Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

I live on Raeburn Ave, so the impacts of the project will affect us daily. The scale of the building is materially outside planning guidelines and is grossly out of context with the surrounding areas. Castlecrag is not in a TOD zone, but the proposed tower heights of 49m are considerably above the maximum 22m-24m prescribed in NSW TOD planning controls (per NSW Planning information video and google searches). The property is also outside the LMR zone for Northbridge, so why is the applicant claiming height and density bonuses associated with LMR? The small Castlecrag “town centre” has very limited scope for additional medium density development due to the topography of the peninsula and the heritage zoning of the proximate Walter & Marion Burley-Griffin area. The visual bulk and severity of the proposal is exacerbated by its ridgeline position and the extremely limited scope for additional development to provide a visual transition zone.


Public transport options are limited to bus only. The existing intersection of EVW and Edinburgh Rd is rated at F (additional capacity required) for the morning peak. My personal experience with using the bus service during peak hours, is that the service is often unpredictable, with delays and cancelations. Additionally, while Chatswood is 6km away, direct bus services are infrequent and interconnecting services require time consuming transfers or long walks with total journey time of 40-50 minutes (per Google maps scheduling).

Green / personal transport options are poorly developed in this area. Pedestrian infrastructure for access to Northbridge is poor, with an extremely narrow footpath on the Eastern side of EVW between Castlecrag and Morotai Crescent. Cycling infrastructure is underdeveloped. I have tried riding to work but gave up due to safety concerns through the Castlecrag and along Edinburgh Road, especially given the high traffic volumes from EVW at peak times. This may be a designated cycle route, but I challenge anyone to ride it at peak hour and not feel as if you're risking your life. Your TOD video talks about adding bike lanes, wider footpaths and public area in TOD developments. This application is requesting a building well in excess of TOD scale but without providing any of the community infrastructure that NSW planning is promising for TOD developments.


Traffic management. The former Quadrangle had approximately 163 parking spaces, whereas this development is proposing 376 spaces, which by definition will result in an increase in traffic entering and exiting the building. I could not find any information provided by Transport NSW regarding plans to improve traffic and pedestrian flow at the intersection of Edinburgh and EVW, nor by the proponent for enhanced traffic management at the entry / exit of the building. I have safety concerns regarding traffic entering and exiting the building, especially during morning and afternoon peaks. Currently, there are only two exit lanes from Castlecrag on Edinburgh Rd, one for right turn northbound and the other one for left and straight ahead. When vehicles are waiting to turn right, there is only a single lane to accommodate all other outbound flow. The current phasing doesn’t provide sufficient time for straight ahead and left-turning traffic to clear during peak morning hours if pedestrians are also crossing on the south side. This leads to long traffic queues which reduce safety for vehicles entering and exiting the building, and for pedestrians walking across the exit to the shops and amenities to the east (post office, cafe, restaurant). Furthermore, no traffic control measures are proposed to manage safe exit from the building especially for local traffic turning right and back in to Castlecrag. Vehicles exiting the building be trying to turn right across moving or queued Westbound traffic on Edinburgh and into on oncoming eastbound traffic. If westbound traffic is queued, vehicles leaving the building have much reduced visibility of eastbound traffic. Furthermore, eastbound traffic is fast moving through the village - especially as straight through traffic tries to catch the green sequence, and right turning traffic from EVW rushes to get through a short sequence.

The local side streets of Raeburn, Rutland and Charles are narrow, and have parking on both sides of the street. This means that vehicles can only travel in one direction, with opposing traffic needing to pull into spaces to let oncoming vehicles pass. There is no information about traffic control and calming measures to be implemented to ensure that the side streets do not become rat runs during peak periods. Note that the main footpath is on the north side of Edinburgh Rd and so requires pedestrians from Castlecrag houses to cross Charles, Rutland and Raeburn to access bus stops and the local shopping area. Proper traffic control and calming measures are essential for pedestrian safety.


In summary, I am not opposed to an appropriately-scaled development that reinstates and improves upon the previous community amenities (supermarket, mix of retail, cafes and restaurants, public spaces), and that provides additional choice of accommodation for the area. However, any development must also recognise the context of its location and be scaled appropriately to consider factors such as: (a) the visual dominance of the ridge line from nearby and distance, and the gateway to a small local centre, (b) the very limited ability for further development in the Castlecrag local area relative to the designated growth zone of nearby Northbridge, (c) constraints on public, private and personal / green transport from the site and significant local centre traffic congestion, and (d) the proximity to the internationally-significant Walter and Marion Burley Griffen suburb, their design principles of landscape-first urbanism, and their national significance as designers of the Australian capital.

1.An 11+ storey building absolutely ruins Griffin planning philosophy, the Griffin vision, the heritage. An 11+ storey building is completely out of character with the architectural style of Castlecrag.
2.An 11+ storey building will bring a disaster to the traffic in this area.
3.An 11+ storey building will seriously deteriorate the quality of life of the current residents in this area.
4. Only 6.67 percent of affordable units are still insufficient, far below policy expectations.

This development by Conquest for 160+ dwellings at the entrance to Castlecrag can not be regarded as a modification to the approved DA-2024/13.Its height, bulk, lack of consideration of its visual impact, of building on a ridgeline, is completely inappropriate for the area. The non-compliance with zoning controls and lack of detail relying on mitigation after the construction are not good enough for any building today.
Rather than stating that local residents will now have a town centre to supply their needs, it will be more of a case that they will be trapped on the peninsula. Exiting Castlecrag through the very busy intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way will be hampered indeed by an additional 160 households coming out to it via the developments car park exit. Six new retail outlets will not compensate for the need to leave Castlecrag. The communal space that existed on this site previously is not to be seen on the plans. Nor are there wide enough footpaths at the street face for outdoor socialising cafes, something that is still trying to continue at present at the two cafes we still have.
The importance of green trees and an environment which is in keeping with the planning of Burley Griffin, is of major importance to the people of Castlecrag and the many visitors who come to see this important historical planned suburb. the benefits of sunlight, fresh air and nature including the wild life which still is present in our green spaces are part of life most of the residents treasure.
We deserve a better entrance and living dwellings for those who will live in the new development at 100 Edinburgh Road, not a high rise warren of 160 cramped apartments.

I write to express my strong objection to the proposed development by Conquest at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.
The current proposal for two 12-storey residential towers is excessive, impractical, and fundamentally inconsistent with the established character, heritage, and environmental values of Castlecrag. I am also concerned that this proposal has been advanced through State planning pathways, bypassing local council processes and community input.
Castlecrag is widely recognised for its architectural and environmental significance, particularly as a suburb developed by Walter Burley Griffin and shaped by his principles. The scale and form of the proposed development are wholly incompatible with these principles and would significantly diminish the suburb’s unique character.
It is important to note that a previously approved development application for this site, a building of approximately 3–5 storeys, already exists. This scale represents a far more appropriate and balanced approach, allowing for increased housing while respecting the surrounding environment, heritage, and existing community.
In contrast, the current proposal represents overdevelopment. It prioritises density and commercial return over thoughtful integration with the local context and fails to adequately consider the capacity and limitations of the area.
Traffic and infrastructure impacts are of particular concern. Castlecrag has limited access points and already experiences congestion during peak periods, especially along Edinburgh Road approaching Eastern Valley Way. The addition of a large number of new residents and vehicles would place further strain on an already constrained road network. Public transport options in the area are also limited, increasing reliance on private vehicles.
Furthermore, the scale of the development raises concerns regarding emergency service access and general safety during peak traffic periods.
The proposal also does little to address housing affordability. The development is marketed as “luxury residences,” with only a minimal provision of rent-controlled units. This does not meaningfully contribute to broader housing needs and appears largely targeted at high-income buyers.
Finally, approval of a development of this magnitude risks setting an undesirable precedent for similar high-density projects in low-rise suburban areas.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge that this proposal not be approved and that any future development of the site be more appropriately scaled and aligned with the character and values of the Castlecrag community.

Objection to SSD-100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (The Quadrangle Site)I am writing in response to a letter I have received from the owner of Conquest which seeks my support. In that letter the developer makes a number of representations which do not reflect what his consultants told the community and people impacted by the development at the formal consultation process . Accordingly I wanted to set out my additional objections to address the misrepresentations contained in the developer's quest for SSD status.
Conquest, claims to be delivering a "vibrant community heart," the current proposal fails to meet past promises and lacks necessary revisions to the original DA to create a community heart. Its in fact quite the opposite. Conquest merely drops two towers over a DA approved mid rise development . No accommodation has been or according to the developer will be made for its increased scale 38 to 150 units ( of average 100 sq m) to adapt to community feedback or even address the fact that there is effectively only one bus stop within 800 meters of the development with a limited bus service.

My specific additional objections are as follows:

Failure to Deliver Promised Public Amenities: The developer previously promoted a "Piazza" and vibrant outdoor dining areas as central to the site’s renewal. However, the current plans lack dedicated, high-quality outdoor meeting or dining places that align with the community’s "Village" character.

NO RETAIL MAJOR ANCHOR
Absence of Promised Large-Scale Retail (Coles): Residents were led to believe a boutique Coles Local would anchor the site, ensuring the project served the daily needs of the existing community. The current application provides no certainty that this or any comparable full-service supermarket will be delivered on-site.Inadequate Revisions for Increased Yield: The current proposal has significantly increased in scale— a cynical leap from an approved 38 apartments to 150 apartments basically to convert a public good ( the amenity, no overshadowing, manageable if at congested level intersection etc) at no cost to private profit. .Despite this massive increase in density, there have been no significant changes to the original building layout or infrastructure to adequately reflect the additional traffic and parking requirements for these 112 extra units. How can a private developer give so little to the community and impose the extra traffic and density burden without any compensation to the public in terms of gueanteed minimum open spaces, guaranteed sq m of supermarket space, outside dining and meeting places and in addition to a few push bike spaces ( not much use to people who can afford $2m plus for an apartment) offer some traffic solution eg paid for community bbus on a loop to the metro some 4 kilometers away.

Impact of Five-Level Basement Parking:
The plan now following a DA application to Council is for five levels of basement car parking. This contradicts the developer's earlier suggestions regarding minimizing vehicle impact on the site. This excessive underground footprint is a direct result of the over-densification and will lead to severe traffic congestion at the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way.Inappropriate Scale for a Non-Transit Hub: This site is not located on a rail corridor or in a designated Transport Oriented Development (TOD) precinct.


Tripling the residential yield without major infrastructure improvements is a "grossly excessive" use of the land for private profit with little if any public benefit quite the opposite.
Lastly as no doubt the community has stated the proposal ignores the heritage values of the Walter Burley Griffin conservation area.
I urge the Department to reject this application in its current form and require the developer to return to a scale that respects the established planning guidelines and community expectations.
It will be a blight on the landscape a beacon to remind future generations of what can happen when good intentioned and well meaning policy in a housing "crisis" is exploited for private gain.

Yours sincerely
Leon Pasternak and Susan Pasternak

I am writing as a nearby resident on Eastern Valley Way Willoughby to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modification of the development at 100 Edinburgh Road, specifically the increase in height to 12 levels.

While I am supportive of the original, lower-scale plan which sought to revitalize the local center, I believe the jump to 12 levels is an excessive overdevelopment. My objections are based on the following impacts:

1. Traffic Congestion and Pedestrian Safety
Edinburgh Road serves as the sole arterial spine for the Castlecrag peninsula.

Gridlock: The density associated with 12 levels will significantly increase vehicle movements on a road that already struggles with congestion near the Eastern Valley Way intersection.

Safety: Higher traffic volume increases risks to students and families who frequently use the local bus stops and shopping precinct.
2. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity
The proposed height will create significant overshadowing that was not part of the original community consultation.

Public Space: Increased shadows on Edinburgh Road footpaths will diminish the "village feel" and reduce sunlight for outdoor diners and shoppers.

Residential Impact: As a neighbor, I am concerned about the loss of solar access to surrounding homes, particularly during the winter months when natural light is most needed.

3. Privacy and Overlooking
A 12-level structure introduces direct lines of sight into the private open spaces and backyards of surrounding low-density homes. This constitutes a major breach of the privacy and quiet enjoyment that residents of this area expect.

4. Precedent for Future Development
Approving 12 levels sets a dangerous precedent for the "Manhattanization" of the suburb. It signals that established Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) can be disregarded, undermining community trust in the planning process and opening the door for further high-rise creep.

5. Incompatibility with Heritage and Suburb Character
Castlecrag is defined by the legacy of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, where architecture is meant to harmonize with the landscape.

Visual Dominance: A 12-level tower would be a jarring vertical anomaly. It would be visible from Middle Harbour and surrounding bushland, scarring the iconic "green" ridgeline.

Scale and Massing: This proposal fundamentally ignores the low-rise, village-scale character that makes Castlecrag a unique and protected heritage precinct.

Conclusion
I urge the Council to reject the 12-level proposal and require the developer to return to a scale that respects the Castlecrag Village atmosphere. Development should enhance our community, not overwhelm it.

Thank you for considering this submission.

RE: OBJECTION – SSD-65330419 (100 Edinburgh Road)
I formally object to this 11-storey proposal. It represents a gross over-development that fails the Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) evaluation criteria on the following grounds:
• Irremediable Infrastructure Deficit [S4.15(1)(b)]: The site is physically constrained with no rail and a lone, over-capacity bus route. Unlike other areas, this infrastructure cannot be expanded. Adding this density is a failure of "Infrastructure-First" planning. I live here and experience this daily.
• Cumulative Regional Over-Saturation: Planners must assess the cumulative impact of massive developments already delivered along the Eastern Valley Way corridor. This regional saturation has exhausted local capacity; further intensification at this site is unsustainable. Refer to all the recently completed side by side developments from 100 Edinburgh Road all the way to the entry of Northbridge Shopping Centre along Eastern Valley Way. We are at capacity along this stretch.
• Heritage & Character Breach [WLEP Clause 5.10]: The 11-storey scale is a direct assault on the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. It fails to be "sympathetic in scale or bulk" and destroys the carefully conserved "leafy" character of the suburb. This is a "supersized" and opportunistic attempt to exploit State Significant Development (SSD) pathways for maximum profit at the expense of those who live here.
• Unjustified Height Variation [WLEP Clause 4.6]: There is no planning merit for such a radical departure from the 2-storey limit. The resulting severe overshadowing of the village core is not in the public interest [S4.15(1)(e)] and severely impacts our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our neighbourhood.

I urge the Department to reject these heights. The proposal ignores the suburb's hard geographical constraints and its national heritage significance.

I object to this development proposal on the grounds that it is inappropriate for the location.

All I can really say, is "Well, Duh!". It is hard to conceive of a more poorly inappropriate development. It's so mind boggling that this could be seriously considered as to call into question the independence of the Dept and the Minister. Sydney is littered with similar monstrosities that live in the public's eye everyday. No-one will benefit from this development except the developer, who'll trouser the money and give the middle finger to our community.

1) Traffic:
100 Edinburgh Rd is positioned at a critical intersection at the entry to Castlecrag and on Eastern Valley Way. Traffic at this intersection is already difficult. The previous shopping centre on the site caused traffic build-up that resulted in dangerous behaviour by drivers and pedestrians. Its absence over the past several years and the changes in the intersection (a right turn only lane out of Castlecrag) could be expected to have reduced the traffic problems, however, they are still a problem. Positioning a very large block of apartments at this site will cause traffic chaos.

2) Public Transport:
This site is not a TOD (transport-oriented development) zone and is far from one. There is insufficient public transport to support the existing population and this development cannot be supported just by adding a few buses. The buses during the afternoon school run from North Sydney are overloaded and already kids are often left waiting.

3) Schools:
There are few schools nearby and they are all primary and the only one within walking distance for this development is private (Steiner). Willoughby Primary school is too far and a dangerous route. This would require car drop-off. The nearest High School is girls only and after that is at Cammeraygal in North Sydney.

4) Violates Planning guidelines in so many ways it's hard to fathom that it got this far:
Experts will list all the technical deficiencies of this development, so I will just state the obvious. This is a completely inappropriate development for this location. Some will cry NIMBYism, but yes, NIMBY... because my backyard is not the place to build high rise apartment blocks. Build them next to train stations, shopping centres, on major transport corridors. Follow the rules, don't cheat them by side-stepping them. They exist for a reason.

5) Heritage
Castlecrag is a heritage area. It is special. People live here because it's special. People visit it because it's special. We need to keep special areas to make Sydney a nice place to live. Obviously we cannot all live in such a special area, but that doesn't mean we should despoil them to make everything a monotonous metropolitan of high rise buildings. We need to protect Sydney's heritage, not pillage it in the name of efficiency and political expediency. Once lost, heritage can never be recovered. The great cities of the World know this and it is what makes them special and gives them character. We can keep packing people into smaller and smaller spaces, but eventually, if they can, they will leave.

6) Appropriate Development:
The previous development proposed for this site was mostly appropriate. Low rise housing with a supermarket and some retail and food outlets to supply the local community. It was going to cause some issues with traffic and could have been better designed, but it did suit the location.

Position: Object
Political Donations
I have not made any political donations.
What I Am Objecting To
I object to this development by the Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd at 100 Edinburgh Road in Castlecrag because it is significantly out of scale with both the planning controls and the surrounding environment. As a Building and Construction student at UTS, I understand that developments should respond to zoning, infrastructure capacity, and local character. This proposal does not do that. It pushes well beyond what is currently permitted and relies on planning changes that have not been properly approved.
1. Scale and Non-Compliance with Planning Controls
The proposal is almost 49 metres high when the current control is 9 metres. That is not a minor variation, it is more than five times the allowed height.
The applicant admits that “existing development standards would be exceeded by more than 20 per cent,” but in reality, the exceedance is far greater than that. From a planning perspective, controls like height and FSR exist to maintain consistency and manage impacts like overshadowing and bulk.
There is also already an approved development (DA-2024/13) that demonstrates the site can be developed at a much more appropriate scale without these extreme variations. That makes this proposal feel excessive rather than necessary.
2. Wrong Location for High-Density Development
From what I have learned in my course, higher density developments are usually directed toward transport-oriented locations. This site does not meet that standard.
The applicant’s own documents state the site is around 850–900 metres from the nearest centre, which is outside the usual 800-metre walking catchment used in planning policies. As a heavy user of public transport, the lack of a nearby train station and the poor bus service makes the area anything but a transport hub.
Despite this, the proposal assumes a level of accessibility that does not exist. That raises concerns about increased car dependence, which is supported by the very high number of parking spaces proposed.

3. Conflict with Heritage and Local Design Principles
The site is right next to the Griffin Conservation Area, which is based on the idea that buildings should be low-scale and integrated with the natural landscape.
The applicant admits there will be “visual contrast due to the scale disparity” and that heritage-style design responses are “inappropriate at this scale.”
From a design and planning perspective, that is basically an acknowledgment that the building cannot be made compatible with its context. That is a fundamental issue, not something that can be fixed with minor design changes.
How This Affects Me
I have grown up in Castlecrag and am now studying construction and planning-related subjects, so I see this both personally and professionally. This proposal would change the character of the area in a way that doesn’t align with good planning principles. It also sets a precedent for similar developments that could follow, which is concerning from a long-term perspective.
What I Want Done
I ask that the application be refused. If not, it should at least be deferred until a proper planning proposal is completed and assessed through the correct process.

I live in Castlecrag, where I recently broke my wrist. On April 30, 2026 a friend was driving me to a 9am appointment with my hand surgeon at RNS Hospital. Getting through the traffic lights at Eastern Valley Way was a nightmare. Taking public transport would have been no better; there is no dedicated bus lane. If approved, this development would create 150 apartments and make getting in and out of Castlecrag many times worse. The suburb occupies a peninsula. Geography is geography.
I note that the applicant’s own traffic report assesses the existing morning peak at this intersection to be at the worst level of service (“Level F” Transport Impact Assessment page 23.) Extra capacity is needed, it says. But if approved, the development will provide no extra capacity and will significantly increase demand. The assessed delay at the intersection will rise from an already unacceptable 95.6 seconds (page 24) to 135.6 seconds (page 31). That’s an increase of 42 per cent.
My second reason for objecting is the damage that would be done to the precious character of Castlecrag that owes so much to the Burley Griffins. If approved, this development would substantially change the aesthetic nature of the suburb, both outside and within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area.
The applicant’s own heritage report acknowledges that the site “lies at one of the principal entrances into the Conservation Area” (page 36), “[will have] an
impact on how the Conservation Area is experienced and appreciated” (page 40) and “occupies a sensitive position at the gateway to the Conservation Area” (page 42).
Bizarrely, the report acknowledges that the applicant’s site is visible
from the Conservation Area but provides no artist’s impression of how the development will look if two 11-storey towers are approved.
It asserts that the “prominence” of the towers “will be moderated by the tree canopy, an appropriately scaled podium local topography, and the winding, vegetated streetscapes that define Castlecrag” (page 43).
With no expert mock-ups provided of the proposed development, I find this impossible to accept. No trees grow as high as 11 storeys and the winding streetscapes could not provide anything like that level of visual protection.
The report does contain photos of trees and streetscapes providing visual protection from the now demolished Quadrangle building on the site but these are laughably irrelevant.
I live in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area and the “view corridors” designed by the Griffins are a major aspect of what makes it so special.
This is a unique part of Sydney. The applicant’s report contains the following excerpt from the Willoughby Development Control Plan (page 39): “The estates are unique in their application of small lots in a spectacular harbour setting with public vistas and filtered views providing the suburban ideal subordinated to the landscape.”
It is inconceivable that approving two 11-storey towers containing 150 apartments would do no damage to this precious heritage.
I urge the Minister to reject the application.

As a long-term resident of Castlecrag, I strongly object to the proposed development. I value deeply the unique heritage, character and natural environment of this suburb, and this proposal represents a fundamental departure from everything that defines Castlecrag.

The scale and height of the development are entirely out of keeping with the established built form. A building of this magnitude has no precedent in the area and sits in direct conflict with the low-rise, landscape-integrated character that Castlecrag is known for. It shows little regard for the heritage principles that underpin the suburb, particularly the Griffin vision of buildings that sit within, rather than dominate, the natural environment.

The visual impact of a development of this height would be far-reaching and irreversible. It would not only dominate the immediate streetscape but would be visible across surrounding suburbs including Willoughby, Chatswood, Northbridge, Middle Cove and Castle Cove. This level of visual intrusion is completely inappropriate for a heritage-sensitive area and would permanently alter the skyline and identity of the locality.

I am also deeply concerned about the impact on neighbouring properties to the south. As a resident on the southern side of Castlecrag, I already experience issues relating to moisture and limited sunlight. The proposed building height will significantly increase overshadowing, reducing solar access for extended periods and exacerbating dampness and mould in surrounding homes. This is not a minor inconvenience, it is a material impact on liveability and health.

In addition, the proposal fails to adequately address the very real pressures it will place on local infrastructure, particularly traffic. A development of this scale will inevitably result in a substantial increase in vehicle movements, yet the surrounding road network is already constrained. Increased congestion, unsafe traffic conditions, and rat-running through local streets are all highly likely outcomes. This is particularly concerning in a suburb not designed to accommodate high-density traffic volumes.

More broadly, the proposal reflects a lack of alignment with the planning intent for Castlecrag, which is clearly identified as a heritage-sensitive, non-growth area. The scale, density and approach of this development are inconsistent with this framework and suggest a disregard for both planning controls and community expectations.

For these reasons, I strongly urge Council to reject this proposal. It is not a sympathetic or appropriate development for Castlecrag and would have lasting negative impacts on the character, environment and liveability of the area.

I'm a local 18 year resident of Castlecrag. Importantly, I fully support the reasonable construction around development for housing & apartments in the local area and wider Sydney area. Development and construction of housing (apartments and housing) are important for families (and Gov) if we have any chance of providing reasonably costed and affordable housing for residents (and overseas migrants seeking reasonably costed housing). However this project initiated by the developer is nothing more than an opportunistic land grab by a private equity developer (max dev on limited space) to maximise investors return profile. Being familiar with PE sponsored developments across all sectors and industries, PE sponsored investment can be valuable, but some not so good and this appears to drop into the latter with the eventual outcomes for both local/Fed Gov and local community ....and ultimately a population base seeking affordable housing...absent from this approval. Essentially, the reasons for objection to the project are:

- no relationship with outcomes of the proposed project and the outcomes of NSW Gov proposing to deliver affordable housing (unless you consider ~$3m+ for a 2 bed apartment a 'reasonable' outcome to meeting affordable housing needs of local population and outer suburbs).
- the only local area accessibel public transport system is by way of bus. This may make sense if it was close to both rail and bus lines but it's not. The development (140 apartments versus prev DA approved 37 apartments) is totally out of kilter in relationship to the ability of Gov/Council to support the ancillary works and impact of local public transport etc (compared to the recent reasonable dev of low rise apartment blocks along Eastern Valley Way).
- the development will also attract substantial traffic flows (to an already busy Edinburgh Rd) putting further stress on main / street roads during both peak and off peak periods.

In summary, the development needs work and scaling back to a reasonable level circa 50-75 apartments which will bring a more reasonable low rise aspect to the proposal.

The NSW Gov may be adopting an approach of 'no care' in relationship to this development (2068 being Ind / Lib voting area). If this Dev charges through without any reasonable development amendments, the NSW Gov may risk external parties undertaking an investigation post development (relationship between Dev and Gov) as the rationale for approving the current proposal appears to make no sense given advertised flagged affordable housing outcomes as signalled by the NSW Gov.

Other than Gov's review and handling of this development, I believe the Minn's Gov has worked well for the NSW (and Sydney) population base on public infrastructure etc but will be watching closely surrounding the on-going developments and outcomes in relation to this particular project.

The proposed SSD represents an irreversible intervention in one of Australia's most significant designed landscapes — one that would endure long after the debate around it has been forgotten.
Marion Mahony Griffin and Walter Burley Griffin gave Australia a vision of what a city embedded in Country could look like. Castlecrag, a century on, is proof that vision works. We urge the decision-maker to protect it.
See the submission for additional comments.

The additional levels really do not make such a drastic change to the original bulk approved during the DA stage. The proposed design retains all the essence of the design previously approved. We need more housing and this will contribute to the much needed housing. Adjacent sites will be getting developed too hence this bulk will not be out of context when considering all the future developments around. Come on people, let's not too dramatic over a few added levels.

My objections to this proposal are logistical, historical, aesthetic, and above all practical.

1.The SCALE of 13 storeys is an affront to the Burley Griffin - Marion Mahoney Vision of environment and community with houses set among the native coastal bush .Records of their planning for this place where they once lived , are respected world -wide.

2. I live on Edinburgh Rd and already experience TRAFFIC CONGESTION at peak hours including school pick up .
This proposal would result in exasperated drivers lining up from the Castlecrag Hospital to the intersection of Eastern ValleyWay .

3 . Edinburgh Rd is the single main road into the suburb and the SAFETY of residents relies on the accessibility of ambulances and service vehicles. Emergency provision ,in case of major weather events or fire, is not factored
Into the planning.In such circumstances , egress of residents and access of necessary vehicles is left to chance it would seem.

4. Like many streets in Castlecrag , Sunnyside Crescent has no footpaths. Predictably, the increased use of Sunnyside Crescent to escape the congestion of Edinburgh Rd would create another HAZARD to PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC especially children returning from school.

5. This proposal is NOT AFFORDABLE housing . Less than 8 apartments on the South side ground level, with shadow? Luxury housing is the description in the marketing.

6. I have lived in Castlecrag for 20 years and have witnessed and engaged in community in the process of planning and development for this site. I am aware that a mixed use development plan DA-2024/13 has already been approved for this site for 3 to 5 storeys. That scale of building ,together with a sensitive architectural plan uniquely fitted the local area. I simply cannot comprehend how the approved DA -2024/13 which the majority of the community wanted has been passed over by the Developer.

7. Finally, I am concerned that the shadowing caused by the monumental structure over residences along Eastern Valley Way in the morning and into Castlecrag in the afternoon, will be emblematic of the metaphorical shadow the beautiful suburb of Castlecrag shall endure should this proposal go ahead in its current form.

I am a resident of Castlecrag and have lived here with my family since early 2019. We searched for many months to find a home in this wonderful historic suburb, close to the bush and full of colour, character, nature and history. We had a small set of shops at 100 Edinburgh Rd, called The Quadrangle. This was a place for neighbours to gather, to shop, and it was the only entry in and out of the suburb. It has always been a slow and busy intersection between Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way. We often sit for several minutes, waiting to get in or out of the peninsula. However this is something we put up with, as there is no option but to wait. Public transport in the area is patchy at best, and bus services have reduced in the six years we've lived here. Again, we put up with this.

When we learned that The Quadrangle was being developed, residents were apprehensive. However we went through the process, and our lovely neighbourhood shopping and meeting place was torn down. We were shown plans, we debated the various options, we put in our submissions of either support, objection or suggestions to Council and the development seemed to grind to a halt - all we had was a great big hole in the ground.

Years later, we not only have a great big hole in the ground, but we also have a proposal for an enormous development, significantly larger than the original proposal, towering over this small suburb and inevitably bringing substantially more traffic to what is already a slow and choked entry/exit point. The scale of this development is nothing like what the residents were originally told they'd get, and what was agreed to. We feel we haven't been listened to, and that this development is going to problematic on so many fronts.

1. The height, bulk, scale and location of the proposed twin towers contradicts the design principles of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney. Their vision of the suburb was in keeping with nature and was visionary for its time. We have all been subject to strict controls over what we can do to renovate or build in the suburb, which is under a heritage overlay and for good reason. If we don't respect the history of the suburb it will be lost - if we can have huge, 11+ storey apartment blocks at the entranceway to the suburb, what is to stop them being built elsewhere in Castlecrag? This will ruin what is one of Sydney's last iconic suburbs. In particular, I object to the height and scale of the buildings which are contrary to the already existing lower scale, mixed-use project approval of 3-5 storeys, which fit the site and respect the local environment right next to the Griffin Conservation Area. Planning controls limit height to around 3 storeys above Edinburgh Rd - why is this development even being considered? Approving this development will cause irreversible harm to the character and heritage of the suburb, and is likely to be the slippery slope that leads to further, similar scale developments.

2. Much has been said about housing in NSW, and as the parent of two young adults who are still living at home with me and my husband due to the cost of living and housing, I completely support affordable housing projects and the concept of providing for the next generation. However these apartments will cost several million dollars each. They are NOT affordable housing for young people or anyone else. Introducing these towers will not even contribute slightly to solving the affordable housing problem in this state, and any suggestion from the developers that it will is laughable. Only 6.7% of the apartments are listed as "affordable" and it is likely that even medium income earners will be unable to afford rents in these blocks. It is predominantly a high-end development and will not provide a contribution to the shortage of housing options for first home buyers.

3. Traffic and congestion at the junction between Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way will be unbearable if these towers are allowed to proceed. Already one can sit at the lights for up to 10 minutes during peak times, and the intersection simply isn't capable of funneling hundreds of additional cars through to the major road every morning and afternoon. This is likely to encourage unsafe traffic behaviour, forcing locals to "rat run" through local streets that are narrow, winding and often don't have footpaths for pedestrians - who then walk on the road. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Increased traffic volumes near schools, shops and homes will create genuine safety risks.

4. Castlecrag is not well served by public transport. It is 4km from the nearest train station, not served by the Metro system and buses are infrequent and have been reduced, particularly outside of weekday peak times. Public transport is therefore not practical for everyday commuters. This is not the right location for a large, 11+ storey development where the only access to the road is proposed to be Edinburgh Rd (no direct entry to Eastern Valley Way for drivers). Residents will be forced onto Edinburgh Rd and will therefore add significantly to congestion getting on and off the peninsula.

5. I am particularly concerned about the loss of community and public space in this proposal. What was once a community gathering area will now just become a car park where people are angry and frustrated trying to get to work or school. Previously proposed and agreed community facilities have been removed from the design of this proposal. Although there will be shops, there is very little open space, trees or places where adults and children alike can safely gather and foster a sense of community and neighbourhood connection. This was an important part of why my family moved to Castlecrag, and it's heartbreaking that this has been altered so significantly.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly oppose this proposal to redevelop 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag. I know that others will have all sorts of technical and legal reasons why the proposal is insufficient, so I'll leave that to them. As a resident I want the decision-makers to know that those of us who live here do not want this huge development at the entry to our suburb. We are devastated that the originally approved development (which should have been finished and open by now) has been overtaken by developers who are not sympathetic to the history and uniqueness of Castlecrag, but instead seem to only want to maximise their financial return. Obviously they need to be profitable, but in this particular instance the outcome would be overwhelmingly negative. Please reject this proposal.

I do not reside in Castlecrag; however I wish to express my support for the proposed project based on its broader social, environmental, and strategic merit. As someone who regularly visits, works in, and moves through the lower North Shore, I believe it is appropriate to consider how carefully planned development contributes not only to immediate neighbours, but to the wider community that relies on and benefits from the area.


From an external perspective, Castlecrag is widely recognised for its strong planning principles, quality-built form, and emphasis on environmental sensitivity. The proposal respects these values by responding to site constraints, neighbourhood character, and applicable planning controls. Thoughtful development that aligns with established planning frameworks should be encouraged, particularly where it demonstrates restraint, sustainability, and respect for context.

Importantly, suburbs such as Castlecrag do not exist in isolation. Decisions made here have flow‑on benefits for the broader region — including improved housing supply, better utilisation of serviced land, and investment in local infrastructure and amenity. Allowing well-considered projects in appropriate locations helps reduce pressure on less serviced or environmentally sensitive areas elsewhere.

The proposal also represents a measured approach to change. Rather than undermining the character of Castlecrag, it reflects an evolution consistent with contemporary needs, while still acknowledging the suburb’s history and design legacy. From the point of view of a non‑resident, this balance between preservation and progress is essential to keeping established suburbs functional, inclusive, and relevant.

As someone who does not have a direct personal interest in the immediate outcome, my support is based on the project’s apparent consistency with good planning outcomes rather than individual benefit. I believe this external viewpoint can add value to the assessment process, as it considers impacts and advantages at a community-wide level rather than focusing solely on localised concerns.

For these reasons, I support the proposed project and encourage the consent authority to assess it on its planning merit, strategic alignment, and long‑term contribution to the area and wider community.

The main argument for proceeding with the Conquest development appears to be the need for Willoughby Council to contribute its rightful share of new housing given the current Sydney housing shortage. There have been all sorts of government and press allegations that Willoughby isn’t pulling its weight. Eg Minns called out residents’ opposition to an 11-storey apartment block proposed for the lower north shore suburb of Castlecrag, about eight kilometres from the CBD, where 33 new homes have been built in the past 35 years.

In this rush to develop it has been conveniently overlooked that Willoughby Council has already exceeded the assigned target of 3,400 new homes by 2029. The tables in the Social Impact documents show 26 projects underway, recently completed or in final planning stages all within 4 kilometres of Castlecrag netting approximately 4,944 new dwellings. Other zoning changes mean many more medium density developments are likely.

An appropriately scaled mixed use development for the Quadrangle site has already been approved which would contribute 38 new dwellings. This development would meet many of the social objectives claimed by Conquest for its twin towers in the planning documents ie varied housing options for downsizing residents, retail provisions including a supermarket and community spaces and be a proportionate contribution to housing provision in a small suburb.

But in overriding this approved development to make the site an SSD, it almost appears that the Government wants to make an object lesson of Castlecrag:
There is no transport hub, no train, metro, freeway – only patchy bus services, even though the EIS acknowledges More broadly, most major residential development projects in the local area are expected to occur along well-serviced rail public transport routes, including in Chatswood, Crows Nest and St Leonards.

The traffic analysis takes little consideration there being only two smallish streets to enter and exit the peninsula forming Castlecrag. Most of Castlecrag is zoned as a bushfire prone and there is a hospital that is served by ambulances yet there is no allowance for the development’s potential impact on emergency vehicles access.

It is acknowledged that: The proposal deviates from the existing built form character of the local area and will affect how the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area is experienced. And that there will be some visual contrast due to the scale disparity between the new building and the lower-scale heritage dwellings. It is truly disrespectful then for the report to claim the impacts are moderated through the incorporation of a series of design measures.

No design measures are going to make two 11 storey towers disappear, perched as they would be on the ridge overlooking everything for kilometres. The architects, town planner and heritage planner should be consumed with shame for even suggesting such a dishonest response to legitimate community concern.

On top of ‘design measures’ dishonesty, there is also the admission that the plans do not even meet the minimal communal open space guidelines: The Apartment Design Guideline (ADG) states that there should be a minimum of 25% of the site area for communal open space, however there is only 21% of site area dedicated to open space.

Today, the Walter Burley Griffin Society hosted an Open Day when some of the original Griffin houses were open to the public. Not sure of the exact numbers but they would be in the hundreds – people from all over Sydney and some interstate and international visitors. Every week there are walking tours through the Conservation area – again people from all over the world interested in the unique architecture of the area.

Castlecrag is a tourist destination, and its preservation is not about NIMBYISM – it is about protecting a unique architectural gem, internationally known and admired. A thoughtful medium density development at the gateway would not detract from this but putting two looming towers would, no matter what “design measures” were to be used.

How sad that 2026 is the 150th anniversary of Griffin’s birth and highlight of NSW celebrations could be the government approving a development that would so diminish his legacy in Castlecrag.

I object due to height, proposal is extremely high & should be a maximum 3 levels above street front. It would be stand out on the topography & would destroy the heritage of the Walter Burley Griiffin estate & surrounding conservation streets on Third & Second ave Willoughby.
Also object to high density of project, would bring too much traffic not only to the main intersection but to other streets in surrounding area.
There is a lack of transport infrastructure for the large number of new residents.

Objection to DA for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag
I wish to lodge a formal submission opposing the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (Proposed Development). I reside in Castlecrag approximately half a block from the site and am directly affected by the scale, impacts, and incompatibility of the proposal with the character and functioning of our suburb.
A. Castlecrag’s Unique Character and Heritage Significance
Castlecrag is not an ordinary suburb. It is a uniquely designed peninsula community, shaped deliberately by Walter Burley Griffin to integrate with the natural contours of the land, the bushland setting, and the intimate scale of the built environment. The suburb’s heritage significance is well recognised and remains central to its identity, sense of place, and community cohesion.
The Proposed Development bears no relationship to these defining characteristics. Its bulk, height, visual dominance, and commercial intensity are the polar opposite of the Griffin planning principles that underpin Castlecrag. Rather than respecting the landscape and village atmosphere, the proposal overwhelms it.
Earlier concepts for the site—while not perfect—at least attempted to retain elements of community space and village scale activity. The current proposal abandons those principles entirely.
B. Excessive Scale and Profit Driven Design
The Proposed Development is not a modest or context sensitive medium density project. It is, in my view, a profit maximising scheme that disregards the constraints of the site, the heritage setting, and the capacity of local infrastructure.
The developer’s claim that the project contributes to affordable housing is unconvincing. Only around 7% of the dwellings fall into that category, and given Castlecrag’s lack of access to public transport hubs, even those limited units are unlikely to be genuinely functional or attractive for affordable housing purposes.
C. Traffic and Access Impacts – A Critical Constraint
Castlecrag is effectively served by one road in and the same road out: Edinburgh Road. The only alternative, Sunnyside Crescent, is a narrow residential street not designed to carry through traffic.
The intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already poorly designed and frequently congested. Vehicles attempting to turn in either direction face delays and safety risks. Additional traffic generated by the Proposed Development will:
• choke the only access route to the peninsula
• increase congestion and travel times
• heighten accident risk
• worsen air pollution from idling vehicles
These impacts are not manageable and cannot be mitigated by minor intersection works.
D. Public Transport Limitations
Castlecrag is not a public transport hub. It is not even near one. The suburb is serviced only by buses, which themselves are affected by the existing congestion on Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way. The Proposed Development will exacerbate these delays.
Any suggestion that the development is “transit oriented” is simply not credible.
E. Visual Impact and Incompatibility with the Suburb
The visual impact of the Proposed Development will be severe. Its scale and form are completely out of character with the surrounding built environment. It will stand out as a stark, intrusive structure—“a monument to profit over planning”—and will permanently damage the visual harmony of the suburb.
Recent developments at The Postern demonstrate that sensitive, modest, community oriented design is possible. Similarly, medium density developments in Northbridge and along Eastern Valley Way have been delivered with far less visual and social impact than what is proposed here.
F. Loss of Village Atmosphere and Community Spaces
The former Quadrangle provided a balanced mix of cafés, restaurants, boutique shops, a greengrocer, and an IGA—facilities that supported the village atmosphere and reduced the need for residents to travel for daily essentials.
The Proposed Development removes this balance and replaces it with a dense, visually dominant structure that does not enhance community life.
I am not opposed to medium density residential development on the site. The Quadrangle previously contained no residential dwellings, so even a modest, well designed project would represent a significant increase in housing supply. What I oppose is this development—because it is excessive, inappropriate, and inconsistent with the character and constraints of Castlecrag.
G. Support for the Castlecrag Progress Association Submissions
I have reviewed the detailed submissions of the Castlecrag Progress Association and I fully support their analysis on:
1. Planning Non Compliance and Strategic Misalignment
2. Tree Loss and Environmental Impact
3. Setbacks and Building Separation Failures
4. Overshadowing and Solar Access Impacts (including impacts on my own property, swimming pool, and solar panels)
5. Heritage Impacts
6. Visual Impacts
7. Traffic and Parking Impacts
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
9. Public Transport Limitations
10. Community Consultation Failures
11. Design, Plans and Risk Issues
12. Loss of Community and Public Space
13. Modification to Existing Development Consent
I adopt those submissions and rely on them without repeating their detail here.
H. Precedent Risk
Approval of a development of this scale will set a dangerous precedent. Developers will inevitably target the strip shops on the opposite side of Edinburgh Road, leading to cumulative impacts that will fundamentally alter the suburb. Once the precedent is set, it cannot be undone.
I. Conclusion – Planning Before Profit
The Proposed Development is not appropriate for this site or for Castlecrag. It fails to respect the suburb’s heritage, its environmental setting, its infrastructure limitations, and its community character.
A more modest, reasonable, and context sensitive development would be far more suitable and would still deliver additional housing without destroying the qualities that make Castlecrag unique.
I therefore respectfully request that Council refuse the Proposed Development.