reduce impacts, but it does not eliminate them. At this scale, the residual impacts remain substantially greater than those of a lower-rise alternative.

Conclusion
• Redevelopment of the site is supported
• Additional housing is supported
• A mixed-use outcome is supported
However, the proposed height and bulk are excessive, and the resulting impacts are not justified when compared with a viable, lower-scale alternative already approved.
Accordingly, I request that the proposal in its current form be refused, or significantly reduced in height and scale to better reflect the character, constraints and planning intent of the area.
Thank you
James & Hayley Purtell

1st May 2026

The Hon. Paul Scully MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application No. 90134958
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag — Conquest Group of Companies Pty Ltd
Dear Minister Scully,

I write as a long-term resident of Castlecrag to lodge the enclosed formal objection to the above State Significant Development Application. I have chosen not to include my personal contact details with this submission, but I ask that it be assessed on its merits as the considered and individual objection of a community member who has a direct and sustained interest in the future of this suburb.

My objection is detailed in the enclosed document. In summary, my concerns are these:

1. The proposed 12 to 14 storey towers are wholly disproportionate to the established character of Edinburgh Road and the surrounding neighbourhood, and exceed Willoughby City Council's own endorsed height controls for this site by a factor of three to four.
2. The development would cause permanent and irreversible damage to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area — one of Australia's most significant planned heritage precincts, designed by Walter Burley Griffin, recognised at State and national level, and of acknowledged international significance.
3. An appropriate, properly approved alternative development already exists for this site — DA-2024/13, a 3-storey mixed-use scheme providing 38 dwellings, approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel in December 2024. The scale and ambition of this SSDA is unnecessary.
4. The proposal is incompatible with Willoughby City Council's planning framework and disregards its heritage preservation priorities in a manner that no conditions of consent could remedy.
5. Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in any State or local strategic planning document, and the suburb lacks the transport infrastructure — particularly rail access — that would justify residential intensification of this magnitude.
6. The peninsula's sole vehicular access point, the Edinburgh Road / Eastern Valley Way intersection, is already operating at Level of Service F — the lowest possible rating — during existing morning peak conditions. The additional traffic this development would generate poses a material risk to everyday access for residents and, critically, to emergency services reaching the peninsula in time-sensitive situations.
7. The development will not contribute meaningfully to housing affordability. The apartments proposed are premium dwellings priced for a premium harbourside market, and the mandated affordable housing component amounts to a token fraction of the total floor space.

I am aware that planning authorities sometimes group objections that appear similar in substance or language into a single category, reducing their collective weight. I want to be clear that this submission reflects my own considered views, informed by many years of living in Castlecrag and observing the care with which this community has worked to protect what makes it exceptional. It is not a template response and I ask that it be treated accordingly.

The enclosed objection sets out each of these concerns with reference to specific planning controls, heritage listings, and documented evidence. I urge you to read it carefully and to give genuine weight to what long-term residents of this suburb are telling you: this development, in this form, at this scale, in this location, is wrong — and approving it would be a decision that cannot be undone.

Yours faithfully,

A Concerned Long-Term Resident of Castlecrag
Castlecrag NSW 2068
Enc: Formal Planning Objection — SSDA No. 90134958, 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

I object to the project in its current form. I do not object to the development of this site or what was previously approved. I do NOT believe the proposal is of appropriate density, scale and mass for the site. Specifically, the 11-13 stories being proposed is grossly excessive for the following reasons:

1. the site sits at the entrance and will form the gateway to the conservation area in Castlecrag. It is inconsistent with any buildings in Castlecrag (and in fact, very clearly for miles around!). It will be an 'eye sore' and will overshadow many residents both adjacent and within the conservation area, causing loss of sunlight hours and shadowing solar panels. The EIS contains a solar access analysis demonstrating that more than 15% of apartments in the development itself do not receive direct sunlight at the winter solstice — which the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) identifies as a non-compliance. Given the site slopes downward toward the south, and the towers reach nearly 49 metres, properties immediately to the south will receive significantly extended shadowing. The EIS comparison is made to the already-approved 5-storey scheme (DA-2024/13) — but this comparison is misleading, as the approved scheme was only 15.75m tall. The additional overshadowing from the jump to 48.96m has not been specifically quantified for individual affected properties.
2. The EIS relies heavily on the future of the corridor along Eastern Valley Way between Northbridge and Castlecrag, and not its current form. This corridor is gradually being redeveloped from houses to apartment buildings and is zoned for LMR, but the new developments are less than half the height of the proposal at 100 Edinburgh Road. It is pure supposition that an 11 storey building will at some point blend into this environment.
3. the site is zoned as E1 which is designed for local centres that serve the needs of residents. The height of these proposed buildings will not serve the community in which it is situated (including its own residents) due to concerns of the effect of the number of new residents on parking, traffic and public transport. The shortfall of parking for residents and shops (an admission in the developers own report), the already failing intersection at Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road (an admission in the developers own report) and the already inadequate public transport services to Castlecrag are all of major concern. This will not only effect Castlecrag but will have a knock-on effect to suburbs to the north and west along Eastern Valley Way. I do not believe we have the infrastructure to support the proposed height of this building and the EIS has not adequately demonstrated that we do. There isn't even a building this tall in Northbridge, which is better served by public transport, has a much larger shopping hub, and does not sit on a conservation area.
4. the proposal is more in line with an E2 zoned building, the height of which can be found in Chatswood, St Leonards, North Sydney and Crows Nest - these are all commercial centres supported by bus, train and metro connections.
5. The report does not include any input from the department of transport of the predicted effects on traffic or buses, the report does not include any input from the department of education on the effect on schools in the area, or any changes that will need to be supported by these government departments in the future.
6. The provision of affordable housing is central to the justification for the SSD declaration and the use of the HDA pathway. The proposal includes only 10 affordable units (7%) of 150 apartments and penthouses. There is no reference to what the cost will be or how this is determined. The affordable housing is only guaranteed for 15 years, not in perpetuity. The affordable housing will be located on the ground floor and mezzanine levels, potentially the least desirable with the least light. Like the community consultation for this project, this appears to be a 'ticking the box' exercise, rather than a genuine purpose and reason to escalate this project to SSD status. The need for this many storeys appears to be more aligned to offering a luxury product and commercial gain.

IN CONCLUSION: I understand there is a commercial element, a housing quota, the need for a local shopping hub, and that the site sits with a major arterial road to its west, but this current proposal remains at odds with its setting. Please consider the height of this building and find a compromise that will satisfy the above elements AND better serve the community and the conservation area.

Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd
Application Number: SSD-90134958

I strongly object to this development proposal, SSD-90134958, by Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd, for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

My reasons are as follows:

Building Height
An Invasive Double-Headed Monster
This enormous intrusion on the urban/bushland Castlecrag community, imposed without architectural merit being tested competitively, will be visible from many southern harbourside suburbs, as well as in areas of Mosman and Manly. No view impact assessments have been included in the EIS. The architectural banality of the building design is an additional disparagement to the environmental and cultural heritage of the Castlecrag community.
The Willoughby Local Environment Plan (LEP) limits the height of a building on the Edinburgh Road site to 9 metres, which was revised in 2023 to 11 metres. The developer’s proposed height of the two towers is 48.9 metres, shockingly about five times the height regulated by WCC.
No other building of this height exists in the nearby suburbs of Northbridge, Cammeray, or Willoughby. It violates the environmental heritage values of Castlecrag. Granting approval for this development proposal is likely to create an unwanted and devastating precedent for other suburban areas across the lower North Shore.

Traffic Impact
The Inevitable Roadblock of this Project
The analysis of traffic issues related to the occupants of 150 apartments with 376 car parking spaces is not directly addressed in 7.1. Traffic, Transport and Parking (EIS pp.94-96). The Traffic Assessment section of the impact assessment “found that the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road is operating below desired standards in the morning peak hour as the right turning traffic exceeds the right lane turn capacity and is overflowing into through traffic lanes on north approach of Eastern Valley Way” (EIS p.96). This is the only assessment of traffic in the critical four-lane signalised intersection immediately adjacent to the 100 Edinburgh Road site. Traffic leaving or entering the twin-tower site, at peak hours or otherwise, is simply glossed over as “not expected to have any significant unreasonable impact on the local road network performance” (EIS p.96). Traffic issues arising from the imposition of 150 apartments on the main 4-lane road in an out of Castlecrag have not attracted any evidence-based information. Yet, at morning peak hours from Monday to Friday the Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way intersection is currently clogged. The impact of 150 additional apartments (with 376 car parking spaces) right next to this intersection will further contribute to an intensification of traffic congestion.
It should be noted that the site is not included in a designated transport-oriented development zone. It is about “2.56 km from Artarmon railway station, 2.72km from St Leonards Station, and 2.93km from the Chatswood Interchange” (EIS p.94). The bus services along Eastern Valley Way are mentioned without any assessment of the impact of the project on their capacity, especially at peak hours.
Finally, Willoughby City Council has designated Castlecrag as a bushfire-prone area, which should require the developer to give a high priority to the rate of traffic flow in and out of Castlecrag in the event of an evacuation emergency. This has not been assessed in the EIS.

Affordable Housing
Deceptive and Misleading Claims
In the EIS, Section 1.7, Justification for the Project, there is glib mention of “the proposed development [delivering] much needed housing, including affordable housing […]” (p.30). However, when social housing is measured at 10 to 20 percent below the median price of housing in Castlecrag, not even a professional family with two incomes will be able to buy one of these “affordable” apartments. Besides, of the 10 affordable apartments out of the 150 proposed (6.6%), three are only one-bedroom apartments and seven have only two bedrooms. No three-bedroom apartments are included. The developer is not serious about providing affordable housing. This is a language ploy to gain approval from project assessors.

Community Engagement
The Disenfranchisement of the Castlecrag Community
This has been a lamentable area of neglect in the developer’s project submission. There were only two public meetings, and between the first in November 2025 and the second in March 2026, the proposed parking spaces increased over 70%, from 204 to 376, yet this generated no explanation from the applicant. In fact, at the second meeting, the developer’s representatives made it clear that no criticism, complaint, or suggestions for change, from the attending residents would be effective in altering any aspect of the completed project proposal. The representatives made it clear that the principal purpose of the installation of two 12-storey apartment towers was to provide unparalleled views to the occupants of those apartments. The project was designed for the profitability of those high-rise apartments. The preservation and protection of the environmental and cultural heritage of Castlecrag connected with Walter and Marion Griffin’s historic input was not relevant. We were told that the increased traffic would not add to the bottleneck already in existence on the nearby roads and intersection. Overshadowing the adjoining properties was not a problem. Wind and acoustic safety were minimised. The community engagement was no more than perfunctory and was so curt and unproductive it can only be described as a disenfranchisement of the Castlecrag community.
Everything was kept at arm’s length without any agenda items for the meeting being invited from members of the community’s own organisations.

I am writing as a concerned resident of the Castlecrag community to formally lodge my objection to the proposed 11 to 14-storey twin-tower development at 100 Edinburgh Road. While I support the revitalisation of the Quadrangle site, this specific proposal is an unprecedented overdevelopment that disregards the unique heritage and infrastructure constraints of our suburb.

My objection is based on the following primary grounds:

1. Incompatibility with the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area
Castlecrag is a suburb of international architectural significance, designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin to exist in harmony with the natural landscape. The proposed towers would loom over the low-scale, two-storey village character. The 11-storey height would create an irreversible visual scar on the "gateway" to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, contradicting Willoughby Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement which emphasizes preserving the Griffin design philosophy.

2. Departure from Previously Approved Development (DA-2024/13)
In December 2024, a community-supported, 3-storey mixed-use development was approved for this site (providing 38 apartments).

The new SSD proposal represents a 300% increase in dwelling density (150 units) without a justified change in the site’s strategic context.

The "State Significant Development" pathway is being used here to bypass local planning controls that were specifically designed to protect the integrity of the Castlecrag peninsula.

3. Isolation from Mass Transit and Infrastructure
The site is approximately 4 kilometres from the nearest train or metro station (a roughly 60-minute walk). This proposal does not align with the NSW Government’s "Transport-Oriented Development" program. Adding 150 high-density luxury units at the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way will exacerbate existing traffic bottlenecks on a peninsula with limited entry and exit points.

4. Environmental and Amenity Impact
Overshadowing: Shadow diagrams indicate significant impact on the rear of adjoining southern properties and the public realm.
Natural Landscape: The proposal threatens mature tree canopies (including Turpentines and Sydney Red Gums) along the southern boundary which are essential to the "suburban bushland" character of the area.

I urge the Department to reject this "supersized" proposal and instead require the developer to return to a scale consistent with DA-2024/13. We must ensure that housing delivery does not come at the cost of destroying a globally recognized heritage legacy.

Sincerely,
KS

I am writing as a Castlecrag resident to voice my strong opposition to Conquest’s massive proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road. While we all want to see the Quadrangle revitalised, this specific plan is a blatant overreach that relies on a "creative" interpretation of the truth.

My objections are centred on three main areas:

1. Blatant Misrepresentation of the Planning Context
The developer's submission treats Castlecrag like it’s a high-density transit hub in the CBD, rather than a heritage-protected peninsula.
The "Design Excellence" Myth: The submission claims this achieves "design excellence," but you cannot have excellence while ignoring the basic DNA of a suburb. These twin towers are a total mismatch for the low-scale, Walter Burley Griffin-inspired character of our area.
Metric Manipulation: It feels like the planning metrics have been massaged to justify an 11-to-14 storey height that is simply illegal under current local controls. Pushing for a 300% increase in density over what was already approved in 2024 is not "growth"—it’s a land grab.

2. A "Public Transport" Fantasy
Conquest’s submission suggests this is a prime spot for high-density living because of transit access. This is factually wrong.
The "Long Walk" to Nowhere: We are 4km away from the nearest train or metro station. Expecting 150+ households to walk an hour to get to a train is ridiculous.Bus Realities: Our bus services are already stretched. This site is not a "Transport-Oriented Development" (TOD) zone, and trying to frame it as one is a gross mischaracterization of how people actually move through this suburb.

3. The Traffic Chokepoint
Castlecrag is a peninsula with very limited ways in and out. Adding hundreds of new car movements daily to the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is a recipe for permanent gridlock. The submission fails to account for how this surge in traffic will impact local safety and the quiet residential streets that aren't built for this kind of volume.

The NSW Government should not reward a submission that contains such obvious errors and "massaged" data. We need a development that respects the 2024 approvals—not a high-rise experiment that ignores our infrastructure and our history.

Regards,
Peter
Castlecrag Resident

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I wish to lodge my objection to SSD‑90134958 for the proposed twin 14–15 storey towers at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

A development approval is already in place for a three‑to‑five‑storey mixed‑use project that sits comfortably within the site’s physical and environmental limits. That approval demonstrates that new housing and public domain improvements can be delivered here without compromising heritage values or overwhelming the landscape. In contrast, the SSD proposal abandons that balanced, context‑sensitive approach and replaces it with two high‑rise towers more than four times the height contemplated in the approved DA. Their scale and massing would dominate the ridgeline, impose a high‑rise profile entirely foreign to Castlecrag and its surrounds, and permanently diminish the character of the suburb and the broader landscape setting.

Castlecrag’s identity is inseparable from the Griffin Conservation Area, which directly adjoins this site, and from the internationally recognised planning philosophy of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. Their design for Castlecrag was founded on the principle that buildings should sit within the landscape, not rise above it. Two towers of the scale proposed is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. It also contradicts the planning controls that limit development to roughly three storeys above Edinburgh Road and would impose a visual presence entirely at odds with the suburb’s established human‑scale character.

The concern about excessive height and bulk was evident even within the developer’s own team: at the 2026 public meeting , the project’s heritage architect openly expressed discomfort with the size and scale of the two towers and acknowledged that she had pleaded with Conquest to reduce the height and bulk of the development. This reinforces what the planning framework already makes clear.

The approved DA demonstrates that housing can be delivered on this site in a way that respects the Griffin legacy and the surrounding landscape. The SSD proposal does not.

Nothing in state or local strategic planning identifies Castlecrag as a location for high‑density or high‑rise development. The site is not a designated growth area, is not within a Transport‑Oriented Development precinct, is not within 800 metres of a local centre under the Low and Mid Rise Housing Policy, and is not near a train station. Public transport access is limited, particularly outside peak periods. Willoughby’s local housing strategy does not nominate Castlecrag for significant uplift, and the proposal sits well outside the areas identified for increased density under state policy. The SSD therefore lacks strategic justification.

The traffic and access impacts are also significant. Edinburgh Road is a constrained corridor with limited capacity, and a development of this scale would increase congestion, reduce pedestrian safety, create parking overflow into surrounding streets, and impede emergency vehicle access, particularly during peak periods or bushfire events. These risks have not been adequately addressed.

Although the proposal is categorised as HDA housing, it is clear that the development is positioned at the luxury end of the market. There is no evidence that it will deliver genuinely affordable housing or meet the needs of lower‑income households or key workers. The approved DA already provides a more proportionate and context‑appropriate contribution to housing supply without the environmental and heritage impacts associated with two high‑rise towers. The ten units identified as “affordable” are located on the southern, shaded side of the building, with no views and no access to sunlight, where reduced amenity would naturally command a lower market value in any case. Presenting these units as a meaningful affordability outcome is therefore misleading and does not withstand scrutiny.

The environmental risks are substantial. Large‑scale excavation and construction will disrupt groundwater flows, with potential impacts on nearby reserves and native vegetation. Increased hard surfaces from the development will exacerbate stormwater runoff, leading to erosion, pollution, and degradation of sensitive bushland and harbour foreshore areas. These impacts threaten the ecological health of Castlecrag’s reserves and waterways, which provide critical habitat for endangered species such as the grey‑headed flying fox, echidnas, bandicoots, and other small native marsupials, birds, reptiles, and marine life. Noise, light pollution, canopy disruption, and traffic from two 14-15 storey towers will have lasting negative effects on these species, undermining biodiversity and weakening the ecological resilience of the area.

Throughout the community engagement period, I submitted detailed written questions to the developer seeking clarification on governance, heritage impacts, environmental risks and the rationale for pursuing an SSD pathway. No response was ever provided. After I raised this lack of engagement with the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, and my feedback was subsequently shared with Conquest, no response was received then either. At the community session itself, it was resoundingly clear that residents overwhelmingly supported a smaller, lower‑scale building consistent with the approved DA. Despite this, the proponent has made no concessions, no meaningful design changes, and no attempt to address the concerns raised. The absence of genuine consultation, combined with the refusal to consider reducing the height or bulk of the proposal, undermines confidence in the process and raises serious questions about whether community input has been given any weight at all.

Approving two 14–15 storey towers in Castlecrag would set a precedent for high‑rise development in low‑rise suburbs adjoining conservation areas and highly sensitive environmental corridors, negatively altering planning expectations across the North Shore and beyond. A more appropriate alternative already exists in the form of the approved DA, which delivers housing while respecting heritage, protecting the landscape, maintaining neighbourhood character, and avoiding the significant traffic, visual and environmental impacts associated with the SSD proposal.

For these reasons, I strongly object to SSD‑90134958 and request that the Department refuse the application in order to uphold the principles of good planning, heritage protection, and environmental stewardship.

Planning is not a mechanism for maximising development yield; it is a framework for balancing growth with community identity, heritage, environmental protection and local character.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Moore
Resident of Castlecrag

I am writing to oppose to the 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag new DA application
· 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 proposed development is significantly taller at 12 to 14 storeys and bulkier, overwhelming the area and harming local character.
· The approved DA shows housing can be delivered without harming heritage values.
· The site is next to the Griffin Conservation Area, which is unique and internationally renowned.
· 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.
· The site is not in a transport-oriented development (TOD) zone and has limited public transport access.
· The site is not subject to Low and 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 policies.
· The development risks setting a precedent for high-rise buildings in low-rise suburban areas.
· Increased traffic and congestion could restrict access for residents and emergency services.
· The project is unlikely to address housing affordability, as it proposes high-end units.
· The development would cause irreversible harm to the character and heritage of the area.

There are also broader implications for community amenity. Increased traffic, pressure on local infrastructure, and a departure from the established streetscape would detract from the quiet, residential character that residents value. Such changes are not aligned with the expectations for development within a conservation area.

Planning controls and local environmental plans are in place to safeguard the heritage and environmental significance of suburbs like Castlecrag. This proposal, in its current form, does not appear to adequately respond to those controls or the spirit in which they were created.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject the application or require substantial revision to ensure any development is sympathetic to the heritage, environmental, and community values of Castlecrag.

Yours sincerely,
Tony Choy

This proposal represents a significant and appropriate opportunity to deliver much-needed housing supply within an established and highly constrained suburb located in close proximity to the Sydney CBD. Given its location, access to transport, and existing urban context, the site is well suited for increased density and mixed-use development.

1. Alignment with Housing Supply Objectives
Sydney is currently facing a critical housing shortage, with state and local governments actively seeking to increase housing supply across well-located suburbs. Developments such as this directly contribute to meeting these targets by delivering a meaningful number of dwellings in areas that are already serviced by infrastructure.
Castlecrag, due to its proximity to employment centres and connectivity to surrounding areas, should reasonably contribute to this broader housing objective.

2. Efficient Use of Existing Urban Land
The subject site is not an untouched or sensitive greenfield location. It is a previously developed commercial site that has already been cleared and is currently underutilised. Redeveloping this land for residential and mixed-use purposes represents a logical and efficient use of existing urban land, rather than expanding outward into undeveloped areas.
Encouraging higher density on sites such as this reduces urban sprawl and makes better use of existing infrastructure networks.

3. Proximity to Transport, Employment and Services
Well-located housing is essential to creating sustainable and functional cities. This site benefits from close proximity to the Sydney CBD, surrounding employment hubs, and existing transport networks.
Increasing housing density in such locations reduces commuting distances, supports public transport use, and improves overall urban efficiency. These outcomes align with long-term planning strategies aimed at reducing congestion and improving liveability.

4. Housing Diversity and Accessibility
The proposal includes a mix of apartment types, contributing to housing diversity within the suburb. This is particularly important in areas like Castlecrag, which have historically been dominated by low-density housing.
Providing a range of dwelling types supports different household needs, including young professionals, downsizers, and key workers. Without developments like this, access to well-located suburbs remains limited to a narrow segment of the population.

5. Revitalisation of the Local Centre
In addition to residential housing, the inclusion of retail and community-oriented uses will revitalise the former Quadrangle site. The reintroduction of local retail, including essential services such as a supermarket, will provide convenience to residents and strengthen the local economy.
A well-designed mixed-use development can significantly improve the functionality and activation of the area compared to its current state.

6. Balanced Consideration of Heritage
While heritage considerations are important and should be carefully assessed, they must be balanced against the broader need for housing and urban growth.
Cities evolve over time, and well-considered contemporary development can coexist with heritage elements when appropriately designed. Retaining every site in its existing form is not a sustainable approach in the context of a growing city facing housing constraints.
This proposal is subject to detailed planning and design assessment, ensuring that heritage considerations are addressed appropriately within the overall outcome.

7. Contribution to Broader Community Needs
There is a broader responsibility for all suburbs, particularly those close to the CBD, to contribute to housing supply. It is not equitable or sustainable for growth to be pushed solely to outer suburbs while well-located areas remain unchanged.
Approving developments such as this ensures a more balanced distribution of housing and supports long-term urban sustainability.

Despite Michael Akkawi’s recent letter to all residents that the proposal responds to the needs of young adults, downsizers, and smaller households facing cost pressures, the reality falls well short. Of the 150 units proposed, only 10 are designated as affordable housing—just 6.6%—which is negligible in the context of the broader housing challenge. This token provision does little to meaningfully improve access for those most in need. Given the high-end nature of the development, it is unlikely to deliver genuine opportunities for first home buyers or renters seeking attainable options, instead reinforcing existing affordability barriers. As such, the project appears misaligned with its stated intent, offering the appearance of inclusivity without delivering substantive outcomes for the community it claims to support.

The proposed development’s scale introduces a significant and unaddressed traffic burden that cannot be overlooked. With 150 residential units and an associated retail precinct, the demand for access and parking is substantial, yet the provision of 376 spaces will inevitably translate into a marked increase in vehicle movements. This intensified density will place considerable strain on an already congested intersection, particularly during peak periods when capacity is already stretched. Critically, no meaningful mitigation measures have been outlined to address this impact. The result is not just inconvenience, but a genuine safety concern for residents, pedestrians, and commuters alike, as higher traffic volumes heighten the risk of accidents and reduce overall network efficiency. Without a clear and credible traffic management strategy, the proposal fails to demonstrate that it can integrate safely and sustainably into the existing road infrastructure.

The proposed development will result in the removal of 22 trees, including 19 healthy, living specimens, representing a significant and irreversible loss of established canopy and local ecological structure. This level of vegetation clearing not only diminishes the visual character of the area but also disrupts habitat and biodiversity. Critically, the absence of a comprehensive tree management plan raises serious concerns about the long-term viability of any proposed replacement planting. With reduced deep soil zones, there is limited capacity to support meaningful canopy regeneration or sustain the health of retained trees. Without addressing these fundamental issues, the development risks creating a poorer, less resilient landscape for the community now and into the future.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as a local resident of Castlecrag to formally object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road. I would like to say that I supported the smaller, appropriately sized and throughtfully designed proposal that was approved through council. What we are seeing with this overtly massive high rise development is a money grabbing attempt by a Private Equity firm to profit from the governments objective for more housing and the SSD loop hole. The developer will benefit massively from this project - at the cost of the heritage suburb, the established long term community AND the potential future residents. We should all know by now that these types of projects fail our communities, our heritage and our enviroment.

Castlecrag is not an ordinary suburb. It is a place of national and international heritage significance, designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin as a carefully integrated “garden suburb” where built form sits gently within the landscape. The heritage significance of this is recognised by the government and in a time of great change and ongoing development, we must protect, conserve and respect our history!!!

This proposal fundamentally undermines that vision. Further more, this is not a location for high density population - all residents will tell you that transport in an out of Castlecrag is terrible. We are not near a train station and the bus services are crowded and unreliable. Our catchment public schools are also over crowded, with public school high school students being funnelled in to Mosman high - which is a significant and indirect commute for our teenagers. The population growth from this type of development will have a hugely negative impact on all. We are in support of more housing, but we are not in support of a high rise project - the previous low rise proposal met the needs and the limitations of this community and its geography.

Below I have detailed additional key objections to this proposal. EVERYONE objects to this. EVERYONE can see that this is a completely unreasonable proposal for this site, location and community. EVERYONE can see that the developer/private equity firm seek to secure millions in profit from this project AT THE COST OF SO MANY. THE GOVERNMENT MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS NOW.

1. Inappropriate scale, height and density
The proposal for twin towers of approximately 11–14 storeys and up to 150 dwellings represents a drastic escalation from the previously approved low-rise scheme.
Such scale is grossly inconsistent with the established character of Castlecrag, which is defined by low-rise development embedded in bushland. The bulk, height and visual dominance of this proposal would irreversibly alter the skyline and erode the unique identity of the suburb. THIS WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SO MANY FAMILIES WHO HAVE MADE CASTLECRAG THIER HOME.

2. Irreversible impact on heritage significance
Castlecrag’s significance lies not only in individual buildings, but in its holistic planning, landscape integration, and human-scale design philosophy.Introducing high-rise towers adjacent to the Griffin Conservation Area would:
Disrupt key sightlines and landscape relationships
Undermine the integrity of the original planning vision
Set a dangerous precedent for further overdevelopment
Once lost, this heritage value cannot be recovered.

3. Failure to align with “well-located housing” principles
While increasing housing supply is important, this proposal is not an appropriate response. The site is:
Approximately 4 km from the nearest train or metro station - residents living in castlecrag all attest to difficulties with public transport - we are not a transport hub - we are a one road in and one road out peninsular.
Poorly serviced by high-capacity public transport

This raises serious concerns about increased car dependency, congestion, and pressure on already limited local infrastructure - Where are the impact studies?? Who is reviweing the current congestion along Edinburgh Rd at peak hour? This is already an issue for residents at our current population levels. Increasing this by 150 households is a huge risk to the whole community.

4. Inadequate community consultation and process concerns
The mandated consultation from the developer has been wholly inadedquate. they are lying about the consultation, they have no support from the community. They withold information, act unethically and are untruthful. Disgraceful is the only word to describe this. The government needs to step in to ensure that the same level of planning and consultation applied to government projects is applied here.

In addition, the use of the State Significant Development pathway effectively removes meaningful local decision-making, reducing the ability of residents and council to influence outcomes that directly affect them. This undermines trust and contradicts principles of genuine community engagement.

5. Overdevelopment without corresponding infrastructure
This is a grossly oversized proposal without consideration of:
Traffic congestion
School capacity
Public space and amenity

These issues must be addressed before—not after—any increase in density. Without adequate infrastructure planning, the proposal risks diminishing the quality of life for existing and future residents alike.

6. Limited contribution to housing affordability
I support affordable housing, however, despite the scale of the proposal, only a small proportion of dwellings are designated as affordable housing. This raises the question of whether the significant heritage and environmental trade-offs are justified, particularly when the development appears to prioritise high-end outcomes and the profit of the developer and private equity firm conquest rather than genuine community need.

As a resident of Castlecrag, I strongly oppose this development. We can all clearly see this as an inappropriate and excessive scale of development, and direct threat to a place of recognised heritage significance. This particular development is poorly located and considered response to housing needs that is a clear money grabbing attempt by a developer to profit from the government policies without undertaking due process, or consultation. This is an assult on our community with no respect for community input.

Castlecrag is a rare and carefully designed environment. It deserves thoughtful, context-sensitive planning—not a development that overwhelms and diminishes its defining qualities.

I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected.

Yours sincerely,
Marika Perrow
Castlecrag Resident

The current approval for this hi-rise in a low-rise suburban area shows little understanding on what the area stands for. Not at all representative of the past nor the future. Castlecrag has a rich heritage in architecture and design, yet the current proposal shows nothing of the kind. Immediately looking dated before a brick has even been laid. We ( Australia ) need to start conserving our young historical landmarks or at the very least designing with our past in mind. Otherwise, in 20 years time, we will stand for nothing having built ideas like this that mean nothing.

History is powerful and this development will water down this beautiful area.

While recognising the efforts the designers have made produce a design that meets the brief, I do not support this proposal.

The proposed high rise solution completely ignores the environmental and historical context in which it will be built, notably:

- the proposal is obviously grossly out of scale with its surrounds. Statements concerning the development of Eastern Valley way south of Edinburgh Road as precedent do not stand given that those developments are generally fewer than 4 storeys, making the 100 Edinburgh Rd development significantly out of scale with this level of (generally welcome) local development by several orders of magnitude.

- the visual impact will be significant and will, by its overbearing presence, completely change the nature of this part of Sydney’s Northern Suburbs. Most worryingly a development of this scale presumably sets a precedent for future planning proposals which risks fundamentally undermining the design of the suburb over time.

- independent analysis the Castlecrag Progress Association was forced to commission (notably due to lack of engagement by the developer) suggests that the statements concerning shadowing and overlook are misrepresented in the proposal and the impact is likely to be significantly greater.

- Castlecrag and its surrounds, including Willoughby east, Northbridge, Middle Cove and Castle Cove are not served by any of the new transport infrastructure that supports development in other areas of the North Shore, such as Chatswood CBD, St Leonard’s and Artarmon.

- While Eastern Valley Way is categorised as a state road, the additional traffic load during peak hours does not appear to have been sufficiently assessed. In particular the statements concerning “no appreciable impact on parking” sound overgenerous, given the parking challenges already faced by Castlecrag residents at the intersection of Edinburgh road and EVW (albeit currently mitigated through the removal of several businesses). Access to the site being from EVW would presumably severely impact northbound traffic during rush hour, delaying local traffic turning right onto Edinburgh Rd and potentially backing up traffic to the south of the lights on EVW, already a traffic choke point during rush hour and potentially impacting drivers travelling further north to reach Castlecove, Roseville, Forestville and the Northern Beaches; travellers already impacted by the cancelation of major transport infrastructure to those areas.

- local busses, including those heading into the city (204,205,202,194) are already busy during peak times with busses often at capacity before reaching the Edinburgh road stop. No provision appears to have been made in the proposal for additional demand for services here, threatening to exacerbate this issue. Additionally services to other hubs (e.g. Chatswood) are limited, serving as local short-journey services. The lack of impact assessment here undermines the proposals assertion that the development has sufficient access to larger transport hubs such as Chatswood and St Leonards.

Furthermore the approach taken by the developer to reclassify this development, (and a seemingly deliberate lack of public consultation on the revised plan, despite the hugely significant change in scale), have severely eroded trust in the developers intent. Consequently, while acknowledging the professional standards of all agencies involved in the various impact assessments, it appears advisable that additional assessments are undertaken to validate the assertions concerning environmental and traffic impact before proceeding with any development approval.

In summary I do not support this approval on the basis that it is grossly out of scale and character with its environs, will likely negatively impact the livelihood and wellbeing of existing local residents and businesses, is of a scale poorly supported by local traffic and human services infrastructure, and have broad reaching impacts of both local, traffic and that to suburbs further along Eastern Valley way.

Most importantly it sets a planning precedent that severely undermines the character of Castlecrag and its surrounding suburbs and threatens to further damage this beautiful part of historic Sydney.

Objection to Proposed Development — 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Castlecrag and I am writing to object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road. I do not support this proposal and I would like my objection formally recorded.
I am someone who chose to live here with my growing family in part because of the amazing community that the Crag is. I feel strongly that the proposal is totally out of step with the location for the reasons outlined below.
1. The scale is overly imposing
Castlecrag is a low-rise, leafy suburb with a very particular character. Homes sit amongst trees, the streetscape is modest, and the local centre has always been village-like in feel. What is being proposed — two blocky towers — is completely out of step with that. There is nothing remotely like it in Castlecrag. A development of this bulk and height would tower over surrounding homes and dominate the skyline in a way that feels jarring and inappropriate.
This is not a case of a building being "a bit bigger" than its neighbours. It is a fundamental mismatch between the proposal and the suburb it is being dropped into.
2. The design is really unattractive
Beyond the question of size, the actual look of the proposed buildings is, quite frankly, very poor. They are heavy, blocky and visually aggressive. Castlecrag has a design heritage that values sensitivity to landscape and surroundings. This proposal ignores all of that. Two large towers of this style would stand out as an eyesore.
3. Castlecrag is not a transport hub — so it is not the right place for this kind of density
I understand the State Government wants more housing built near transport. That is sensible policy. But it only works when the suburb in question actually has the transport to support it. Castlecrag does not.
- The nearest train station is more than 3 kilometres away.
- Bus services are limited, especially outside peak times and on weekends.
- There is no metro, no light rail, and no realistic prospect of either.
This means residents of a development this size will overwhelmingly rely on cars. Justifying this proposal as some form of transport-oriented density does not reflect the reality of living here. Castlecrag simply is not that kind of location, and pretending otherwise leads to exactly the kind of poor planning outcome this proposal represents.
4. Traffic congestion will become a serious problem
This is one of my biggest practical concerns. Castlecrag has only two real entry and exit points. That is a fixed limitation of the suburb. Everyone who lives here, works here, visits here, drops children at school, or pops to the shops has to use one of those two roads.
Placing a large, high-density development right at one of those access points is going to cause real problems:
- More cars trying to enter and leave at the same pinch point.
- Longer queues and slower traffic for everyone else in the suburb.
- Knock-on congestion affecting people trying to access the existing shops and community facilities.
- Increased pressure on local streets as drivers look for alternative routes.
The local shops and facilities are already tight for parking at busy times. A development of this scale will bring more residents, more visitors, more deliveries and more service vehicles into the same small area. Even with on-site parking, overflow will spill into surrounding streets. Residents trying to use their own local shops will find it harder to do so. That is not a minor issue — it directly undermines the village centre that makes Castlecrag what it is.
5. There is already a sensible approval in place
This is the part that I find most frustrating. There is already a pre-approved DA for this site. That approval delivers additional housing at a scale that actually fits the suburb and the infrastructure we have. It is a reasonable and balanced outcome. It respects the surrounding area. It adds to housing supply without overwhelming the road network, the local centre, or the character of Castlecrag.
So the choice here is not between this oversized proposal and "nothing". The choice is between a proposal that works for Castlecrag — already approved — and a far larger, more intrusive one that does not.
In summary, I object to this proposal because:
- It is out of character and out of scale with Castlecrag.
- The design is unattractive and overbearing.
- Castlecrag is not a transport hub, so there’s no basis for positioning the development on those grounds.
- Our two-road suburb cannot absorb the traffic this development will generate.
- Parking impacts will damage the existing local centre.
- A more appropriate, already-approved development exists for this exact site.
I am not against housing, and I am not against change. But change has to fit the place. This proposal does not. I respectfully ask that it be refused.

Yours sincerely,
Joe Sheeran
27C The Scarp
Castlecrag