Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

This proposal is grossly excessive for the site and the suburbs of Castlecrag and East Willoughby as a whole. All other recent developments within 500 metres have been 2-4 storeys in height.
The applicant's EIS suggests this development will not bring any extra traffic. It completely ignores the development itself - 150 units, an inadequate 204 residential car spaces and 172 retail car spaces. Edinburgh Road in Castlecrag is only 2 traffic lanes, one east, one west plus a right turning lane for 3-4 cars in a northerly direction. The westerly heading lane is also subject to a red pedestrian light turning south. If that light is red, no traffic can drive west, a nightmare in peak hours already. The development will worsen this.
Cars driven into the development carpark from the west will need to turn right into the carpark from Edinburgh Road (east) thereby blocking the eastbound lane at a spot less than 100metres from Eastern Valley Way potentially leading to disruption in Eastern Valley Way itself. This will be a new, major problem.
Castlecrag is not a transport hub or is it in a Transport Oriented Hub zone. The nearest railway station is North Sydney/Victoria Cross, about 4 kilometers away. As the crow flies St Leonards and Artarmon may be slightly closer but they are cross country and usually accessed by cars. This development will add more cars.
The EIS traffic report suggests there are more bus routes than there really are. The 205, 206, 207 and 208 are really the same route. Other than between 7:15AM and 9AM the buses are sporadic, coming in 30 minute intervals and 60 minute intervals at night. The 194 comes in 30 minute intervals and none in morning and afternoon peak hours. The 260 has only 5 services and goes to North Sydney, while the 275 does not go to the City.
The detrimental impact of this proposal is actually acknowledged in the EIS at page 127 where it says the change "is considered acceptable" (only) because of the effect Infill Housing 30% provisions to the site and adjacent land which they claim may allow changes to that adjacent land. They then use this possibility of those changes happening in the future to justify this earlier (in time) gross overdevelopment of this site. This development must be considered on the basis of what is around the site now, not what might, or might not, occur in the future.
The area immediately to the east and south forms part of the Griffin Conservation Area, a unique development of mainly single storey buildings as created by Walter Burley Griffin, the designer of Canberra, our National Capital. In short, he is a major figure in the history of Australia. Castlecrag is the only residential development he created. The proposed development will grossly overshadow the bulk of the Griffin area at various times during the day, given its 11-14 storey height.
Overshadowing: this development will extend overshadowing over both the Griffin Conservation Area and buildings on both sides of Eastern Valley Way.
To approve this development would mean that all planning controls are superfluous, and eyesores like this could be erected anywhere, regardless of the State and Local Government Planning Instruments.
The photos provided at pages 93 and 94 of the EIS have been taken from places selected to downplay the impact of the bulk of the proposed development.

I object to the proposal because:

1. There is an existing approved development plan for this site which has been arrived at through extensive public consultation and is consistent with both community expectations and local planning guidelines

2. The new proposal is totally inappropriate for the site in terms of its size and scale, and its demands on local infrastructure. The environmental impact statement does not pay sufficient attention to impacts on road traffic, parking and public transport.

3. The developer has not accommodated local community concerns and their plan appears to represent a maximalist demand in terms of the size and scale of the project.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road. This development is not simply a planning matter; it represents a profound threat to the character, heritage, safety and environmental integrity of our suburb. Castlecrag is a community shaped by the Griffin philosophy of living with the landscape. It is defined by its tree canopy, bushland corridors, human‑scale village centre and quiet streets. The proposed 11+‑storey development is fundamentally incompatible with everything that makes Castlecrag unique.

The NSW Government’s SSD Housing Pathway was designed for well‑located, transport‑rich areas with rail, metro, high‑frequency buses and infrastructure capacity. Castlecrag is none of these things. It is a peninsula suburb with one road in and out, no rail or metro, limited bus services and no major employment centre. Yet it was designated a “housing hub” solely because a small neighbourhood supermarket once operated on the Quadrangle site. This is not strategic planning; it is a misapplication of policy that places our community at risk.

The SSD pathway is being used to override local planning controls, not to deliver public benefit. A sensitive, low‑rise FJMT design had already been approved for this site. It respected the Griffin Conservation Area, retained almost all trees and delivered appropriate scale and density. Conquest purchased the site after this approval and immediately sought to abandon it in favour of an 11+‑storey tower that dramatically increases yield and profit. This is not state significance; it is private up‑zoning.

The affordable housing contribution is tokenistic. The proposal offers only 6.67% affordable housing for 15 years, at rents still unaffordable for most low‑ to moderate‑income earners. In exchange, the community is expected to accept a development that is taller, denser and more destructive than anything ever contemplated for Castlecrag. This is not a fair or reasonable trade‑off.

High‑rise is completely unsuitable for Castlecrag. The Lower North Shore already has designated high‑density precincts such as St Leonards, Crows Nest and Chatswood, all supported by rail, metro and major employment centres. Castlecrag is deliberately not one of these areas. It is a suburb of low‑rise homes, narrow streets, bushland integration and heritage sensitivity. The E1 Local Centre zone anticipates village‑scale mixed use, not an 11+‑storey tower. The proposal is out of scale, out of character and out of alignment with both the LEP and DCP.

The Griffin Conservation Area is internationally significant. The Griffins designed Castlecrag so that buildings sit below the tree canopy and the landscape dominates. Sunlight, openness and modest built form are central to the suburb’s identity. An 11+‑storey tower at the suburb’s gateway is the antithesis of this philosophy. It will dominate the ridgeline, overshadow the reserve, overwhelm the village and permanently alter the sense of arrival. This is not just a planning issue; it is a cultural loss.

Overshadowing impacts have been understated. The EIS avoids comparing the proposed tower to the approved low‑rise scheme because the difference is stark. The 11+‑storey form will cast deep, long shadows across neighbouring homes, public spaces and Griffin Reserve, blocking winter sunlight for extended periods. The claim that existing trees already shade properties is misleading. Trees provide filtered light; buildings create solid, permanent shadow. Removing trees and replacing them with a vertical wall of concrete intensifies overshadowing and reduces amenity.

Traffic impacts have also been minimised. Castlecrag already experiences congestion on Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way, with long queues and safety issues during peak periods. Adding more than 150 apartments and 376 parking spaces will significantly worsen congestion, increase rat‑running through residential streets and compromise pedestrian safety, particularly for schoolchildren and elderly residents. The suggestion that traffic will somehow decrease defies logic and lived experience.

Tree removal is another major concern. The proposal removes 22 trees, including 19 live trees and eight high‑value indigenous canopy trees. This represents 42% of all live trees on the site. The canopy is central to Castlecrag’s identity and ecological function. Removing mature trees destroys habitat, increases heat, reduces amenity and undermines the Griffin vision. Deep soil zones are reduced, meaning replacement trees will never reach equivalent canopy height. No Tree Management Plan has been provided, leaving long‑term viability uncertain.

Heritage impacts have been minimised in the EIS. Heritage is not a footnote in Castlecrag; it is the foundation of the suburb. The proposal breaches established height benchmarks, disrupts the ridgeline, overwhelms the gateway and undermines the spatial and visual integrity of the conservation area. Visual impact assessments rely on selective viewpoints that do not reflect what residents will actually see: a tower dominating the skyline and visible from multiple vantage points.

Setbacks and building separation are inadequate. Setbacks have been measured from land not within the site boundary, artificially inflating compliance. The proposal retains setback relationships from a 3–5 storey scheme despite increasing height to 11+ storeys. There is no graduated transition to surrounding low‑rise homes, resulting in a jarring and intrusive interface.

Public transport access is poor. The nearest rail stations are three to four kilometres away, and bus services are infrequent and unreliable. The EIS contradicts itself by acknowledging poor transport access during construction while claiming the opposite in planning justification.

Community consultation has been superficial. Information was difficult to interpret, engagement was limited and feedback has not been meaningfully incorporated. The scale of the proposal demands genuine consultation, not a procedural formality.

In conclusion, the proposed SSD at 100 Edinburgh Road is too tall, too dense, too destructive and too incompatible with the suburb’s character, heritage and environmental values. It relies on a misapplied policy pathway and delivers minimal public benefit. Castlecrag is a suburb of extraordinary heritage and landscape significance. This development would irreversibly damage it. I urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application.

Castlecrag is unique in Sydney because it includes an entire, integrated residential subdivision plan designed by the Burley-Griffins. 100 Edinburgh Rd marks the entry point to Castlecrag acting the first visual reference point to the suburb. Therefore, any development at 100 Edinburgh Rd should reflect the Griffins’ design philosophy, whilst aligning with the Willoughby Council planning framework that guides growth in our area.

I’m opposing the development proposal put forth by Conquest for the following reasons.

The development fails to respect the unique heritage of Castlecrag, Griffin design principles have been disregarded, exceeding acceptable height and scale limits, along with setbacks required to support landscape integrated form.
1. By exceeding the E1 Local Planning centre requirements for small-scale, village based mixed use development for a high rise building, the Conquest development is not just out of character for the suburb but excessively, exceeding height limits beyond neighbouring suburbs and locales such as Northridge.
2. Excessive overshadowing of the southern slopes and properties, as seen by Conquests non-compliance of solar access standards.
3. Tree canopy preservation central to Griffin design principles has been disregarded with over 42% of existing trees already removed from the site, reduced areas for tree regeneration and no Tree Management Plan in existence to protect remaining trees.
4. Loss of community & public spaces.

Public Transport for Castlecrag residents is restricted to bus only, with no rail or metro close by. The bus services can be under strain during peak hours Monday to Friday, with buses often arriving at the Edinburgh bus stop near capacity, full and sometimes cancelled. Bus services outside of these hours are both limited and unreliable.

Road traffic issues will be further exacerbated as detailed below. Satisfactory traffic modelling, provision for pedestrians safety and road network failures needs to be addressed before this submission can be taken further.
1. A large number of new residents requiring entry & exit from the building onto an already congested Edinburgh Rd and only meters from the entry into Castlecrag. This road is already congested with car parking on both sides obscuring use of one of the two lanes and vehicles often undertaking risky manoeuvres to cross Eastern Valley Way i.e. moving from the right lane (turn only) into the left hand lane heading directly across Eastern Valley Way. This has resulted in crashes as I’ve experienced myself from a vehicle undertaking this risky manoeuvre.
2. The entry & exit into Raeburn Ave is congested during Mon - Sat with vehicles parked on either sides of the road. Getting in and out of this road can be dangerous, especially from cars entering Raeburn Ave at speed from Edinburgh Rd.
3. Vehicles often use Raeburn Ave as a shortcut to Eastern Valley Way when Edinburgh Rd is congested. Cars parked on both sides turn this into a one lane road and with cars often driving at speed the risks of injury to both drivers and pedestrians is increased.

Parking issues will be further exacerbated with a development of this scale and inadequate car parks proposed by Conquest falling below standards required. Raeburn Ave is already congested with vehicles coming from other suburbs to park for the day to catch the bus to the city. These vehicles are often parked illegally in timed restricted spots and often right up to the edges of the driveways, over the designated white lines, making it very difficult, if not near impossible for a resident to park on their street, or manoeuvre a vehicle from their drive way. If the parking provision is inadequate for the space being developed, then this just places further pressure on surrounding on-street parking.

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.
I strongly oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is excessive in scale, incompatible with the established character of Castlecrag, environmentally damaging, and inconsistent with the values that have long defined this unique suburb.
Excessive height and density
The proposed development represents an inappropriate level of height and density for this location. Castlecrag is not a high-density precinct and has never been planned as one. The scale of this proposal is clearly out of proportion with the surrounding built form and would introduce an intrusive and dominating presence.
Incompatibility with the surrounding character and heritage
Castlecrag is internationally recognised for its distinctive planning principles and architectural legacy, first conceived by the renowned architect Walter Burley Griffin. The suburb’s character is not accidental: it reflects a deliberate vision of harmony between housing, landscape, and community.
Allowing a development of this magnitude would undermine that vision and set a precedent for further inappropriate intensification. Once this character is lost, it cannot be restored.
Environmental harm and excessive tree removal
The proposal would cause significant damage to the local ecosystem through extensive vegetation clearing and tree removal. Mature trees are central to the identity of Castlecrag, as well as vital to biodiversity, habitat, shade, and temperature regulation.
Removing established trees on this scale is unacceptable, particularly at a time when urban areas must be strengthening environmental resilience, not weakening it.
Overshadowing and loss of amenity
The height and bulk of the development will inevitably cause overshadowing, reducing sunlight and amenity for neighbouring properties and public spaces. This will diminish the liveability of the area and negatively affect residents’ enjoyment of their homes.
Traffic generation and erosion of village character
Castlecrag’s roads and local infrastructure are not designed to accommodate major increases in traffic. The development will generate significant additional vehicle movements, worsening congestion and reducing pedestrian safety.
The proposal is inconsistent with the established village character of the area and would shift Castlecrag further toward an urbanised, car-dominated environment.
Loss of community and public space
Castlecrag has long been valued not simply for its houses, but for its sense of community and shared space. Developments that increase density without protecting open space and community amenity risk eroding what makes the suburb distinctive and liveable.
Poor design and visual impact
Finally, the proposed development is visually intrusive and, in plain terms, ugly. It does not reflect the design principles of the surrounding suburb and would significantly degrade the appearance of the streetscape. Castlecrag’s beauty is one of its defining features; this proposal would permanently damage it.
Personal perspective
As a migrant, when I first arrived in Australia it was places like Castlecrag that made me fall in love with this country — a place that appeared to value heritage, beauty, and balance between the built environment and nature. Castlecrag represents a rare and precious example of thoughtful planning, where architecture and landscape coexist rather than compete.
Approving this development would destroy the area’s character and undermine the principles that have made Castlecrag such a remarkable part of Sydney. It would also make me seriously question the authenticity of the values Australians often claim to uphold, including fairness, respect for community, and care for the natural environment.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I urge Council / the relevant planning authority to reject the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.
This proposal is excessive, incompatible with the surrounding area, environmentally damaging, and inconsistent with the heritage and character that make Castlecrag unique.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Robert Klenner

I am writing to formally express my strong support for this application.

As a long-term resident of Castlecrag, I feel compelled to speak candidly about the current state of our suburb and the urgent need for positive change. Over recent years, the absence of a functioning village centre — including cafés, restaurants, retail, and a communal hub — has had a profoundly negative impact on our community.

Castlecrag once had a distinct village feel. It offered not just homes, but a sense of place — somewhere people could gather, connect, and enjoy a lifestyle beyond their front door. That has been lost. What remains today is a suburb that, despite its natural beauty and architectural heritage, feels increasingly empty, quiet, and disconnected.

The lack of local amenities has affected all aspects of daily life. There are limited options to meet friends, dine out, or even casually spend time within the neighbourhood. Families, including my own, have felt this acutely. My children have grown through their teenage years without access to local part-time job opportunities — something that would naturally come from a thriving village environment. Social connection, independence, and community engagement have all been diminished as a result.

More broadly, the absence of a vibrant centre has impacted the suburb’s desirability. I have never seen so many homes for sale in Castlecrag as I have in recent times. In my view, this is not coincidental. When a suburb lacks lifestyle offerings — when it becomes “just a place to live” rather than a place to experience — it inevitably becomes less attractive to both current and prospective residents.

This proposal represents an opportunity to reverse that decline.

It will bring essential elements that are currently missing:

* Local cafés and restaurants
* Retail and shopping convenience
* A supermarket offering
* Employment opportunities for young people
* A place for the community to gather and connect

These are not luxuries — they are fundamental components of a functioning, healthy suburb.

I want to be very clear: while I understand that some members of the community have concerns around scale or change, I personally believe that the benefits of this development far outweigh those concerns. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the precise scale is secondary to the outcome — what matters is that Castlecrag regains a working village centre that serves its residents.

It has been deeply frustrating to see this project delayed for so long. From a resident’s perspective, these delays do not preserve the suburb — they prolong its stagnation. They defer much-needed improvements and continue to deprive the community of essential amenity.

Opposition to change is not unique to Castlecrag — it is something that occurs in almost every neighbourhood. I have experienced this personally when undertaking renovations to my own home, where resistance was significant despite the improvements being reasonable and considered. However, progress cannot be indefinitely stalled by a reluctance to evolve.

It is my strong belief that once this development is complete, even many of those who currently oppose it will come to appreciate its value. Access to quality cafés, restaurants, and local services will enhance daily life in ways that are difficult to argue against once experienced.

At present, Castlecrag is at risk of becoming a suburb that people simply pass through or retreat from — rather than one they actively choose to engage with. This development has the potential to restore vibrancy, strengthen community connection, and significantly improve the overall livability of the area.

In summary, I support this application because:

* The current lack of amenity has negatively impacted the community
* The suburb has lost its village identity and social vibrancy
* Residents, particularly younger generations, lack local opportunities
* Property desirability and community engagement have declined
* The proposed development will reintroduce essential lifestyle infrastructure
* Delays are actively harmful to the suburb’s future

I strongly encourage the approval of this project so that Castlecrag can move forward, evolve, and once again become a place where people not only live — but truly enjoy living.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

I wish to formally object to the proposed Conquest development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. My grounds for objection are set out below.

1. EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK
The proposal’s 12–14 storey scale is vastly greater than the existing approved DA for this site (DA-2024/13), which envisioned a lower-scale mixed‑use development of approximately 3–5 storeys. The increased height and bulk are inappropriate in this location and will visually dominate the streetscape and surrounding low‑rise neighbourhood.

2. INCOMPATIBLE WITH LOCAL CHARACTOER AND BURLEY GRIFFIN HERITAGE
The site adjoins the Griffin Conservation Area, a unique and internationally recognised precinct. The proposal conflicts with the Griffin design philosophy—where buildings are designed to be part of and subservient to the landscape—by introducing a large vertical form that will overwhelm the natural topography and interrupt important sightlines and relationships between built form and landscape.

The approved lower-scale DA demonstrates that housing can be delivered on this site without harming the Griffin heritage values; the proposed tower does not respect those demonstrated design outcomes.

3. CONFLICT WITH PLANNING CONTROLS AND LOCAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The proposed height materially exceeds the established height expectations for Edinburgh Road and surrounding streets, where controls effectively limit built form to about three storeys above Edinburgh Road. The development is therefore inconsistent with relevant height and form controls in the local planning framework.

Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in state or local strategies; permitting a 12–14 storey tower would conflict with strategic directions for growth distribution and would undermine Council’s planning framework and heritage preservation priorities.

4. NOT A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR HIGH-DENSITY OR TOD DEVELOPMENT
The site is not in a recognised transport‑oriented development (TOD) area: it is more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre, not within the Low and Mid Rise Housing Policy catchment, not near a train station, and has limited bus services outside peak periods. The location therefore lacks the public transport capacity and accessibility appropriate for high‑density development.

Allowing high residential densities here would increase car dependency and is inconsistent with state policies that concentrate tall, dense development around frequent public transport nodes.

5. TRAFFIC, AMENITY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS CONCERNS
A development of this scale will generate significantly more traffic, parking demand and congestion than the approved lower-scale scheme, likely affecting local streets, pedestrian safety and the capacity of intersections.

Increased traffic and on‑street pressure could restrict access for residents, service vehicles and emergency services, raising safety concerns for the local community.

The intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road has already been the site of a number of fatalities with local residents crossing the intersection. Increasing both car use and footfall, without major upgrades to the intersection, will only increase the risk of ongoing fatalities at this intersection.

6. SOCIAL AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal appears to target high‑end units rather than genuinely affordable housing. Given the site context and the limited ability to integrate with transport and local services, this development is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to affordable housing outcomes.

7. PRECEDENT AND IRREVERSIBLE HARM
Approval of such a bulky, high‑rise development in a low‑rise, heritage‑sensitive suburb would set an undesirable precedent for further towers in Castlecrag and similar suburbs, leading to cumulative and irreversible harm to the area’s character, heritage values and amenity.

The immediate area has already seen an increase in density with a number of higher density developments replacing the standard single residence blocks along Eastern Valley Way. More developments that align with the developments along Eastern Valley way will enable an increase in housing density without threatening the local environment and character.

REQUESTED OUTCOME
For the reasons above, I request that the Department refuse the current proposal and instead support the lower‑scale development outcome already approved under DA-2024/13, or require a redesigned scheme that:

1. aligns with the height and bulk consistent with Edinburgh Road and adjacent properties (approximately 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road);
2. respects the Griffin Conservation Area and the Griffin design philosophy by reducing scale, stepping built form into the landscape, and protecting key view lines and vegetated character;
3. demonstrates compliance with local and state planning strategies for growth distribution and transport accessibility;
4. provides a credible, deliverable strategy to avoid increased traffic, protect emergency access and improve local amenity; and
demonstrates how the proposal will deliver genuinely affordable housing outcomes if increased density is sought.

Submission on the proposal for the 100 Edinburgh Rd redevelopment.
To the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces,
I write as a local resident regarding the proposed development in Castlecrag.
1. Departure from Agreed Planning Outcomes
The community has engaged constructively in the planning process over many years, supporting a (council-approved) mid-rise outcome consistent with the established character of the area. The current proposal for an eleven-storey development represents a significant and unexpected departure from this position, undermining confidence in the integrity of the process and the role of community consultation.
2. Impact on Heritage Significance
Castlecrag is a nationally and internationally recognised heritage precinct, shaped by the vision of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. The proposed scale and form of development at this gateway location are inconsistent with the legacy and risk materially diminishing the area’s unique character and landscape setting.
3. Overshadowing Impacts
The height and bulk of the proposed development will result in significant overshadowing of surrounding residential properties and public spaces. This will reduce access to natural light, impact solar amenity, and diminish the liveability of neighbouring homes, particularly during winter months.
4. Traffic Impacts
The surrounding road network, particularly at Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way, already experiences severe congestion. The addition of over 150 dwellings, without corresponding transport infrastructure, will exacerbate these pressures and further strain local capacity. Traffic congestion will become a significant safety issue for the Hospital further along Edinburgh Rd.
5. Housing Mix and Public Benefit
The proposed development appears to be targeted at the premium end of the market and is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to housing affordability. In this context, the use of the State Significant Development pathway raises concerns that the process is being leveraged to maximise development yield without delivering commensurate public benefit, particularly given the sensitivity of the location.
6. Request for Ministerial Consideration
This proposal does not reflect appropriate planning for a sensitive heritage location. High-rise, higher-density development should be directed toward areas with established transport capacity and infrastructure.
I respectfully request that the proposal be rejected or significantly revised to better align with the character, constraints, and expectations of the Castlecrag community.

My objections are based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds:

1. Excessive Scale and Violation of Existing Controls
The site already benefits from an approved development (DA-2024/13) for a mixed-use project of 3–5 storeys. This existing approval demonstrates that housing can be delivered in a way that respects the site’s constraints.

Height and Bulk: The new proposal is significantly taller and bulkier, overwhelming the local area.

Planning Conflicts: The proposal directly conflicts with current planning controls that limit building height to approximately three storeys above Edinburgh Road.

Precedent: Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for high-rise developments in established low-rise suburban areas.

2. Irreversible Harm to Heritage and Character
The site is adjacent to the Griffin Conservation Area, a precinct of international renown.

Griffin Philosophy: The proposal fundamentally contradicts the Walter Burley Griffin philosophy, which dictates that buildings should be subservient to and integrated with the natural environment.

Visual Impact: At 14 storeys, the project would dominate the landscape, causing irreversible harm to the heritage values that the existing DA (DA-2024/13) successfully preserved.

3. Inconsistency with Strategic Planning
Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in either state or local planning strategies.

Lack of TOD Status: The site is not within a Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) zone and lacks the high-frequency public transport necessary to support such density.

Inapplicability of Low & Mid Rise Policy: As the site is located more than 800m from the Northbridge local centre, it is not subject to the State’s Low & Mid Rise Housing Policy.

Infrastructure Constraints: The area has limited bus services outside peak hours and is not serviced by a train station.

4. Traffic, Safety, and Social Impact
Congestion: The resulting increase in traffic is likely to cause significant congestion on local roads, potentially restricting access for residents and emergency services.

Affordability: Despite the increase in density, the project focuses on high-end units, meaning it is unlikely to address the genuine need for diverse or affordable housing in the region.

Conclusion
The proposed development represents a significant overreach that ignores the Council’s established planning framework and heritage priorities. It fails to align with the design policies intended to protect the unique environmental and historical identity of Castlecrag.

I urge the Council/Planning Panel to refuse this application and instead support developments that adhere to the scale and sensitivity established by the previously approved DA-2024/13.

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT
100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag – State Significant Development Application**

To: Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure

I write in strong support of the proposed mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

This proposal delivers what Castlecrag has been missing for decades: essential, everyday services within walking distance a supermarket, medical suites, and supporting essential services & retail combined with new housing in a highly constrained, well-serviced location.

---

1. Castlecrag Has Seen Virtually No New Housing

Since 1991 - 35 years ago, Castlecrag has only built 33 homes, and it's now time to do some good.

That is not a planning outcome — it is a failure of supply.

The result is:

rising prices
reduced accessibility for younger families
increasing dependence on surrounding centres for basic needs
more traffic in and out as there are no shops or essential services in the immediate area

At a time when NSW is facing a housing crisis, it is neither reasonable nor responsible to continue blocking well-located, policy-aligned development.


2. The Proposal Delivers Essential Services the Community Actually Needs

Castlecrag is currently underserviced.

Residents are forced to leave the peninsula for:

major grocery shopping
medical services
daily essentials

This development directly addresses that gap by delivering:

a supermarket
medical and health services
local retail and amenities

This is not speculative overdevelopment — it is long-overdue social infrastructure.

3. Much of the Opposition Reflects NIMBY Concerns, Not Planning Merit

A number of objections reflect a desire to preserve the status quo rather than engage with planning policy or evidence.

Concerns around:

traffic
change in built form
increased activity

are typical of Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) responses seen across Sydney.

While community input is important, planning decisions must be based on merit, not resistance to change.

If every established suburb resists development, the burden shifts unfairly to outer areas — worsening affordability, increasing commute times, and undermining strategic planning objectives.



4. Transport Impacts Are Acceptable and Compliant

The Environmental Impact Statement and Transport Impact Assessment clearly conclude:

The development is not a major generator of new regional traffic
Trips are largely local and redistributed (link trips)
The proposal does not result in any significant or unreasonable impact on network performance

The key intersection at Eastern Valley Way is already operating at failure in the base case, independent of the development

This is critical:

> The proposal does not create the problem — and cannot reasonably be required to fix it, if anything, it will ease traffic as people don't need to leave Castlecrag to buy everyday essentials.

The project complies with:

the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
the Guide to Transport Impact Assessment (TfNSW)
relevant SEPPs and strategic planning frameworks



5. The Proposal Aligns with Strategic Planning Policy

The development is consistent with:

NSW housing supply objectives
local centre revitalisation strategies
walkable, mixed-use community principles

It delivers:

housing in an established suburb
services within walking distance
reduced reliance on longer vehicle trips

This is exactly the type of development planning policy is designed to encourage.



6. The Real Question

The question is not whether Castlecrag should change.

The question is:

Should Castlecrag continue to provide almost no new housing or essential services for another 35 years?

If the answer is no — then this project must be supported.


7. Conclusion

This proposal is:

strategically aligned
technically sound
compliant with planning law
and critically needed by the community

It delivers essential infrastructure, improves local amenity, and contributes to housing supply in a location that has historically provided almost none.

Accordingly, I strongly support the application and encourage the Department to approve it.

I am a local resident and property owner in Castlecrag, where I live with my family, including two school‑age children. We love this this suburb because of its rare combination of suburban streets, strong community character, and the natural landscape that surrounds and defines it. I support appropriate and well‑considered development, but I am deeply concerned that the scale and form of the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road are incompatible with the capacity of our local infrastructure and the unique heritage values of the area.

1. Excessive height, bulk, and visual impact
The proposed height is far beyond the planning controls that limit development to approximately three storeys above Edinburgh Road. A tower of this magnitude would dominate the surrounding landscape, overshadow the low‑rise built form, and fundamentally alter the visual character of the suburb.

2. Traffic, safety, and infrastructure constraints
As a parent of school‑age children, I am acutely aware of the traffic pressures on Edinburgh Road and the surrounding streets. The road network is already constrained, particularly during school drop‑off and pick‑up periods. Adding a development of this scale — with its associated vehicle movements, service vehicles, and construction traffic — would significantly worsen congestion and create safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and school children.

Emergency access is also a concern. Edinburgh Road is a narrow, heavily trafficked corridor, and increased congestion could impede emergency response times.

3. Lack of alignment with transport and planning strategy
The site is not located in a transport‑oriented development zone, and has not been identified as a growth area in state or local planning strategies. Public transport options are limited, particularly outside peak hours, and the suburb is not serviced by rail.

The proposal is therefore inconsistent with the strategic planning framework that guides higher‑density development toward well‑serviced centres and transport nodes.

4. Precedent risk
Approving a high‑rise tower in a low‑rise suburban area would set a damaging precedent. It would invite similar proposals that cumulatively erode the character, heritage, and environmental values that make Castlecrag unique. Once this precedent is set, it cannot be undone.

5. Limited contribution to housing affordability
While the proposal is framed as contributing to housing supply, it is clear that the development does not meaningfully address housing affordability or diversity. Rather the proposal is an attempt by the current developers to maximise revenue from the site at the expense of the unique character and capacity of the suburb.

6. Conclusion
I support development that respects the character, heritage, and infrastructure capacity of Castlecrag. However, the current proposal is excessive in height and bulk, inconsistent with planning controls, and unsupported by local transport and infrastructure capacity.

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

I object to the proposed mixed use development at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag which would results in up to 13 storeys and 150 apartments, of which only 10 are affordable living apartments.
The scale of the proposed development is totally inappropriate for the site and will forever adversely impact that part of Castlecrag. In addition, the intersection for the proposed development is already a busy intersection and the addition of up to 150 - 300 cars from residents in the proposed development, along with vehicle traffic drawn to the retail uses of the development site will make this situation unbearable.
I am not opposed to any development on the site, but it must be the right development. The previously approved DA for this site (DA-2024/13) which is also a mixed use development but only 3 - 5 storeys high would be more appropriate.

Excessive height and scale of the project. It exceeds any nearby height limits. Castlecrag is deemed an area of significant heritage value and this project blatantly disregards any rules which apply to all other development applications
It does not meet any zoning or statutory controls
There will be excessive tree reduction.
It has no regard for indigenous requirements in a heritage sensitive area.
It is not near a transport hub.
It is not in keeping with the Burley Griffin legacy.
All other objections which have been made to you are valid and I support all these objections

Subject: Formal Objection to State Significant Development – DA-2024/13 (Castlecrag)

I am writing to express my firm opposition to the current proposal for the subject site. While the community previously demonstrated its support for a balanced, 3-to-5 storey mixed-use project that aligned with local environmental standards, this new iteration is a gross departure from responsible planning.

My objection is based on the following critical grounds:

1. Severe Departure from Established Planning Controls
The proposal completely ignores local height restrictions, which are currently capped at roughly three storeys above Edinburgh Road. By seeking to erect twin towers of 13 to 14 storeys, the developer is attempting to bypass the very strategies intended to maintain the area’s structural integrity. Furthermore, this site is not located within a Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) zone, nor is it within reasonable proximity to a major transport hub, making such extreme density a strategic anomaly.

2. Irreparable Impact on Heritage and Architecture
Castlecrag holds a unique place in Australian history as a masterpiece of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. Their design philosophy dictates that the built form must remain subordinate to the natural landscape. The introduction of high-rise towers on the ridgeline would permanently shatter this "subservient" relationship and degrade the heritage value of the 35 listed items within the area. This project does not blend with nature; it seeks to dominate it.

3. Logistical and Infrastructure Deficiencies
The geographic reality of Castlecrag—defined by limited entry and exit points—makes it entirely unsuitable for an influx of 150 luxury apartments. The site is a full hour’s walk from the nearest train station, and local public transport is inadequate outside of peak windows. Adding this level of density to a "one-way-in, one-way-out" suburb creates significant safety risks and potential bottlenecks for emergency service vehicles.

4. Failure to Address Housing Affordability
This development does not solve the housing crisis; it exploits it for the benefit of private equity interests. With less than 7% of the 150 units designated as below-market-rate—and only for a limited duration—the project is clearly targeted at the luxury market. Profiting from high-end builds at the expense of a sensitive ecological corridor provides no tangible social benefit to the state or the local community.

5. Absence of Genuine Community Engagement
A transformation of this magnitude requires transparent dialogue. Instead, the developer has largely ignored community outreach, moving forward without meaningful consultation. Decisions that permanently alter the identity of a nationally significant landscape should not be finalized in isolation from the people who live there.

Conclusion
The proposed towers represent an overdevelopment of a fragile and historically significant site. I urge the Department to uphold the existing planning controls and reject this inappropriate application.

I am a resident of Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag and have owned and lived in this residence for approximately 12 years. I chose to live in this suburb based on its unique charm which combines the beauty of an isolated bushy harbour side peninsula with a thoughtfully designed layout sympathetic to the local geography and featuring wonderful environmental and heritage precincts that owe their origins to the foresight of the original developers of the area, the Griffins.

As a prelude I’d like to say I am not anti-development and am not a Nimby. I support sensible sympathetic urban renewal projects that are required to keep pace with the growth of a major modern city. I look forward to the communal facilities such development brings that enhance the desirability and liveability of urban areas. I support the right of developers of modern urban projects to make a reasonable profit for their efforts and the various risks they take on throughout the various stages of development. I support the currently approved development for 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag and I would also have supported a somewhat more ambitious in scale development along the same lines (read 4-6 stories front, not G+11 front/G+13 back as in the current proposal).

I have chosen to object to the currently proposed development by Conquest for the following reasons:

1. The proposed G+11/13 storey, 50m high, 150 apartment development is of a scale that is not sympathetic to the project’s location on the crest of the Castlecrag ridge and adjacent to the Burley Griffin Conservation zone and the Environmental living zones that comprise much of the peninsula. It will tower over the suburb and surrounding district sticking out like a sore thumb from its ridge-top perch and be completely out of proportion to all that surrounds it. It will have a similar visual impact in this area as the Blues Point Tower has in Blues Point has in its harbourside setting. I would be supportive of a reduced scale development similar in style to what is proposed with about 50% of the height of the current proposal.

2. The development is not within an existing major commercial centre with access to good transport, commercial services and other facilities. Castlecrag is not a Chatswood, Northbridge or Cammeray (to quote some local examples). It is an isolated low rise residential area. There is no nearby mass transport (rail or metro) and only limited already overcapacity (in peak times) bus services. The developer seems to suggest that the bus network together with bicycle parking spots will mitigate impact on local road congestion of 150 extra apartments – this is likely to be untrue.

3. Impact on Traffic in the local area. Castlecrag effectively only has one access in and out (putting aside Sunnyside Cres which is likely to become a rat-run for some traffic desperate to escape the peak congestion which will be sure to arise in Edinburgh Rd). The proposed development will have its access on Edinburgh Rd, reasonably close to the intersection with Eastern Velley Way. We will have a situation where vehicles from the development will be seeking to exit their building in peak hours into a banked-up stream of traffic queueing for the lights. The increased peak hour congestion at an already bottlenecked intersection, which the developer itself is acknowledging to be in a current state of failure will have a big impact on existing residents and no doubt on new residents of the development who become frustrated at not being able to leave their own premises in a timely fashion.

I hope common sense prevails and the government pays heed to these concerns and other reasonable concerns of the wider community and insists on a significant reduction to the scale of the development before approving.

We support and understand the importance for creation of new housing for current and future generations but are whole heartedly OPPOSED to the towering infrastructure that is currently being proposed at 100 Edinburgh Road. Our reasons are as follows:
1. PRIVACY - we own our property at 25 Fourth Ave, Willoughby East and enjoy the privacy that living in an area of houses and low-rise apartments entails. Building a 13-storey building at our closest main road intersection not only enables our privacy to be taken away but for our children’s rooms and backyard to be overlooked by strangers from afar. THIS DOES NOT MEET CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS. THERE ARE NO OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE LOCAL VINICITY WHICH ARE THIS HIGH AND IT DOES NOT SIT WELL IN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR SURROUNDING LOW RISE AREA. We will no longer feel safe letting our children swim in the backyard in their swimmers knowing that at any point there will be people looking out their windows at 100 Edinburgh Road into what was once our private backyard. Had this proposed building already existed, we would never have purchased our property on Fourth Avenue.
2. EXISTING DA SUPPORTED – the existing DA as a low-rise development was supported by the majority of residences living in the close vicinity of 100 Edinburgh Road, a DA which itself took many many years in the making. Having this completely overturned by the State Government without any real consultation with our neighbourhood is incomprehensible and not in the spirit of engagement and goodwill. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION SO FAR HAS BEEN LACKING AND NOT MEANINGFUL, WITH NO REAL CONSIDERATION OR FEEDBACK TAKEN ON BOARD.
3. UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING – one of the reasons that the 13-storey building has been put forth by the developer is that it will create affordable housing for homebuyers. Affordable housing is credible when apartments will cost less than what is seen in the area – only an extremely limited number of these apartments fall into this range and as such is seen as a profit-making exercise first and foremost with little regard for affordable housing. LESS THAN 7% OF THESE APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN TAGGED AS FALLING WITHIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS. The majority of apartments will be marketed in the multi million dollar price range, this is not affordable housing. With 3 young children we understand the importance of the creation of affordable housing, but premium apartments in Castlecrag do not fit that bill. It is extremely unlikely that low-medium income earners will be able to afford to live in these apartments, even with rental discounts provided.
4. CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT ALREADY LIMITED – there are already severe issues with limited buses which run through the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road – most of which is also within the control of the State Government. OUR CURRENT TRANSPORT HUB CANNOT SUPPORT HAVING MORE PEOPLE UTILISING IT. Many buses are cancelled each day and can barely support the current population living locally. Adding to the population will only exacerbate the problem and the flow on to the following bus stops at Northbridge and Cammeray (especially during the morning rush to the city) will be felt by all. Most of the people waiting at Cammeray often have to watch full buses go by while they patiently wait in line during the morning peak. Higher density housing should be targeted closer to rail hubs, in particular the exceptional new Metro service. The Lachlan’s Line development in North Ryde is an excellent example of where affordable housing has been built very close to a metro station.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re- Objection to SSD-90134958 – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag
My name is Thomas Wensley and I am eighteen years old. I have lived at the Parapet in Castlecrag since I was two years old, ie for as long as I can remember. My home is within the Castlecrag conservation zone and located only 400 metres from the proposed development.
I feel privileged to have grown up in such beautiful and unique location. I have so many fond memories of enjoying the paths and reserves as designed by Walter Burley Griffin. This unique landscape was an extension of my backyard throughout my childhood, which I now fear is at risk of being destroyed. I am writing to object to the development proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road.
The proposed development is located right next to the Castlecrag conservation area. The scale of the development means that it will quite literally overshadow this unique and historic area.
Insufficient public transport options :
I am currently a student at the University of New South Wales, and consequently I am a frequent user of public transport from Castlecrag. From personal experience I can state that the submission’s assertion of plentiful public transport is false. On weekdays outside of peak hour there is (at most) one bus per half hour into the city. And that’s only when buses aren’t cancelled or delayed. Weekend services are practically non-existent. Currently I need to leave three hours prior to ensure I am at UNSW in time for an exam. How could this possibly considered plentiful public transport? My understanding is that developments approved under the current scheme must be near a public transport ‘hub’. I can assure you that Castlecrag is not a public transport hub, despite what the developer may choose to assert.
This is not a solution to the housing cost crisis.
As an eighteen year old who does not yet own property but who one days aspires to, I welcome any government actions to provide practical solutions to Sydney’s housing affordability crisis. The Edinburgh Road development will do nothing towards relieving the cost of housing for my generation. Building multi-story, multi-million dollar apartment blocks with 10 tiny ‘affordable’ rooms in the basement level will do nothing towards relieving the cost of housing for my generation.
I recognise that I may never be able to afford to buy a house in Castlecrag for myself. However I do hope that one day I might be able to afford to buy an apartment in a vibrant metropolitan hub in our city. There are dozens of other locations in Sydney that are both genuine transport hubs and vibrant communities of high density development. I believe that developments approved under these rules should promote genuine opportunities for young people like myself for the future. The current planning rules should not be manipulated to allow developments of luxury apartments. It seems a misuse of policy to justify luxury developments of this type by providing a nominal number of so-called ‘affordable’ options.
While I object to the bulk and scale of the proposed development, I do welcome the building of a supermarket and shops or cafes at this location. The previous Quadrangle building provided amenities for our neighbourhood that are now lacking. As someone who does not yet own a car and with the limited public transport options, I feel that these amenities are now lacking for young people such as myself in our neighbourhood.
In the future I may no longer remain a resident of Castlecrag, but I hope that regardless of where I live that I may continue to visit and enjoy the suburb’s unique network of historic pathways and reserves. The destruction of this unique place for the should never be accommodated based on the false premise of ‘solving the housing crisis.’
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Wensley

I am writing to express my support for the mixed-use development at 100 Edinburgh Road. It is well understood that Sydney is experiencing a significant housing supply shortage, and all local government areas have a responsibility to contribute toward meeting housing targets.

This site is well suited to infill development due to its location along a major transport intersections. Directing growth to well-serviced, high-amenity areas reflects a balanced and equitable approach to planning.

I object to the scale of this proposed development of 12 to 14 stories which is shockingly out of character for the local area which limits building height to around three stories above Edinburgh Rd. It does not meet Willoughby Council's planning framework or heritage preservation principles. Ironically this site sits immediately next to the Walter Burley Griffin Heritage area and this weekend we celebrated 150 years of Marion Mahoney-Griffin and Walter Burley Griffin's innovative and progressive master-planned suburb, which has at its heart the principle that any built structure must not overwhelm and be complimentary to the local bushland and sandstone ridges which characterise Castlecrag and make it appealing to live near. This Conquest proposal represents everything that Burley Griffin found most abhorrent. Castlecrag essentially has one street in and one street out and to place a development so out of keeping with the Burley Griffin principles, right at the gateway to the suburb, seems especially cruel to the people who love the suburb and will have to pass by a structure so out of character to an area each time they leave or return home. This proposal with 12-14 stories is especially unnecessary given there is an approved lower-scale mixed-use development already approved for the same site which the community is happy to proceed with. I am concerned about transport servicing the approx 300+ new residents it proposes to house : Castlecrag is not on a metro or trainline and the bus service along Eastern Valley Way already cannot service the current demand, with Willoughby Bus Depot unable to hire the drivers required and bus services constantly cancelled and overloaded. It is for this reason that Castlecrag has not been identified as a housing growth area in State or local planning strategies. The suburb will have everything to lose from this proposal being approved and nothing to gain, except a for-profit and out-of -character building with no architectural merit and approx 300 more car trips each morning and evening along an already congested road network. This Conquest proposal is frighteningly similar to the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority's proposal in the 1970s to replace The Rocks with office blocks, hotels and more which was authorised without public consultation. Like Conquest, SCRA saw no value in the Rocks' history or heritage but thanks to the BLF's Green Bans, The Rocks survive today as one of the most beautiful and vibrant parts of Sydney and an international tourist attraction. If the Conquest proposal is approved, against public sentiment, providing laughably small amounts of affordable housing or any architectural merit, obliterating the vision and creativity of Mahoney Griffin and Burley Griffin, will our children look back from 2076 and curse this short-sighted decision which was the catalyst for the destruction of a special suburb of Sydney with similar historical and heritage value for the whole of Sydney - not just those that live there.

The proposed Conquest development at the former Quadrangle site represents a fundamental departure from the physical and philosophical character that defines Castlecrag. Situated directly alongside the Griffin Conservation Area—a landscape celebrated internationally for its harmonious integration of architecture and bushland—the proposal stands in direct contradiction to Walter Burley Griffin’s founding principle that buildings must remain harmonised with their natural setting. A structure ranging from 12 to 14 storeys would dominate the skyline, shattering the established visual rhythm of the suburb and violating height controls that traditionally limit development to approximately three storeys above Edinburgh Road. Its massive bulk is entirely inconsistent with local design policies and overwhelms the surrounding low-rise residential context.

What makes this proposal particularly difficult to justify is that an alternative already exists on this very parcel that respects the local environment. Development Application DA-2024/13 authorises a 3-to-5-storey mixed-use project that successfully accommodates housing delivery while respecting site constraints and heritage sensitivity. The approved scheme demonstrates that responsible development is possible without overwhelming the neighbourhood. To approve a significantly taller, bulkier form now would not only ignore a proven planning pathway but also disregard established height envelopes that protect this corridor from vertical intensification.

Beyond the immediate visual impact, approving this escalation would establish a highly problematic precedent for Castlecrag and similar low-density residential zones across Sydney. Once high-rise forms are introduced into an area explicitly protected by its heritage status, the character loss is permanent. The resulting erosion of place identity and landscape dominance cannot be undone. I respectfully urge the NSW Department of Planning to decline this application in favour of planning outcomes that honour conservation controls, uphold environmental harmony, and maintain the low-rise residential fabric that makes this suburb unique.