Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

I wish to lodge a strong objection to the proposed development of two large towers at Castlecrag on the grounds of traffic impacts, emergency access risk, and inconsistency with the heritage and planning objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).

My family and I have lived in Castlecrag for 21 years, and during that time have experienced first-hand both the strengths of the suburb and the fragility of its access, infrastructure and planning balance.

Castlecrag is a highly constrained suburb, with effectively one road in and one road out. Edinburgh Road already experiences congestion. The proposal to direct traffic from this proposed development into a car park accessed via Edinburgh Road, rather than Eastern Valley Way, will materially worsen an already fragile traffic situation.

This outcome conflicts with LEP and DCP objectives that seek to minimise traffic impacts, ensure development is appropriate to local access conditions, and protect the safety and amenity of existing residents.

Edinburgh Road also services critical community infrastructure, including the Castlecrag Private Hospital and Medical Practice. Any further congestion raises serious concerns about emergency vehicle access and response times. I personally need to visit my elderly father in a nursing home, sometimes urgently, and already experience delays when traffic backs up. In a suburb with effectively one road in and one road out, this is a genuine safety concern, not a minor inconvenience.

The proposal is also fundamentally inconsistent with the heritage and character of Castlecrag, which is internationally recognised for its planning principles established by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. These principles emphasise the subservience of built form to landscape, low scale development, respect for topography, and the minimisation of traffic intrusion.

The scale and intensity of the proposed towers represent a clear departure from these principles and undermine the intent of the heritage and character provisions of the LEP and DCP. Approval of such a development would erode the unique qualities that define Castlecrag and set an undesirable precedent.

Castlecrag is not an ordinary suburb. There are very few places that continue to host open house architectural tours such as those occurring this weekend, showcasing the Griffin houses and the planning ideals on which the suburb was founded. Castlecrag was conceived with a clear and deliberate vision: that built form should remain subservient to the natural landscape, not dominate it. Embedded in this vision are enduring lessons about how communities can live peacefully and responsibly - valuing strong community, shared spaces, and a deep respect for the natural environment.

Please help to retain this special quality, to protect the Griffin legacy, and to ensure it may continue to be experienced and understood by future generations - not only through planning controls, but through lived places and stories shared in events such as these tours. Please help to keep this living history alive, rather than reducing it to something remembered only in retrospect. The proposed development fails to respect the globally recognised significance of Castlecrag and the important lessons it offers - for current and future generations - about ways of living lightly, cooperatively and in harmony with the landscape.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the application, or at minimum require a substantially reduced and redesigned proposal that genuinely responds to traffic constraints, emergency access needs, and the long standing heritage and planning intent for Castlecrag.
Sally Finlay
0413944472
100 The Bulwark
Castlecrag NSW

My husband and I would like to strongly object to this development proposal.

There is already an approved development for this site (DA-2024/13). It is a mixed use project of three to five storeys that suits the location and works with the surrounding environment. This existing approval proves housing can be built here without damaging the area's heritage, so a larger proposal is unnecessary.

The site sits right next to the Griffin Conservation Area. This area is one of a kind and recognised around the world. The Griffin philosophy was that buildings should sit within the landscape and defer to it, not dominate it. What is being proposed runs against everything the Griffin vision stands for.

Local planning controls cap building heights at roughly three storeys above Edinburgh Road, and this proposal goes well beyond that. Castlecrag has never been flagged as a growth area in either state or local housing strategies. It also falls outside any transport oriented development zone.

The Low and Mid Rise Housing Policy does not apply here either, since the site is more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre. There is no train station nearby, and bus services drop off considerably outside peak times. Public transport access simply is not adequate to support a development of this size.

Put plainly, the proposal does not fit Council's planning framework or its commitment to protecting heritage. The scale and design clash with established policies. More traffic on these streets would create real problems for residents getting around and could delay emergency services when they are needed most.

The damage this development would do to the character and heritage of Castlecrag cannot be undone once it is built.

100 Edinburgh Road is not a suitable site for 150 units plus retail activities. This single development will increase the number of residences in Castlecrag by approx 15%.

Castlecrag is not a typical suburb, the Burley Griffin layout of very narrow streets contouring around a steep peninsular without footpaths (in lots of areas) has necessitated multiple car ownership for many residents. Many of these cars are parked on the street. No doubt residents who live at 100 Edinburgh who own more than one car will also park on the street, exacerbating an existing problem.
The only bus service that traverses Castlecrag goes to only part way along Edinburgh Rd so access to public transport within the suburb is almost non existent. Many families drive children from the bottom of Castlecrag to the shops to catch buses to school.

The access to our suburb is limited, there are only 2 lanes in and out on Edinburgh Rd, onto what is an extremely busy Eastern Valley Way. Exiting Edinburgh Rd, there is only one lane catering to cars to turning left and proceeding straight ahead. When pedestrians cross Eastern Valley Way vehicles in both these lanes must remain stationary, it's not unusual to have to wait for the lights to change 3 times to cross the intersection.

The streets surrounding Edinburgh Road are not suitable for heavy traffic. In addition to this, the already congested area accommodates so much activity, with bus stops, shops, medical practice, etc and a nearby school, that adding 150 more dwelling will not only increase frustration but may cause people to behave in a dangerous manner. I have witnessed many cars and trucks making u turns on Edinburgh Rd as well as cutting in front of pedestrians out of exasperation.

Castlecrag is not well serviced by public transport, particularly out of weekday peak hours. Even then many buses leaving from the Eastern Valley Way bus stop during peak hour often fail to stop as they are already at maximum capacity. A lot of Castlecrag residents drive several kilometres to Artarmon Station to access the train. Not a great solution as it doesn't take vehicles out of the equation or off Edinburgh Rd but a practical one. The scale of 100 Edinburgh Rd flies in the face of sensible development which should be located near transport hubs like rail or the metro.

I live within the Burley Griffin Estate - there are many, many limits to the type and size of building I can erect on my lot, with integration of the landscape an important feature. The proposed development which is literally on the door step of this heritage area is taller than anything built nearby, even in Northbridge which does not have the same building controls that exist in the Burley Griffin Estate. Many mature trees will need to be removed in the building process. This is not something I can do on my property.

The renders being used to 'sell' the proposed development are misleading. One of the views would need to have planting in the middle of Eastern Valley Way to achieve the vegetation obscuring/softening of the development as represented. The development is sitting on a ridge, and in no way can it be suggested that it is integrated or a transitional to either the built or natural environment of Castlecrag.

All of these issues could be rationalised if the development actually addressed the most pressing housing concern - that of affordable housing. My adult children could not afford to either buy or rent in this complex. Even the developers are highlighting the 'high end' nature of the development.

A number of the comments I have seen on social media supporting the development seem to hinge on the notion that the residents of Castlecrag are a bunch of rich elitists that 'deserve' this development because the previous owners of the site met with some resistance regarding their initial proposal. Many of the people in Castlecrag (like me) do not live on the harbour, are long term residents with jobs in education and health care, or small business owners and any objections they had/have were due to their intimate knowledge of the limits of what would work development wise in Castlecrag given its unique topography and history.

Even now we have trouble with simple things like have our bins collected because the streets are very narrow and often blocked by cars and trucks (tradesmen etc).

People from all over Australia (and international visitors) regularly take walking tours of Castlecrag, its architectural heritage is seen as important to the history and fabric of Sydney. Sydney does not have a good track record of respecting and honouring its built environmental heritage.

The design merit of the proposed development which is at the gateway to Castlecrag is questionable. It basically looks like a multitude of high rise buildings. Similar to the previous proposal that was approved but with a two towers plonked on top. Utilising a bit of stone does not integrate a building into nature. Calling a thoroughfare a communal space does not make it so.

This project has so many unresolved problems - essentially it's really not the right location for a development of this size. The developer is totally just looking at the bottom line - more apartments mean more profit which is not surprising. However once this development is built it cannot be 'unbuilt'.

I object to the proposed development here if it will be 12-14 stories high. there is not enough infrastructure as it is not on a train line and there are limited shops and the bus lines are irregular at best. that high a building would completely disregard the beautiful heritage values of this suburb being a Griffen developed suburb. the suburb is also a low- rise suburban area and this development goes against the councils promissed commitments tor presevr heriatge buidling values wher it can. I would also think that this development will not address the current housing affordability crisis as it will be luxury appartments.

Submission: Objection to Proposed 13-Storey, 2-Tower Development – 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

I write to formally object to the proposed development comprising two 13-storey towers with approximately 150 residential units, ground-floor retail, and in excess of 300 car parking spaces located at 100 Edinburgh Rd.

While I acknowledge the need for housing supply and well-considered urban development, this proposal in its current form raises significant concerns in relation to traffic congestion, infrastructure capacity, public transport limitations, and overall suitability for the location.

1. Traffic and Congestion Impacts

Eastern Valley Way is a critical arterial road servicing multiple directions, including access to the CBD, eastern suburbs, western corridors, northern suburbs, northern NSW and the Northern Beaches. The road already experiences substantial congestion during peak morning, afternoon, and evening periods, with well-documented bottlenecks and traffic at a standstill.

The addition of over 150 dwellings and associated retail traffic, combined with more than 300 parking spaces, will materially increase vehicle movements in an already constrained corridor. There is insufficient evidence that the surrounding road network can absorb this additional demand without significantly worsening congestion, travel times, and safety outcomes.

Edinburgh Rd Access Constraints

A key concern is the reliance on Edinburgh Rd, which is a cul-de-sac, to support access associated with the development. Cul-de-sacs are not designed to accommodate significant through-traffic or high-volume ingress and egress movements.
Introducing a development of this scale into a street with no through access will create:

- Increased congestion at the single entry/exit point
-Safety risks due to concentrated vehicle movements
- Reduced accessibility for emergency services
-Amenity impacts for existing residents due to traffic build-up and vehicle queueing

This configuration is fundamentally inconsistent with the traffic demands generated by a high-density multi-tower development.

2. Inadequate Public Transport Capacity

Public transport servicing this corridor is currently insufficient to meet existing demand. Peak services are already heavily utilised, and there is no clear, funded commitment to materially improve capacity in line with the scale of this development.

Without a meaningful uplift in public transport infrastructure, the development will remain highly car-dependent, further exacerbating traffic pressures rather than alleviating them.

3. Infrastructure and Utilities Constraints

Existing infrastructure—including utilities, local services, and community facilities—does not appear adequate to support a development of this scale. There is limited transparency on how upgrades to water, sewer, electricity, and local amenity will be funded, delivered, and timed relative to occupancy.

Approving a development of this magnitude without confirmed infrastructure capacity risks placing additional strain on already stretched systems and reducing service quality for existing residents.

4. Scale and Character Incompatibility

The proposed height and density—13 storeys across two towers—are inconsistent with the existing and established character of the surrounding area. This represents a substantial overdevelopment of the site and raises concerns regarding overshadowing, visual impact, and local amenity.

5. Support for Alternative, More Appropriate Development

I would support a development more aligned with the previously proposed scheme of approximately four storeys with a mix of residential units and retail. This scale is more consistent with the local context, places less strain on infrastructure, and represents a more balanced approach to increasing housing supply while maintaining liveability.

In summary, the proposed development is not appropriate for this location in its current form due to:

- Significant negative traffic and congestion impacts
- Insufficient public transport capacity
- Inadequate supporting infrastructure and utilities
- Excessive scale relative to the surrounding area

I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered or refused in its current form, and that any future development be scaled appropriately to align with infrastructure capacity and community expectations.

Kind Regards
Barbara Galloon
0412741970

The development is far too big for the location and transportation. Most morning buses are already near full when leaving for the city via the freeway. A bigger problem will be cars coming out of the development if they plan on using the previous entry point as cars are already backed past the roundabout each morning and the large number of cars coking out of a large deleopment will cause chaos. The 5/6 story development was already probably too large but this is ridiculous in turns of making the area functional

I strongly object to the proposed development outlined in the Conquest Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site and fails to appropriately respond to the planning framework, environmental constraints, and the established character of Castlecrag.

Planning and Strategic Non-Compliance
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the intended planning controls for the site. The E1 Local Centre zoning clearly anticipates small-scale, village-oriented development, not a high-rise scheme of this magnitude. The attempt to justify increased height and density using planning logic from unrelated growth areas is inappropriate and misleading. Furthermore, the site lacks the transport infrastructure required to support a development of this scale, with no proximity to rail or metro services and only limited bus connectivity. This directly contradicts the principles of transit-oriented development.

The scale of the proposal is excessive and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise residential context. There is no meaningful transition in built form, resulting in an abrupt and visually intrusive development that has no precedent in the locality. Claims of design excellence are not convincing, particularly given the unresolved concerns identified through the design review process.

Environmental and Tree Loss Impacts
The environmental impact of the proposal is significant and deeply concerning. The removal of a substantial proportion of the site’s existing trees, including mature and ecologically valuable specimens, will result in a major loss of canopy and landscape character. This is particularly problematic in Castlecrag, where vegetation and natural landscape are integral to the area’s identity.

The reduction in deep soil areas further limits the potential for meaningful replanting and long-term ecological recovery. The absence of a comprehensive tree management plan raises additional concerns about the protection of remaining vegetation. Overall, the proposal fails to respect the environmental sensitivity of the site and undermines the principles established by the Griffin vision.

Built Form, Setbacks and Overshadowing
The proposal demonstrates a clear disregard for appropriate building separation and setback requirements. The methodology used to measure setbacks appears flawed and results in a misleading representation of compliance. As building height increases, greater setbacks are required to mitigate impacts, yet this has not been adequately addressed.

The overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties are also unacceptable. Increased building height will inevitably result in longer and more severe shadowing, particularly to the south, reducing solar access for surrounding residents. The lack of transparent and comparative analysis with the previously approved development further limits the ability to properly assess these impacts.

Heritage and Visual Impact
Castlecrag is a heritage-sensitive area with a distinct planning philosophy centred on landscape integration. This proposal represents a clear departure from those principles. The scale and prominence of the building will dominate the surrounding area, disrupt key sightlines, and diminish the character of the conservation area.

The visual impact has not been adequately communicated in the EIS, with reliance on selective viewpoints that understate the true scale of the development. The building’s intrusion into the ridgeline and skyline is particularly concerning and has not been properly addressed.

Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns
The proposal significantly increases traffic generation without providing credible mitigation measures. The surrounding road network is already under pressure, and additional traffic will exacerbate congestion and reduce safety. There is also a high likelihood of increased rat-running through local streets, which are not designed for such volumes.

Despite the increase in parking provision, the development still fails to meet required standards, likely resulting in overflow parking in surrounding residential streets. This places further strain on the local community.

Lack of Community Benefit
The development fails to deliver meaningful public or community benefit. Previously proposed community facilities have been removed, and the remaining “public” spaces appear to function primarily as retail circulation areas rather than genuine communal spaces. In addition, the level of affordable housing is minimal and unlikely to deliver real accessibility for lower-income households.

Overall, the proposal represents an over-scaled, poorly justified development that is inconsistent with planning controls, environmentally damaging, and incompatible with the character of Castlecrag. It fails to adequately address key impacts relating to built form, heritage, traffic, and community outcomes.

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

I am a Registered Architect who has been practicing in Greater Sydney for over 30yrs. I have experience in commercial architecture firms that create Mixed Use and Multi-unit Developments, I ran my own Residential Architecture company for over 20years from Castlecrag and I currently work for a Developer in Sydney's CBD. I am not naive when it comes to discussing housing or the need for more housing in Greater Sydney. Furthermore, I am not naive when it comes to discussing Design Objectives and Design Outcomes of developments nor the wiles that developers use to get greed inspired developments approved.
The current fast-tracking of development applications, by-passing Local Government Areas straight to State Government assessment has merit if the proposed development is appropriate for it's intended siting. Conquest's proposal for 100 Edinburgh Rd is inappropriate for it's site.
Chatswood has already been established as an existing area within Willoughby Council LGA that has high rise development. Happily, it can be accommodated because there is an existing matrix of transport and infrastructure options available in Chatswood. There are very extensive bus, train and metro services provided around the clock from the Chatswood CBD. The infrastructure is already in place.
In stark contrast to this established infrastructure, Castlecrag, has a very irregular bus service. Buses come reasonably regularly until 9am in the morning when the service peters out to one bus every 1/2 hour. The return route is very similar in that, services from the CBD heading North come regularly until 630pm when they become more than 1/2 an hour apart. Services CBD bound in the morning are mostly full and pass the bus stops at full speed, without stopping and services from the CBD are full too, such that the queue for all North bound services can get upto 300 people long, winding from Gresham St all the way down George Street .
The existing service is COMPLETELY INADEQUATE for the current numbers that it serves. There is an existing massive shortfall of buses and bus drivers serving the routes involved.
State Government fast tracked housing development was slated to Sydney at existing TRANSPORT HUBS and along EXISTING MAJOR TRAFFIC THOROUGHFARES. This proposed development would (largely) be in keeping with most LGA existing planning rules and regulations. It respects the existing future planning principles that most Council's have undertaken.
Conquests proposal for 100 Edinburgh Rd represents an opportunistic manipulation of the NSW Government's newly established pro-development scaffolding. It is inappropriate in proposed scale, massing, density, height and set backs. Castlecrag is not on a major roadway nor is it a transport hub. There is no existing large scale development near by- none at all.
Conquest's submission with respect to shadows cast, traffic modelling and site calculations are all undercooked or misrepresented.
The proposal is inappropriate in scale and inappropriate in siting. The outcomes from the various Design Review Panels have been completely disregarded. DRP recommendations made, have been ignored and Conquest only uploaded their version of the DRP's findings and not the actual DRP letter itself.
I am not sure as to whether AI reviewed submissions will even pick up the manipulations and misrepresentations that have occurred.
This is an inappropriate development for it's site.

My name is Peta Jesse and my husband and family moved into the unique suburb of Castlecrag in December 1993. For 31 years we have been so grateful for the foresight of the Griffins and those who have protected its overdevelopment over the years as we have raised our family here. The natural bushland and foreshore walks are just two of the things which bring me great pleasure.
When our old shopping centre became tired and in need of renovation we all watched eagerly as a plan to create mixed housing and retail was discussed and plans exhibited for comments. After a few re thinks a low scale, respectful mixed use project was approved by Willoughby council and the majority of locals. Over the many years that this project has been in process the State planning laws changed allowing for Conquest to apply to build a multi story development (up to 12 or possibly more stories) at the gateway to this unique heritage listed suburb. Having grown up in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney I have seen what oversized development can do to a suburb and community and feel very strongly that this current inappropriate development is a mistake for many reasons.
1. Apart from being unprecedented in this area it does not have the public transport available to service the proposed 150 dwellings with limited buses and no train access
2. This intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley way is already congested, especially in peak times
3. The idea that this development would provide accomodation for low income earners seems to be something added to suit the current times and climate but not really a reality given the proposed cost of each apartment
4. The opportunity to increase the height of this development from the original sympathetic design has been opportunist with recent changes to state planning laws
5. This development proposal is completely out of character with anything else in the near vicinity and is an example of a developer taking advantage of recent changes in planning in the hope of getting this over the line.
I would like to think that this suburb that I call home will still be the beautiful place my grandchildren will come to visit for many years to come without an overwhelming building that was approved because it could be with no thought of aesthetics or the future. It would be devastating to think that the greed of one opportunist developer could change our world renowned suburb forever or that we allowed it to happen

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag SSD.

The new proposal for this site is in summary:

• Not appropriate;
• Grossly disproportionate to all surrounding development and potential development;
• Incompatible with the Griffin Conservation Area;
• In contravention with all local and state plans for the site;
• Dramatically different to the existing Approved DA for the site;

The proposed 11 story / multi tower development represents a major departure from the original 3/4 story development and if approved will create significant issues in the community.

The unilateral rezoning to SSD seems unreasonable given the site is 3-4 km from nearest train station.

The site is positioned on a notoriously dangerous corner and intersection with a history of school children getting hit by traffic when crossing at the lights. Increased density and population will exacerbate this issue further without significant redesign of the road and infrastructure. It has continued to get worse with development on the west side of Eastern Valley Way which has created further congestion in the area. The community push back over many years regarding this site has partly been due to the fact that no attempt to addressing the surrounding infrastructure has been made. The infrastructure needs to be “fit for purpose” for such a significant development.

Traffic congestion will get worse. Currently, Edinburgh road backs up 400m at peak times when waiting to get through the traffic lights. With limited public transport, this issue will be further exacerbated with an influx of new residents.

Rutland Avenue already acts as a “parking lot” on weekdays and we are extremely concerned about residents travelling from the peninsula using Rutland Avenue and surrounding streets to get onto Eastern Valley Way. The topography / hills combined with cars parked on either side makes visibility difficult and it is already extremely dangerous for residents trying to get out of drive ways, children playing, residents walking etc. As a minimum we would expect strict parking restrictions on all streets near 100 Edinburgh.

We object to the height (11 stories) and footprint (2 towers build right to the boundary of the site). This will tower over the existing structures, dwarfing the existing “village” atmosphere and likely cause major shadowing, extra noise and privacy issues for hundreds of houses it will tower over.

We bought into this area 11 years ago because of the heritage zoning and limitations for apartments and high density. All residents have been subjected to extremely strict development laws for their own residential properties - and yet it now feels “all bets are off” for the consortium pushing this development.

Chris Minn’s quoting “in a suburb that has only had 80 new houses in the last X years” is a gross misrepresentation of the suburb. To be clear - this suburb has been subject to extremely stringent local council planning restrictions with complete knock downs only recently being allowed. It is outrageous to selectively use a statistic that is a result of the council’s own restrictions to try to paint the suburb as NIMBYs and offensive to the entire rule abiding community to force this monolithic development on them.

Lastly, we don’t accept the “affordable housing” argument for pushing this through as SSD. These will be high end apartments with prohibitive entry points - and it is clear the developer has proposed the bare minimum to push it through on this basis.

We are very supportive of the plans that were approved before Conquest got involved. 3-4 story mixed use that modernises the area but remains in keeping with the ethos that attracted residents here in the first place.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag for the following reasons
1-visual impact
2-traffic and parking impact
3-public transport limitation
4- loss of community and public space
for these reasons outlined above we respectfully request that the application be reconsidered or refused or that significant modification be made to address this concerns. We don’t want any skyscrapers in Castlecrag.

I have the following three grounds for my objection:
1. Fairness and Transparency - granting this massive increase in plot-ratio provides a huge financial windfall that is highly suspicious, and it requires full financial disclosure.
2. Urban Scale - has been totally ignored, and inconsistent with all the surrounding suburbs, Willoughby planning and community consultation.
3. Congestion - the critical intersection is already at capacity and will be further compromised by the over-development of the site.
These are outlined in further detail in the attached letter.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the Development Application submitted by Conquest for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. My concerns relate to the scale of the proposed development, its traffic impacts, and the absence of adequate public transport to support a project of this size.

1. Traffic and road network capacity
Edinburgh Road is a constrained, single‑carriageway local road with limited capacity to absorb additional vehicle movements. The proposed 150 apartments would generate a significant increase in daily traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. This represents a material departure from the traffic assumptions underpinning the previously approved 38‑apartment scheme.
Castlecrag’s road network is already under pressure, with bottlenecks at Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road. The proposed scale would exacerbate congestion, reduce safety, and negatively impact local amenity.

2. Lack of public transport to support high‑density development
Castlecrag is not serviced by heavy rail, light rail, or high‑frequency bus routes. The area is fundamentally car‑dependent. A development of 150 apartments is inconsistent with the transport infrastructure available and would force additional reliance on private vehicles.
This is contrary to the principles of sustainable transport planning and inconsistent with the strategic intent of concentrating higher‑density housing in areas with strong public transport access.

3. Community‑supported alternative already exists
Willoughby City Council previously approved a 38‑apartment development on this site, which was broadly supported by the community. That scheme represented a balanced, context‑sensitive approach that aligned with Castlecrag’s character, infrastructure capacity, and the Walter Burley Griffin planning principles that underpin the suburb.
There is no demonstrated planning justification for increasing the density to 150 apartments, and doing so would undermine the integrity of the earlier, well‑considered approval.

4. Inconsistency with local character and planning intent
Castlecrag is a low‑density, environmentally sensitive suburb with a strong heritage and landscape identity. The proposed scale is incompatible with the established character and exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated on this site.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, I request that NSW Planning refuse the current DA and instead support the previously approved 38‑apartment scheme, which remains the most appropriate and sustainable outcome for the site and the community.
Yours Sincerely,
Frances Jardine

The development project represents a significant deviation from what was previously approved. the proposed 11-storey mix use development completely contradicts with e Griffin-style design and principles for Castlecrag. Additionally, Castlecrag, unlike neighbouring suburb such as Chatswood is not designed for a high growth and high density suburb.

This also represents a breach of the height limits for the development and it is evident that broader impact to community has not been properly considered.

2 May 26

The Proper Officer Stuart Grant
Department of Planning NSW 38 Linden Way
Castlecrag 2068

Dear Sir/ Madam

Re; Proposed Conquest Development 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.

I am a resident of Castlecrag and have resided here for over 20 years with my wife and earlier my daughters.

I oppose the development proposed by Conquest for the following reasons.

Castlecrag is a very beautiful suburb heritage suburb.

The Developer itself acknowledges that Castlecrag is a “distinctive and treasured suburb” with a “legacy grounded in the vision of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, is one in harmony between architecture, landscape and community”. (see Conquest Open Letter dated 23 April 26 (OL).

In the OL the developer says that its aim is to deliver a “thoughtfully designed village that responds to the character of the suburb, respects its natural setting” which is a nonsense written obviously “tongue in cheek”. The development proposed is for 2 towers which are each of 11 stories at a congested intersection.

The Developer does not explain how the proposal responds to the character of the suburb, it natural setting and the legacy of the Griffins.

Indeed at a recent meeting conducted by the Developer the town planner retained by it when pressed on this question said that it didn’t.

This is precisely why the Developers DA should be rejected. It is the wrong development in the wrong place out of scale and should not be accepted as a proposal of State Significant Development.

My position is not one of anti-development but I am against bad development which this proposal for 100 Edinburgh Rd is by any measure.

The Developer does not offer any explanation as to why the approved DA for the site is now inappropriate which development I would support.

There are a number of issues that point to this being a bad development some of which are as follows:

1. Traffic. There are only two ways in and out of Castlecrag being Edinburgh Rd and Sunnyside Crescent. Sunnyside Crescent is in reality a lane with traffic hindered by its narrowness and by the parking of cars on both sides of the roadway. Any study that suggests that Edinburgh Rd is not at capacity now during peak times is simply incorrect. The introduction of up to 300 or more additional cars from residents and visitors to the supermarket proposed is bad planning.

2. Scale. Clearly the scale of the proposed new DA is out of step with the other buildings in the area. It will throw an unacceptable shadow and create visual eyesore.

3. Parking. Parking is now limited in and about Edinburgh Rd however if this proposal is approved Edinburgh Rd and the adjoining streets will be in danger of being parked out because many of the new residents will have more vehicles than the development allows parking spaces for and will need to find a park on the street. Further many people visiting the supermarket will inevitably choose to park on the street rather than use the underground parking allowed for. Nearby narrow streets will be clogged with parked vehicles.

4. Emergency access. Castlecrag has extensive amounts of bushland with most houses being declared to be in a fire zone. Further the Castlecrag hospital is situated on Edinburgh Rd. Should an emergency arise the access to Castlecrag will be restricted by the traffic generated by the size of this development.

5. Danger. If this development is approved many residents will attempt to avoid Edinburgh Rd traffic congestion by using Sunnyside Crescent. Inevitably an accident will occur at the intersection with Eastern Valley Way due to the dangerous nature of this intersection particularly for those wishing to turn north. Turning Sunnyside into a rat-run is unacceptable to the residents of this part of Castlecrag.

6. Planning laws. The laws covering the development of property have evolved over may years. After considerable consultation a development application has been approved for the site. What is now proposed by this Developer ignores good sense and seeks to cynically take advantage for profit of the current political initiative. It is an eyesore for profit. Think Blues Point Towers or the Greenway Flats in Kirribilli. It will not address the government’s housing initiative by providing affordable housing and if constructed will be impossible to remove.

7. Procedural fairness. How is it fair for this developer to have months to prepare a new DA submission but the community has only 2 weeks to respond? This is a clear breach of procedural fairness on both the government’s and the developers part.

At the first meeting that I attended we were informed that the diagrams and other material discussed were simply a concept whilst at another meeting the representative of the Developer in answer to a question asked from the floor conceded that it was conducting the meetings that it was conducting to tick boxes when it came to informing the community.

8. Public Transport. Apart from buses many of which come from the Northern Beaches Castlecrag is not a transport hub unlike Chatswood or St Leonards. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

9. Developer profit. This Developer has purchased the 100 Edinburgh Rd site with it eyes open. If it has paid too much for the site the responsibility for doing so is the Developers. There is no obligation on government to ensure that the Developer achieves a profit. It certainly does not mean that good planning principles should be ignored to enable it to do so. It has been said that the proposal contains the number of apartments that it does because to approve something less would not allow the developer a satisfactory profit margin. This would be an unacceptable approach to take.

10. Affordable housing. It is a nonsense to argue that this development will provide affordable housing. The developer proposes a building which will return it a profit but not provide the affordable housing that it says that it will. Land values in the area lead to rents which are above the average that apply in many other areas of Sydney. They are likely to be beyond the capacity of the people that the government’s scheme is aimed at. This is not a Nimby argument but rather a reality. It would be incorrect to categorize Castlecrag as a home of simply privileged people. Most residents have purchased their properties have earned the right to live here. The residents are rightly concerned that this unique suburb will lose it character. Many of us consider that the avarice of a developer professing to rely on a social issue to further its profits is unjust. The residents are therefore entitled to have their arguments judged on merit and if their arguments are rejected to have the body rejecting those arguments provide reasons for why the arguments of the Developer were accepted over and above those of the residents. Not to do so would amount to a breach of procedural fairness and a denial of natural justice. If by inappropriate development we damage the beauty of a place such as Castlecrag in the name of political expediency we run the risk of creating a very bland Sydney or put another way in the name of profit based on a false argument we might tarnish a valuable Sydney asset which is enjoyed not only by those who live here but also by those who visit the suburb to simply take in its beauty.

The Developer wishes to have its proposal approved off the back of “affordable housing”. If this is the test then it is not explained why the Developer needs to construct 2 towers of 11 stories given the small amount of questionable “affordable housing” contained in the proposal.

11. Open Letter.(OL). It is easy to pen an OL with sweeping colorful statements but it is another to provide substance to support those statements.

The OL is flawed in many ways but by way of example it says; “Our team has worked carefully through the detail of the proposal to refine the scheme and ensure it responds to the site, the topography and the existing character of Castlecrag”

There is no attempt to explain how the team has refined the scheme to “respond” to the site, the topography and the existing character of Castlecrag.

This is exactly what you would expect a developer to say but it is harder for it to provide evidence to support such a wide sweeping statement because the evidence for doing so is not there.

The Developer is seeking to build 2 towers of 11 stories for profit which it is entitle to try and do but trying to dress this up as some kind of community service is disingenuous.

I imagine the Developer of the Blues Point Tower would have said the same thing.

Stuart Grant

I have lived in Castlecrag for the last 16 years and my house is close within walking distance to the development.
I was happy with the previously proposed development by Dr Kwok.
I am not happy with the proposed scope and size of the current proposed development.
Traffic Concerns
There will be significant increase in traffic in and around the neighbouring streets, including both movement of traffic and parked vehicles.
The developer has acknowledged that the intersection at Edinburgh Rd and EVW is already at LOS F, the worst level. With the addition of a minimum of 150 cars moving in and out of the suburb the traffic at the intersection will cause significantly greater congestion and safety concerns. Most households in the development will have more than one car. The parking allowed for will be insufficient and will result in a much greater level of on street parking in our street and the other streets immediately to the south and north of the development. Our street is heritage listed, it is narrow and it is not fully kerbed and guttered. It will not support an excess of residents parked cars.
Lack of adequate public transport
Castlecrag is not a transport hub. It is serviced only by buses. There is not easy access to train or metro. There is not even a shuttle bus to the Crows Nest metro. Why would any young family want to live in an area that you cannot get into or out of easily?
Retail
The amount of retail space proposed is limited. We used to be able to do all our shopping and meet up with friends at the local shops. We have not been able to do so since the shops have been demolished. Since then we have been in the car driving to Northbridge and Chatswood for simple shopping needs. The retail space appears inadequate to support the community plus 150 extra households. This is not what a green sustainable community should be.
Height
The development is too high. The shadow diagrams show shadowing of the towers themselves, making many of the proposed unit undesirable. The shadowdiagrams show significant showdowing on all surrounding streets.

A new development can be well built, interesting and take the considerations of the community and the proposed residents into account. For example the Eve developemnt in Surry Hills (the old Redfern Mall site) is excellent with great retisl including a Harris Far, bars and restaurants, a hotel and units. It is lively, desirable and viable.
Sadly the 2 towers will not provide a similar level of accommodation or retail.
I object to the development on the basis that it is out of character for the area, it is too large, is ill considered, poorly designed, adds little to the accommodation and retail needs of the area and the city of Sydney.
Approval of such a development will not help to solve the housing problems in Sydney.

The public transport options to Castlecrag are inadequate. There is not even a shuttle bus to the Crows NEst metro.

Alreadt at LOS F andhtherefore should be remediated prior to development or there ashould be stiplulation for additional public transport

Visual Amenity - The proposed development is located at a high elevation relative to the surrounding built environment and will dominate the landscape, both locally and from a distance. The majority of buildings of this scale and bulk in the the LGA and adjacent LGA's are located at Chatswood, St Leonard's and North Sydney, all of which are major transport hubs.
Overshadowing - Appears to have not been adequately assessed in the EIS. Many properties to the south and east of the proposed development will experience loss of direct sunlight, potentially leading to colder winters within these residences, and hence less outdoor amenity. Some of these residences have installed solar panels that will be less effective with the loss of direct sunlight.
Local Heritage - Appears to have been inadequately addressed in the EIS. Castlecrag is a unique suburb owing much of its historic significance to the Griffins, and is a legacy that they created for the local and nearby communities. The proposed development is totally out of character with their vision and foresight.
Traffic - Castlecrag is a peninsular suburb with one major road access and one minor road access. The intersection at Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way (EVW) was upgraded some years ago to improve safety, particularly for those vehicles turning right out of Castlecrag; however, even with a dedicated RH turn lane, rarely can more than 3 vehicles make this turn on a green arrow. Furthermore, on a green light the ability to turn left towards the city from Edinburgh Rd is prevented by pedestrian crossing activity, meaning that vehicles turning left and going straight ahead are stopped i.e. nothing moves. I have witnessed exasperated drivers use the RH Turn only lane to go straight ahead across the intersection. This intersection has a 'fail' rating at present, and adding significant additional traffic will exacerbate the already unacceptable delays experienced by residents and visitors. This has the potential to reduce the safety of motorists, and to cause "rat-running" via Sunnyside Crescent. The intersection at Sunnyside Crescent and EVW is not a safe option for exiting Castlecrag during peak traffic periods due to impeded sightlines in both north and south directions.
Transport - Castlecrag is predominantly serviced by public buses to and from the city and Chatswood. The nearest railway station is probably Crows Nest Metro, serviced by route 267 at approximately 30 minute intervals at peak periods on weekdays. This bus route also connects to Chatswood. The current frequency of these services is such that unlikely to attract significantly increased patronage from the proposed development. The city bus services are very well patronised at present, to the point that in peak periods buses arriving at Castlecrag are either already full, or nearly full. Hence, this will likely cause residents to favour driving their own vehicle, adding to already saturated traffic.
Parking - Raeburn Avenue has restricted parking signage, and is therefore not an option for other than short term visitors. Rutland Avenue is often used by commuters wishing to park their private vehicle and walk to the bus stop, leading to occasions where all possible parking spaces are occupied and a single lane is available for two-way traffic. Also, on occasion, some driveways are partially blocked due to inconsiderate commuters parking inappropriately. It is seen as likely that some occupants of the proposed development will need to park a vehicle in local streets, particularly given the limited transport options necessitating private vehicle use and parking availability within the proposed development. If the proposed development proceeds, parking along Edinburgh Rd on the south side between The Postern and EVW will likely need to be banned during peak traffic periods and will still possibly lead to a chokepoint at the Rutland Ave/Edinburgh roundabout, which is already blocked at some peak times.
Construction Impacts - If approved as submitted, the project construction will require a number of years with potential significant impacts including parking for builders/tradespersons, traffic generation, including sight access for major equipment and materials, noise and dust generation. During recent preparatory site works, the dust was so evident at the Edinburgh Rd and EVW intersection that it caused parking sensors on my car to trigger as if I was close to another vehicle, even though there were no cars nearby. The developer attempted to rectify this using water trucks, however the road surface was constantly discolored due to the dust. Demolition noise was also very evident at our residence during these works, even though I reside some distance away from the site. A suitable traffic management plan will need to recognise the existing traffic issues and seek not to exacerbate what is an already unacceptable situation.
Flora - A significant proportion of the flora on or adjacent to the site is to be destroyed to facilitate the development. Castlecrag is a beautiful suburb in no small part due to its preservation of the natural bush environment. The destruction of Flora as proposed is at conflict with the Griffin vision.
Community Facilities - The previously approved development included community open space incorporating suitable amenities and services. The proposed development has significantly scaled back on such spaces.
Affordable Housing - A clear definition of what constitutes Affordable Housing is not well documented by proponents, be they government or relevant community welfare organisations. Residences in the Castlecrag area are expensive, in relative terms, for a number of reasons. The market will effectively dictate the value of apartments should the development be approved and constructed. In any event, the proportion of affordable apartments is about 1 in 15, and none will likely be readily affordable in the real sense of the word.
Planning Instrument Compliance - There appear to be a number of relevant Planning Instruments that have not been addressed or have not satisfied compliance. I understand some of these are breach of Zoning requirements, lack of justification for location remote from major transport hubs, reliance on non-applicable low to medium rise designation to name just some of the potential shortcomings.

I am a local resident living in close proximity to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, and I wish to formally object to this proposal.

My concerns relate to traffic impacts, infrastructure capacity, the lack of genuine affordable housing outcomes, and the incompatibility of the proposed scale with the established character of Castlecrag.

Traffic and Access Constraints
The surrounding road network is already under significant pressure, particularly during peak hours. Edinburgh Road functions as a major arterial route, and Castlecrag is effectively serviced by limited access points. Additional traffic generated by a high-density development of this scale will exacerbate congestion, increase travel times, and reduce safety for both residents and pedestrians. The current proposal does not adequately demonstrate how these impacts will be mitigated.

Public Transport Capacity
Public transport in this area is limited and already operating at or near capacity. Morning bus services are frequently overcrowded, with many residents unable to board. Increasing population density without a clear and guaranteed upgrade to public transport infrastructure is not sustainable and will place further strain on an already insufficient system, making daily commuting more difficult.

Built Form, Scale, and Local Character
Castlecrag is a low-density residential suburb known for its quiet environment, strong community character, and integration with the natural landscape, consistent with the Griffin planning principles. The proposed building height, bulk, and scale are inconsistent with this context and represent a significant departure from the established urban form. A development of this magnitude will dominate the streetscape, fail to integrate with its surroundings, and negatively impact the visual and environmental character of the area.

Affordable Housing Justification
The proposal appears to rely on housing supply and affordability as a key justification. However, only approximately 6.67% of the units are designated as affordable housing. The vast majority of dwellings will be market-rate and unlikely to be accessible to low- or moderate-income households.

As such, the development does not meaningfully address housing affordability. The limited affordable component does not justify the scale of the proposal, and it appears that affordability is being used to support a large-scale development that primarily delivers private outcomes rather than genuine community benefit.

If the objective is to contribute to affordable housing, a substantially higher proportion of affordable or diverse housing options should be required, and such developments should be located in areas with appropriate infrastructure and transport capacity.

Strategic Planning and Community Impact
This proposal places excessive emphasis on density without sufficient regard for local context, infrastructure limitations, or long-standing planning principles. Residents have chosen to live in Castlecrag for its peaceful, safe, and low-rise environment. A development of this scale will result in increased noise, traffic, and visual intrusion, negatively affecting overall amenity.

Furthermore, the prolonged nature of this proposal over many years has created ongoing uncertainty and frustration within the community.

Conclusion
In its current form, the proposal is unsuitable for this location. Any development on this site should be significantly reduced in scale and designed to align with the surrounding built form — for example, low-rise development (approximately 2–3 storeys) that respects the character, capacity, and expectations of the existing community.

I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered or substantially amended to better reflect the infrastructure capacity, planning context, and community values of Castlecrag.

I am writing to strongly object to this development, which will not only significantly impose upon my own amenity, but the broader amenity of the northern suburbs area. Further, it is a gross abuse of the State Planning Powers and calls to question not only the integrity of the Developer, but the broader political and bureaucracy. The following are my specific grounds for my objection:
1. Inadequate Grounds for a Development Uplift: This development is severely constrained by its location and proximity to a major arterial road and conservation area. The environmental and amenity costs are far outweighed by any public benefit.
Inexplicably, the applicant is seeking a 162.5% FSR increase and a 209.87% height increase. The only justification offered: a time limited (only 15 years) 6.6% affordable housing (AH) offer. I am well aware that State Government typically requires a 15% AH Contribution to justify even a 30% uplift. How is it that the applicant felt confident to make such a brazen application?
2. Heritage and Landscape Impacts: The principle design ethos of Walter Burley Griffin for Castlecrag was that the built landscape would be subservient to the natural landscape. Castlecrag is a significant part of our post-colonial urban heritage. Architectural schools study it, the Museum of Sydney has celebrated and exhibited Castlecrag as a treasured legacy and on the day I am writing this- 100's of people all over Sydney have travelled to Castlecrag to tour the suburb to celebrate Burley Griffin's 150th birthday and his unique integration of the built form into the natural form.
3.Traffic Impacts: Have State Government satisfied themselves around the traffic impact a development of this size and location would have not only on the local area, but the flow of traffic down Eastern Valley Way? On-site parking at the site would increase from 163 to 376 spaces, placing an impossible burden on the local road network and most likely, felt for kilometres in both directions up and down that arterial network. The Traffic Modelling offered in the application assigns "high accessibility" to the public transport rating. This metric usually reserved for sites within walking distance of a train station. Further, there is no room for dedicated bus lanes and a "B Line" solution, used on the Northern Beaches. The existing bus system is already unreliable and congested, why would the State Government add more burden to it by approving this development?
4.Environmental Impact: the application proposes significant increases in tree removal and lacks the requisite Arborist report required by SEARS. Nor is there a Tree Management Plan.
5.While the amenity of those who might choose to live in the proposed building is not my most significant concern, the application raises real questions around the future amenity of residents with regard to visitor parking, solar access and public transport.
6.Community Consultation Failures: the record shows that community consultation has been, at best paltry, at worst, misleading and designed to confuse and disarm. The applicant admitted to a "box-ticking" exercise in the limited consultation process interactions.

Please don't "box-tick" Castlecrag, creating an eye-sore in one of the most significant and renown urban landscapes in Australia. Please consider the disastrous impact this development could have on our roads and public transport system in this area. Please use your considerable powers and processes diligently, for the greater northern suburbs, into the future.