Mixed use development - 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag

Firstly, I object to the proposed development's claim to be a State Significant Development. Based on the SSD Guidelines which is an official document issued by the Planning Department, the proposed development fails to meet the criteria outlined in that document for SSD status. Further, that document lists as examples of previous SSD status declared as including Sydney Opera House, Sydney Olympic Park, Darling Harbour, and Barangaroo to name a few of those significant sites. If they are examples of sites granted SSD status, then how does the Minister put this proposed blot on the Castlecrag landscape in the same category ? Can the Minister explain ?
Further, my wife and I are residents/owners of an apartment in the small building at 3 The Postern, Castlecrag directly behind the development site. We have already endured significant disruption to our lives over the past 2 years, which covered the period of demolition and excavation of the site in preparation for the new construction. This has included being awoken on some days at 2.30am and 3am for the movement of large equipment, so that the developers could 'avoid the traffic', don't worry about the local residents. Then we have had to live through tremors shaking the building as the huge pile-driver dug down into the rock to excavate. We anticipate further disruption to our lives for at least the next 2-3 years if this development is approved.
When we purchased our unit, the development proposed for 100 Edinburgh Road was for a 3-5 storey building of up to 70 apartments. Over time, and bypassing Willoughby Council, the current developer has increased the proposed structure to twin towers of up to 14 storeys each, catering for at least 150 units.
How can the Planning Minister justify such a development in an internationally renowned heritage area as Castlecrag ?
Our understanding is that the developer proposed a number of units be allocated for Social Housing. We already have ample provision for social housing in the adjacent area on the other side of Eastern Valley Way.
On 18 March, we attended a 'community consultation' meeting at the Chatswood Club. It was certainly a packed house. Every attendee from the local Castlecrag area opposed the development. Our objections, however, were simply waved aside by the developer's representatives.
This development cannot proceed in its current form and should never have been granted SSD status by the Planning Minister, who needs to explain his decision.
Thank you.
Bernard O'Brien

[Full version with links attached]
I object to the proposed development for the following reasons.
1. Major safety hazard
I urge you to consider the following points in case of a bushfire, or other, emergency if two 11+-storey buildings at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, were to go ahead.
Peninsula isolation: The suburb is a peninsula, surrounded by bush, and many houses are built into the bush.
There is just one main road in and out of the suburb: Edinburgh Road. Currently, at peak times, there is a logjam of traffic at the intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way.
This choke point makes increases to high density extremely dangerous.
About 3000 people live in Castlecrag, according to the 2021 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census. See:
If 150-odd apartments were allowed to be added, that would mean another 450 residents (at three per unit) or 600 (at four per unit) – and their cars. They would not only put other Castlecrag residents and workers at risk, but themselves as well.
Cumulative evacuation impact: If there is a bushfire in Castlecrag, my concern is that the effect of residents, visitors, business owners and workers, as well as emergency services vehicles, all trying to leave via one exit point would be too heavy for smooth and speedy evacuation. This would be multiplied manyfold by the presence of the said numbers of new residents right at this choke point.
It could also potentially lead to life-threatening delays for those further down the peninsula, such as my elderly mother.
Castlecrag does have a secondary exit – Sunnyside Crescent – which runs off the middle of Edinburgh Road. But this is even narrower and has only left-hand access out of the suburb onto Eastern Valley Way. It also runs next to bushland and any fire in that bush would prevent cars from travelling along it.
Compliance with planning for bush fire protection: It is unclear whether the developers have adequately addressed the safe operational access requirements for the emergency services.
Some considerations for you to bear in mind are:
a) Blocked roads would hamper emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances, that are trying to gain access to the suburb.
Castlecrag Private Hospital is at 150 Edinburgh Road. Ambulances would need quick access to it in case of fire or other emergencies, and patients would need to be evacuated quickly.
Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School for primary school children (Kindergarten to Class 2) is at 121 Edinburgh Road. There are also preschools in the suburb. These children would have to be evacuated, possibly by buses, as well.
b) Not only the lives of residents but those of emergency service volunteers could be put at risk.
c) While local fire stations may be equipped to fight bushfires, two 11-storey structures would require specialised high-rise firefighting equipment and large amounts of water and water pressure. These would not necessarily be available.
d) Wind speeds increase with the height of a building. High-rise buildings can experience intense wind-borne embers that may be sucked into air-conditioning systems or onto balconies on upper floors, where firefighters would have more difficulty reaching them.
e) Castlecrag's narrow, winding streets would make it difficult for large aerial fire-fighting appliances, such as ladder trucks, to manoeuvre, especially if the streets are already clogged with the cars of evacuating residents.
f) Castlecrag’s steep valleys and ridges would create unpredictable fire behaviour. Fire moves significantly faster up steep slopes. The 100 Edinburgh Road site sits at the top of a ridge. If a fire started in the bushland below, the speed of the flames and the intensity of the heat hitting a massive vertical surface like an 11-storey tower would be extreme.
2. Affordable housing
Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in state or local government planning strategies.
A core aim of the developers appears to be to provide housing – including so-called “affordable housing” – to counter the housing shortage in the state.
The apartments.com.au website quotes the architects for the development as saying: “The architects say the increased height and density are consistent with the NSW Housing SEPP objectives, supporting greater housing diversity and affordability while achieving high standards of architectural and environmental performance.”
In light of the above, I believe the development is unlikely to ameliorate the housing crisis for the following reasons:
a) There would be only 10 affordable housing units out of 150 apartments, according to the NSW Planning Department’s own documents.
I submit that 10 units out of 150 would hardly qualify such a mammoth development as a State Significant Development, which is defined as “Developments with significant economic, social or environmental impacts”.
It is not clear – apart from the need for affordable housing – why else this project is being considered as a State Significant Development as it does not fulfil the criteria of significant economic, social or environmental impact. In fact, the outcomes would be quite the reverse.
b) The prices of the units have not yet been disclosed, although realestate.com.au gives the average price of units in Castlecrag as $1.8 million. At full price, they would hardly be affordable to essential workers, such as nurses and police officers.
c) It might be argued that the availability of these units would allow downsizers to buy into the development, thereby making their own houses available for others to purchase. However, the cost of their vacated houses would be comparable to existing prices and would not be any solution.
c) A slew of new upmarket unit blocks are being built along nearby Eastern Valley Way. I refer, for example, to Tierra at 100 Eastern Valley Way and The Willows at 86 Eastern Valley Way.
The prices are estimated to be in the $4 million range:
It is up to the developers to make the case as to why more upmarket housing is needed in the area.
I submit that the major beneficiaries would be the developers, who are apparently using NSW’s housing shortage as a Trojan Horse to get its proposal through.
I refer you to an argument by the federal MP for Bradfield, Nicolette Boele, that says: “Australia still doesn’t have a consistent national definition of what “affordable” means. Governments fund it. Developers build it. And families are still priced out.”
3. Public transport
The site has no major nor reliable public transport infrastructure to support approximately 450-600 more residents, some of whom might be essential workers needing to go to work at schools, hospitals, police and fire stations; and others who would need to travel to jobs, for entertainment and so on.
There are no trains, metros or light rail.
The site is not in a transport-oriented development (TOD) zone.
The only public transport available is in the form of buses run by Busways (formerly STA - the 203, 205-209, 267 etc routes) and Keolis Downer (from the northern beaches, of which only the 194 stops at Castlecrag; the others bypass it and go straight to the city).
If you were to look at the timetables for buses leaving Castlecrag for North Sydney and the city during normal weekdays outside peak times, they run at only about half-hourly intervals. Busways buses after 7.30pm run only hourly. There are no Busways buses between 11.30pm and 5am. And at weekends there is hardly any bus service at all.
It is a similar story for buses from the city and North Sydney to Castlecrag.
There are similar large gaps between travel times on the 194 and on the 267 to and from Chatswood/Crows Nest.
At peak times, the buses are often full by the time they get to Cammeray as the long queues of commuters seen waiting would attest.
With such erratic and irregular timetables, residents are even now compelled to use their own transport or take Ubers or taxis. These options would be an added impost, especially on essential workers living in the few affordable housing apartments that the developers would make available.
Are the numbers of buses going to be dramatically increased to cater for these additional residents?
I imagine the NSW Planning Department, NSW Transport and the private bus companies would have to spend a lot of time and money in a bid to make serious adjustments to bus timetables to cater for the proposed additional residents.
4. Traffic
a) The suburb has very limited road space, with narrow, winding roads and limited access and egress. I have covered the potential ramifications extensively in the section on fire risks above.
b) It should be emphasised that the Edinburgh Road/Eastern Valley Way intersection is already exceptionally busy, especially at peak times, which hampers traffic flows especially on or into Eastern Valley Way and the turns in and out of Castlecrag.
5. Other reasons for my objection
a) A surge in multi-storey redevelopment activity – often involving deep basements and complex engineering works – has coincided with a series of structural incidents.
b) An approved development (DA-2024/13) already exists for a lower-scale, mixed-use project (three to five storeys) that fits the site and respects the local environment.
This proposed development does not align with Willoughby Council’s planning framework and heritage preservation priorities.
It is significantly higher and bulkier than the approved development, overwhelming the area, causing overshadowing to neighbouring properties and harming heritage values in the suburb.
It conflicts with planning controls that limit height to about three storeys above Edinburgh Road.
The scale and design are inconsistent with estabplanning and design policies.
c) The site is next to the unique and internationally renowned Griffin Conservation Area.
The proposal is at odds with the Griffin philosophy of buildings being part of the environment.
d) It risks setting a precedent for high rises in low rise suburbs.

This project is simply out or proportion and scale for the location - it is in a historically significant suburb and borders the Griffin Conservation zone. The intersection is already heavy with traffic and does now have great public transport options. It is only serviced by buses which often are full by the time they reach Castlecrag . there is no train or metro station here. I think the increased car traffic will be a danger to the many children who live in the surrounding streets. I believe the community had agreed on a sensible plan for the site with 4 stories . 11 stories is completely out of keeping with the infrastructure in place.

I have lived in Willoughby since 1985. I was a Councillor on WCC for 21 years (1992-2012) and Deputy Mayor for 4 years. I am very familiar with the location, its socio-economic character, its environmental and heritage values. I am proud of having been part of the Council responsible for the first iteration of WLEP 2012. I am disappointed by the continued erosion of its force by successive state governments.

I understand this development is to be approved under SSD provisions and therefore the gross numerical offences under WLEP2012 may be discounted however merit concerns can and in my view deserve to be considered.

The key consideration of medium/high density residential development in Willoughby has always been access to good public transport - with which Willoughby is (relatively) well provided. Being distant from such, the scale of this development will clearly make a solid contribution to the congestion of Willoughby’s N/S regional road routes, said to be of concern to TfNSW - as well as WCC.

The removal of (8) canopy trees is totally unacceptable in a city which is faced with existential hazards whose mitigation strategies are well known. The amenity of public open space is to be eroded. The site has been a local, socially interactive shopping centre. Its open spaces have functioned to promote this activity, a characteristic of this community. The annexation of these spaces by commercial activity together with increased shadowing of these e.g. ‘new shadows on public roads or within front setbacks’ (EIS p.27) erode community amenity and can in no way be compensated by the provision of private rooftop open spaces.

The inadequacy of the AH provisions incorporated in this proposal are well understood by this community. Notwithstanding concerns about the durability of protection for the valued and vulnerable, this development provides a miserable 6% and even at the required discount rental accommodation in this location is known to be unaffordable by those the policy is said to target.

The scale and mass of this proposal are greater than is allowed in Northbridge to the south, a centre which unlike Castlecrag, is at least accepted as a district shopping precinct with expected impacts. It really is an insult to the integrity of local planning processes and bound to reduce confidence in the local Council and government generally, informed as it is by the prospect of extreme financial reward.

Kate Lamb
4/5/2026

Position: I support this project
I write in strong support of this State Significant Development application for a mixed-use residential development at 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.
Sydney is in the grip of a housing crisis that is pricing out workers, families, and young people across the entire metropolitan area. The Lower North Shore — one of the most well-serviced, well-connected parts of the city — has for decades resisted the density necessary to make a meaningful contribution to housing supply. This development represents exactly the kind of change that is long overdue.
Housing supply where it matters most
150 dwellings, including 10 affordable housing units, in a location with strong access to employment, transport, retail, and open space, is a genuine public good. The NSW Government's Housing Delivery Authority process exists precisely to cut through the localised opposition that has stalled housing in high-amenity suburbs for a generation. I commend the applicant and the Department for progressing this application.
Mixed use is good urbanism
Ground floor retail activation creates street life, reduces car dependency for everyday errands, and supports local business. This is not a monolithic residential slab — it is the kind of layered, mixed-use development that planning theory and real-world evidence consistently show produces liveable, walkable neighbourhoods.
Affordable housing inclusion
The inclusion of 10 affordable housing units, while modest, is a meaningful commitment and should be treated as a floor, not a ceiling, in negotiations with the applicant.
On scale and design
I acknowledge that 13 storeys represents a significant departure from the existing character of the surrounding area. However, character is not a fixed thing, and the preservation of low-density suburban form in well-located areas comes at a direct cost to the people who cannot afford to live there. I encourage the Department to focus its assessment on design quality, solar access, wind impacts, and public domain outcomes — not on resisting density per se.
Conclusion
Sydney needs more homes. This site, in this location, with this mix of uses and affordable housing inclusion, is the right kind of development in the right place. I urge the Department to approve this application. Edinburgh Rd has decent bus connections toward the city and Chatswood, the site is near local retail, and Willoughby as an LGA has chronically underdelivered on housing. The SSD/HDA pathway exists specifically because councils like this one would otherwise sit on applications like this for years.

I am writing to formally object to the newly proposed development in Castlecrag, and to express my support for the already approved development, DA-2024/13.
Firstly, the scale and design of the development are not in keeping with the established architectural character of the suburb. The proposed 13-storey structure is significantly out of proportion with the surrounding built environment and risks undermining the unique identity and visual cohesion of the area.
Secondly, the impact on local traffic infrastructure cannot be overlooked. With only two entry and exit points servicing the suburb, an increase in residents will inevitably place additional strain on already limited access routes, leading to congestion and reduced safety for current residents. In addition, the proposal appears to substantially reduce available street parking, which is already under pressure. This will create further inconvenience and difficulty for residents and visitors alike.
Another key concern is the lack of meaningful contribution to affordable housing. The development does not appear to provide options suitable for downsizers or young families, effectively excluding these groups from accessing housing within the community.
In an open letter to residents from Michael Akkawi, CEO Conquest claims that the project will create a “Village Heart” is unconvincing. In reality, it appears the development will primarily benefit a narrow segment of the market—those predominately living in the development. The "Village Heart" that is located at the entry point to Castlecrag will create a severe blockage causing the heart to falter and have a heart attack.
It is also worth noting that developments of this scale are not present in nearby areas such as Castlecrag, Northbridge, Middle Cove, Castle Cove and North Willoughby. If medium density housing is so critical why are current developments within these suburbs not high-rise buildings, why have similar approaches not been applied.
In contrast, the already approved development, DA-2024/13, represents a far more appropriate outcome for the community. It aligns with the existing architectural character of the suburb, reflects community expectations, and is of a scale that integrates respectfully into the surrounding environment. Importantly, it is far more likely to contribute to a genuine sense of place and serve as a true “heart” of the community without compromising amenity or infrastructure.
For these reasons, I strongly urge that the approved DA-2024/13 proceed as planned, and that the newly proposed development be reconsidered or rejected.

I am opposed to Conquest's application to increase, monumentally, the height and density of the already approved development (DA-2024/13) for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

Although Conquest's application has been submitted under the State Significant Site classification, I believe it would represent a serious failure in the delivery of those principles and is no more than tokenism. Only 10 of the 150 apartments are to be designated as low cost housing for essential workers and those in need, and then only for the period of 15 years rather than in perpetuity.

I was particularly interested to read comments re Sydney's housing needs by our former premier, Bob Carr, in his recently published memoir. He had rightly identified Anzac Parade from Kingsford to Moore Park as a site where "impeccably designed, environmentally prize-winning towers on a bus and light rail route, fifteen minutes from Martin Place" should be built. He wrote of sending "a crisp message to the Minister for Planning and the premier that they could meet their density targets by forcing the pace of high density along this route; and they would do it with community support, families wanting to see housing options for the youngsters." (Ref: Bring Back Yesterday by Bob Carr, page 169

Castlecrag does certainly NOT meet these criteria and is not an appropriate site for the type of development proposed by Conquest. It is not identified as a housing growth area in state or local planning.
On the other hand, the nearby municipal city of Chatswood is centred around major transport hubs and offers many other facilities which have made it an ideal environment for greater housing development in this area.

Public transport serving Castlecrag is very limited. Even the 194 bus - servicing the city from the shelter on the corner of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road- becomes an express (X194) during morning and evening peak hours. It does not set down or pick up at this intersection at these critical times!

It is also vital that traffic congestion be considered, exhaustedly, by state authorities. Castlecrag is a peninsula with its point of entry/departure limited to the one major intersection at Edinburgh Road and EV Way, (NB Sunnyside Crescent is only suitable for residents and minor access!) The current volume of traffic has virtually reached capacity already and back-up from the main intersection during peak hours can tail right back to the roundabout at Rutland Ave.

If high density housing were to be allowed at the critical intersection of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way, it would bring a significant increase in vehicles, both private and commercial. The chaos imposed on the entire community, and upon the traffic flow along this section of EV Way, would be hugely problematic, even dangerously so if emergency vehicles like ambulances and fire trucks were denied swift passage due to traffic congestion at this vital point.

NB The possibility of fire of bushfire on this peninsula is often overlooked, or taken lightly. However, some residents will recall the terrifying speed at which a mid-winter fire raced up the Northern Scarp from Sugarloaf Bay, destroying trees and bushland in its wake and threatening houses. (Date: Early 1980s?)

In closing, I would like to add that Castlecrag has a unique architectural heritage and natural beauty to offer to all city residents and lovers of nature who care to visit the peninsula. These small oases will become ever more important as chaos increases in our cities. Let us not allow inappropriate development to impact upon this magical environment, causing bottleneck congestion at its entry point and wantonly destroying the character of the neighbourhood!

Subject: Objection – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

I object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.
This proposal represents an inappropriate scale and intensity of development within a nationally significant heritage conservation area. Its impacts on character, amenity, environment and infrastructure are substantial, inadequately assessed, and inconsistent with both statutory and strategic planning objectives. The following outlines the key reasons the application should not proceed.
1. Strategic and Statutory Planning Framework
The proposal is inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and does not align with the intended low density, environmentally constrained character of Castlecrag. The site is not identified for significant growth, and the scale of intensification is unjustified.
It also departs significantly from the intent of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012. These departures are not adequately justified and collectively result in an overdevelopment incompatible with the site’s context and the surrounding conservation area.
2. Heritage Significance and Character Impact
Castlecrag forms part of the Griffin-designed estate and the Castlecrag Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, recognised for its national estate significance. The planning framework for this area is founded on the subordination of built form to landscape, low-scale development, and protection of bushland character.
The proposed development conflicts with these heritage conservation objectives. Its excessive height, bulk and visual dominance undermine the Griffin landscape-led planning philosophy and fail to:
• maintain established streetscape character
• respect landscape dominance over built form
• preserve the visual coherence of the conservation area
Approval of a development of this scale would set a damaging precedent for further erosion of the Griffin conservation principles across Castlecrag.
3. Built Form, Streetscape and Visual Amenity
Beyond heritage concerns, the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the physical and visual context of the site. The scale, massing and density are inconsistent with the prevailing low-rise residential character and would materially alter the visual gateway to the suburb.
The resulting visual dominance, bulk and loss of landscape integration are unacceptable in a heritage conservation setting.
4. Residential Amenity, Topography and Overshadowing
The steep topography amplifies the impacts of the proposed height and bulk. Significant amenity impacts will occur, including overshadowing, loss of privacy and reduced solar access to adjoining and lower-lying properties.
The submitted shadow diagrams appear unreliable and understate winter overshadowing. Actual impacts on the bushland slope below—including established eucalypts—are likely to be greater, with consequences for vegetation health and microclimate stability.
In sloping environments, overdevelopment at upper sites has cascading effects on downhill amenity and can constrain future development potential by reducing the ability of lower sites to meet solar access standards. This creates long-term inequity across the slope.
5. Traffic, Access and Infrastructure Capacity
These built form impacts are compounded by functional issues relating to traffic and infrastructure. Edinburgh Road and the surrounding network cannot safely accommodate the increased traffic generated by the proposal. Congestion and safety risks will increase, and there is insufficient evidence that utilities and local services can support the development.
Planning principles require consideration of cumulative impacts. Nearby suburbs are already experiencing intensification and contributing to broader pressure on metropolitan infrastructure systems, including emergency departments at major northern Sydney hospitals such as Royal North Shore Hospital, which are already under sustained demand.
6. Housing Supply, Market Effects and Strategic Policy Alignment
While housing supply is a legitimate strategic objective, boutique redevelopment in high-value suburbs typically:
• attracts investor ownership rather than owner-occupation
• does not contribute to affordable housing
• reinforces price escalation rather than improving accessibility
Castlecrag is not a designated growth corridor under metropolitan strategy. Intensification in heritage conservation suburbs must be assessed with strict regard to heritage primacy and environmental constraints.
Forthcoming demographic data, including the 2026 Census, will provide updated evidence on housing distribution and affordability. Approving irreversible redevelopment in a nationally significant heritage area before incorporating updated evidence risks locking in outcomes misaligned with future strategic directions.
7. Community Consultation and Process Integrity
The community has already engaged extensively with a previous proposal for this site. This revised application represents a substantial escalation and disregards the integrity of that prior process, undermining community confidence in the planning system.
8. Assessment Against SSD Decision Criteria
The proposal exhibits multiple characteristics commonly associated with refusal of State Significant Development applications
Conclusion
Given the scale of non-compliance, the environmental impacts, and the inconsistency with both statutory and strategic planning objectives, the proposal cannot be approved in its current form. It is NOT in the public interest and SHOULD BE REFUSED
Kind Regards

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Submission of Objection: DA-2024/13

I am writing to formally lodge my opposition to the current State Significant Development proposal for the site adjacent to the Griffin Conservation Area. While the community previously demonstrated a collaborative spirit by supporting an earlier, contextually appropriate 3-5 storey mixed-use project, this revised 12-14 storey design represents a gross departure from responsible planning and environmental stewardship.

My objections are categorized as follows:

1. Fundamental Conflict with Heritage and Landscape
The subject site borders the Griffin Conservation Area, a precinct of international architectural renown. The core philosophy of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin dictated that built forms must remain subservient to the natural topography. By proposing twin towers on the ridgeline, this development would permanently fracture the suburb’s historic identity. The introduction of 14-storey structures—a far cry from the established 3-storey height limits—would dominate a landscape defined by low-lying stone architecture and a "nature-first" aesthetic.

2. Ecological Integrity and Habitat Connectivity
Castlecrag functions as a vital, high-density canopy and ecological corridor within 8km of the Sydney CBD. This area supports diverse wildlife, including echidnas and sea eagles, which rely on the interconnected greenery that has been preserved for decades. The sheer bulk of this new proposal threatens to fragment these fragile habitats. Once this environmental balance is disrupted by excessive urban massing, the damage to one of Sydney’s rare urban havens will be irreversible.

3. Incompatibility with Strategic Growth and Transport
The designation of this site as a State Significant Development appears inconsistent with established criteria. Castlecrag is not a designated high-growth hub, nor does the site fall within a Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) zone. The location is approximately four kilometers from the nearest railway station—a one-hour walk—and sits within a suburb served by limited "one-lane" road access. Funneling 150 luxury units into an area with constrained public transport and no proximity to major local centers ignores the logistical realities of the site’s infrastructure.

4. Failure to Address Housing Affordability
Despite the claims of increasing housing supply, this project focuses on high-end luxury apartments. With less than 10 units earmarked for short-term below-market rates, the proposal fails to offer a genuine solution to the housing crisis. Instead, it prioritizes the profit margins of external private equity firms over the strategic housing needs of the New South Wales public.

5. Absence of Transparent Consultation
There has been a notable lack of meaningful engagement between the developer and the local community. Significant modifications to the project have been pursued without transparency, and inquiries from concerned residents have gone unaddressed. Such a transformative project should not proceed without rigorous public scrutiny and a collaborative planning process.

Subject: Objection to Development Application of 100 Edinburgh Road

I write to formally object to the current development application for 100 Edinburgh Road. I strongly believe the proposal is inappropriate for the site and fails to align with the established planning framework, heritage context, and character of the surrounding area.

An important starting point is that there is already an approved development (DA-2024/13) for this site. That approval allows for a lower-scale, mixed-use project of approximately three to five storeys, demonstrating that redevelopment can occur in a manner that respects the site and its surroundings. The approved scheme delivers additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the local character and heritage significance.

In contrast, the current proposal represents a substantial and unjustified escalation in scale at 12 to 14 storeys. This increase in height and density would result in a development that dominates the streetscape, overwhelms neighbouring properties, and undermines the established low-rise character of the area.

The proposed intensity of development would also bring a significant increase in the number of residents, which in turn would generate substantially higher traffic volumes.
This impact is exacerbated by the site’s access arrangements. Vehicles exiting the development onto Edinburgh Road would do so in extremely close proximity to the intersection with Eastern Valley Way, an already heavily trafficked corridor. The additional vehicle movements associated with a high-rise development of this scale would likely worsen congestion at this intersection, increase delays, and create potential safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Increased congestion may also impede reliable access for emergency services.

The site is not located within a transport-oriented development zone and does not benefit from high-frequency or high-capacity transit options. It is not in proximity to a train station, and bus services in the area are relatively limited, particularly outside peak periods. As a result, a significant proportion of new residents would be reliant on private vehicles. The current bus network does not have the capacity or frequency to adequately absorb additional demand associated with a 12 to 14 storey housing development, further contributing to traffic pressures.

The site’s proximity to the Griffin Conservation Area further heightens concern. This area is both locally significant and internationally recognised for its planning and architectural importance. The Griffin philosophy emphasises that buildings should be integrated with and in harmony with the natural environment. The proposed development is fundamentally at odds with this principle, presenting a scale and form that would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with it’s context.

The proposal also conflicts with established planning controls, which limit building heights to approximately three storeys above Edinburgh Road. The extent of the proposed height variation is excessive and undermines the intent of these controls.

From a strategic planning perspective, the site is not identified as suitable for significant housing growth under state or local planning strategies. It is not within a transport-oriented development zone and falls outside the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, being more than 800 metres from the Northbridge local centre. These factors reinforce that the site is not appropriate for a development of this scale and density.

Furthermore, the proposal does not align with Council’s broader planning framework or its commitment to heritage preservation. The scale and design are inconsistent with established planning and design policies, and approval would risk setting a precedent for similar high-rise developments in low-rise suburban areas.

It is also unlikely that the project would make a meaningful contribution to housing affordability, as the proposal appears to target a higher end market segment rather than providing diverse or accessible housing options.

Taken together, these issues demonstrate that the proposal is poorly suited to its context and would result in unacceptable and irreversible impacts. In particular, it would erode the character and heritage significance of the area, while placing additional strain on already constrained transport infrastructure.

Any development beyond the existing number of stories currently approved would create an enormous detrimental impact to the unique environmental and heritage qualities of the locality. For the numerous reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the application be refused. Thank you for your time reflecting upon these major concerns.

The proposal is a very greedy & cynical example of development. It is a gross over development of the site and has no consideration for the local community, environment or infrastucture. 2 over height towers of this scale & bulk is sadly ridiculous - the new owners have made no concessions or considerations to the community, or to the built context, or to the environment, or to the local services, transport and amenities. There is simply no situation in which this proposal is acceptable - it is truly horrible. I am not against development of the site - but it needs to be appropriate & reasonable.

I write to formally object to the development proposal lodged by Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd for the site at Castlecrag.

This proposal raises serious concerns regarding non-compliance with established planning controls and guidelines that are intended to protect the unique character, environmental sensitivity, and heritage significance of the Castlecrag locality. In its current form, the development represents an overreach that is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of applicable planning instruments.

The scale and bulk of the proposed development appear to exceed permissible limits and fail to respond appropriately to the surrounding built and natural environment. Castlecrag is characterised by low-density development, careful siting, and architectural restraint. The proposal’s intensity risks overwhelming the existing streetscape and undermining the established planning principle of harmony between development and landscape. The Willoughby LEP 2012 development standards for the site are 9 metre maximum height and 1 to 1 maximum floor space ratio. The proposal is 48.96 metres and 4.2 to 1.

The development appears to inadequately address stormwater management and its downstream effects. The introduction of additional hard surfaces typically increases runoff, which can lead to erosion, sedimentation, and pollution of nearby waterways. Given Castlecrag’s topography and proximity to sensitive aquatic environments, insufficient stormwater controls present a significant environmental risk.

Thirdly, the proposal demonstrates inadequate respect for site constraints, including topography and vegetation. Planning guidelines require development to be responsive to natural landforms and to minimise excavation, land disturbance, and vegetation removal. The extent of site modification indicated in the proposal suggests a clear departure from these requirements.

Additionally, there are significant concerns regarding setbacks, privacy, and visual impacts. The apparent encroachment on prescribed setbacks and the potential for overlooking neighbouring properties indicate non-compliance with development controls designed to protect amenity. These shortcomings are likely to result in unacceptable impacts on adjoining residents and the broader community.

Castlecrag holds recognised heritage and cultural value, with a planning legacy that emphasises integration with the natural environment. The proposed development does not appear to adequately acknowledge or respect this context, thereby diminishing the significance of the area.

Taken together, these issues indicate that the proposal is not a minor variation but a fundamental departure from the planning framework governing development in Castlecrag. Approval of such a proposal would set an undesirable precedent and weaken the integrity of the planning system.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department reject the application in its current form. Any future proposal for this site should demonstrate full compliance with all relevant planning controls and a genuine commitment to preserving the character and environmental values of Castlecrag.

Thank you for your consideration of this objection.

Dear Councillors,
I am writing to object to the proposed 11- storey development at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag. Whilst I understand the importance of accommodating population growth, this proposal represents a scale and intensity of development that is fundamentally mismatched with the existing character, infrastructure capacity and liveability of the Castlecrag community.
Furthermore this project is seeking to bypass the Council approval process, (that was previously supported by the local community) by seeking approval via the State Significant Development approval pathway, noting that this area is not considered to be a TOD or town centre precinct.
Specific areas of objection include;
1. Incompatibility with local character.
Castlecrag has been historically defined by its Walter Burley Griffin low rise architecture, and leafy environment, which contributes significantly to the identity of the suburb. An 11-storey building (particularly in its proposed location at basically the highest point in the suburb) is out of scale with the surrounding streetscape and would set an undesirable precedent for future development.
2. Lack of transport Infrastructure
The proposed site is not supported by a major train, metro or arterial bus route infrastructure. Public transport options are limited and are already under strain. Without significant investment in transport infrastructure, this development will increase the reliance on private vehicles, placing further pressure on Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way.
3. Traffic and Road Safety Concerns.
The traffic congestion during morning peak hour is already a daily issue for residents. The addition of high-density development, (in particular to accommodate the traffic requirements of a full line supermarket) will exacerbate bottle necks, increase travel times, and raise safety concerns for pedestrians, school children and cyclists. Local streets such as Edinburgh Road, are not designed to handle this level of traffic.
Another feature of the local Walter Burley Griffin designed area, is that most surrounding streets to the proposed development do not have pedestrian pathways/sidewalks, and all pedestrians (including school aged children and elderly) are required to walk on the roads, which with increased overflow parking that this development will no doubt create, will increase the dangers of forced roadway walking by all.

4. Overcapacity of Local Schools.
Nearby public schools are currently at or beyond capacity. This development will likely bring an influx of families, placing further strain on educational infrastructure. Without a clear and funded plan to expand school capacity, this is an irresponsible addition.
5. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
An 11-storey structure will cast significant shadows over neighbouring homes, as evident from the predicted shadow drawings (not that the full overshadowing diagrams have been readily shared, displayed or discussed in any obvious way), reducing access to sunlight and negatively impacting residents’ wellbeing (and financially noting most surrounding residents have installed solar systems to assist sustainability, and financially, especially with current increasing cost of energy). Privacy, noise levels and general amenity will also be adversely affected.

In conclusion, this proposal is not aligned with the principles of responsible and sustainable planning or development. It places undue pressure on infrastructure and disregards the character of Castlecrag as a suburb and a community. I respectfully urge the State Planners to reject this application (as I understand the local Council is as well) in its current form and instead advocate for a development of lesser scale that is consistent with the long- term interests of the community. As an alternative have the planners considered possibility of reducing the proposed height to say 5 or 6 stories (which would align with the surrounding established streetscape trees), but allow for a single massed development across the site, as opposed to the current ‘twin tower’ design?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a resident of Castlecrag and I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road.

I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site, but I do not support the current scheme as it feels too large for its setting and not well matched to the character of the area.

1. Height and bulk
A 10-storey building is excessive for Castlecrag. The suburb is defined by low-rise, leafy streets, and this level of height would sit uncomfortably in that context. It would also result in noticeable overshadowing impacts.
2. Look and fit with the area
The overall form feels quite dominant and out of place. Castlecrag has a more modest, village-style centre, and this type of built form doesn’t sit well with that established character.
3. Transport reality
Public transport options in this area are limited, with no nearby train station and only basic bus services. As a result, a development of this size would inevitably lead to a high dependence on cars.
4. Traffic and parking pressure
With around 300 new residents, there will be a clear increase in vehicle movement. Given the limited access routes in and out of Castlecrag, this will place extra strain on local roads and already busy parking areas.
5. Earlier proposal
A smaller scale version of this project, around five storeys as previously put forward by Dr Quek, would have been a far more suitable outcome for both the site and the surrounding community.

In short, while I support improving the site, I do not believe the current proposal respects the scale or constraints of Castlecrag.

Yours sincerely,
Rachel

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development proposed for 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag. I strongly object to this development on the scale proposed by the developer, Conquest. There is so much wrong with this development and if it goes through it will set a precedent across any small village centre, that is not in a TOD or shopping precinct (exceeds E1 Local centre controls), is not on a major transport line, is in a LMR area and is not in keeping or sympathetic to the adjacent (by one street), Griffin Heritage area, which is internationally renowned.
An unplanned, out of character twin towers is something that can never be reversed, so we need to get it right now, for generations to come. There is already a DA on the development that took 2 years of community consultations with shop top housing at 2-3 stories. If a change is to go ahead it needs to be in keeping with the area with some room to increase the height (4-5) levels but definitely not 11 - 13, which is above the canopy line - and it is already on the ridge, that will become an eye sore across the neighbourhood.
Castlecrag is a unique suburb and it needs to remain that way - with increased density, but not to this extent that it goes against all the planning controls, even the new ones. We can't have a situation where the developers can basically do whatever they like, we must have good strong government that comes up with solutions rather than developers taking advantage of a change in the consent and rezoning process. We must maintain the integrity of heritage areas - if they can do it in Europe and in other international cities, why can't we?

The other important point is that this development fails to achieve design excellence - in fact no plans have been produced, there was token community consultation and a mock photograph of the development is what has been provided.

There will be a loss of 42% of the mature trees on site, going against the governments target of increasing canopy cover across urban areas and there is little meaningful canopy replacement. The area borders reserves, with wildlife and birds, some endangered that rely on trees across the area.
With a much bigger development there has been a failure to adjust setbacks to cater for increased height and there is even less opportunity for deep soil planting. More concrete, more urban heat, at a time where we need to be cooling our streets, walkways and cycle paths. This needs to be included in any urban plan as the temperatures continue to rise.

Increased concrete and hard surface leads to an increase in runoff to the adjacent Scotts Creek, this is a major catchment area into Middle Harbour. The health of the landscape and what is done on the land, leads down the waterways, increased flooding, it all adds up.

There has been a failure to support the village character, form a link between the gateway o the Griffin heritage area that shows flow or sympathy, it will dominant the ridgeline, will be an eyesore, increase traffic congestion on the main road out of the peninsula suburb, increase runoff and pollution into the Scotts Creek catchment area, has no school in the suburb, does not have the infrastructure to support what will happen if these towers are approved. where is the community?

We need to stick to the plan of increasing density in TOD areas and other identified areas across urban areas and close to significant transport. Willoughby LGA is pulling its weight, it is meeting housing targets, there is no need for such a significant development in a local suburban village. It all needs to be to scale, and this development is out of scale. I urge the HDA to oppose this development and ask for a plan that follows the rules, so that we can all live well and density can happen near transport hubs, and heritage areas are preserved. The development in Castlecrag will be a luxury development. Concentrating on luxury developments takes the construction industry away from where housing is needed - and there are so many out west crying out for more affordable housing, but this doesn't seem an attractive proposition for the developers. Rather than allowing development where developers feel as though they get the best return, take the time to consider how to increase the housing across the whole of Sydney and not just in places where the developers choose, and this is a challenge worth addressing.

The original proposed development for this site was for a 3 story development (+ subterranean levels) with 38 apartments, 50% of which were to be adaptable apartments, and a variety of retail, commercial and community spaces. I'm not sure how "affordable" any of the individual apartments were meant to be, but the development felt appropriate in scale and intent for the community.
The current development proposal is for an 11/12 story development with 150 units including 10 apartments that will temporarily (for 15 years) be classified as "affordable" apartments (I cannot find information on what price point is being deemed affordable). While the overall development has increased almost 4-fold in scale, there is no discernable increase in retail, commercial, community amenity being provided, or in adaptable housing or affordable housing. The development therefore does not seem to addressing some of the key objectives of governmental programs to increase housing density in "inner-city" suburbs, being affordability and community amenity. The height of the development far exceeds any development in neighbouring suburbs (until you get to Chatswood, North Sydney or Crows Nest), with the transport and general community infrastructure of Castlecrag insufficient for a development of this scale. The building creates a larger physical impact on the natural and built environment of Castlecrag, which seems contrary to the recently announced NSW Heritage strategy. Public transport is frequent only at certain times of the day, and train stations are not close, despite assertions to the contrary. In a suburb with limited public transport and negligible public parking, the development doesn't provide a coherent solution to the increase in resident numbers resulting from the development.
The Community Engagement Outcomes Report clearly identifies community concerns with many of the concerns I have raised. Residents received a letter from Conquest (dated 23 April 2026) that I assume is intended to address community concerns. However, it is simply 2 pages of motherhood statements and fluff that does not identify one single action or initiative to address any concern raised in the community consultation process. It laughably includes the phrase that "Our intention is to create a legacy project, one that sits comfortably within its landscape." An 11-12 story development does NOT sit comfortably in the Castlecrag landscape. The hoarding for the development shows lifestyle shots of Northbridge, Northbridge Golf Course and city skylines - not Castlecrag. This is indicative of the way the consultation process appears to have been conducted. They have gone through the motions, allowed the community to say their piece, but have not addressed any concerns, and cannot even promote Castlecrag while they are doing it.
I support the introduction of medium density housing in the suburb of appropriate height and providing commensurate site and community amenity, with a number of recent developments in Castlecrag/Willoughby/Northbridge doing this. The development proposals for 100 Edinburgh Road seems to be increasing in scale as time passes, with the developer continuing to claim profitability as the driver. However, the original design was put forward as being commercially viable, and the continuing delays are a key driver of cost increases .

To whom this may concern,

This project is an abomination to the values of honesty, truth and natural preservation of which this suburb is underpinned by. By dismissing local residents' concerns about large scale changes that would severely impact their everyday lives, the government displays its willingness to compromise its natural heritage sites and the wants and needs of ordinary citizens to allow private organisations to extract profit from these protected communities and locations.

Firstly, there existed an approved development of a much lower scale, which was the culmination of negotiation and compromise from citizens, environmentalists, and developers. This original development respected the local environment and the historical significance that the Griffins contributed to the suburb. The modification of this development approved in 2024 is significantly different from the original, as it is almost 3 times the height of the originally proposed development. It cannot be considered a "slight" modification and, at the very least, should be subject to re-approval.

Moreover, the site is next to the Griffin conservation area; historically significant and internationally renowned. The residents of Castlecrag have worked very hard for generations to respect and uphold the Griffin's philosophy that buildings should be integrated and in harmony with the environment, not dominate it. As this development is over 12 storeys high, it will significantly dominate the landscape and completely destroy both the natural habitat and the suburban setting.

The proposal is also at odds with planning controls that restrict the height to approximately 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road. Not only is this destructive and poses disturbance to the suburb's natural theme, but is an illogical action, given that Castlecrag is not a housing growth area. There is limited public transport access and very few roads; it is not near a train station and has minimal bus services external to peak hours. Furthermore, the units themselves will be high-end, and likely not affordable as claimed. Therefore, it is not likely to hold much of a positive impact, and instead poses a series of negative impacts for all parties involved.

Not only will this development cause problems for the heritage preservation and natural landscape in Castlecrag, but will also pose significant problems for residents or visitors, as it will lead to significant congestion along Edinburgh Road, which is only 2-3 lanes in width with very limited parking.

As such, this project hails no benefits to all parties involved, and should not be approved nor allowed to proceed. I urge you to reconsider the detrimental effects of this development on this much beloved and cared for suburb and community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Robert Hall.

1. The traffic, my husband and I work as a nurse & doctor for NSW Health. My husband in particular does a lot of oncall as a consultant. At times the traffic lights and traffic are so bad on Edinburgh road that it takes 10+ minutes to get out of the suburb.
2. Coming from a family where 4/5 in my household are aboriginal, being outside & with nature is hugely important. We spend many hours walking the streets and bush tracks. We purchased and moved to Castlecrag to feel at home with nature. The area is hugely heritage listed and this building will take away from this.
3. The preschool where my children attend (KU) is where they feel at home outdoors and in nature. Not only will drop off/pick up be impossible for anyone driving, but the shadows and sunlight it will steal from these children is criminal. Many of us are required to do pick up from primary schools as well as preschool, we won’t be able to with increased traffic.
4. Castlecrag is a suburb that has almost no footpaths and will likely have cars parked from the bottom of our street to the top with this new development. I currently have 3 young children, prams can’t just go on grass, so often I need to walk on the road. Trucks from construction site that were meant to get up Rutland ave couldn’t even fit. If each apartment is approx 3 bedrooms & only getting 1 car space where do you think the other cars from that household will go.
5. Affordable housing conquest keep highlighting…I think if the government would actually like nurses to be able to live in Sydney then they should pay us equal to other states such as QLD and VIC.
6. Public transport - I’ve given up with the bus at Castlecrag, the bus in the morning is always full. Trains are not close by. Driving or walking are the only 2 reliable options
All in all, we moved to Castlecrag to be close to work while allowing our children to feel their sense of belonging. This suburb has a huge community presence and beautiful heritage areas. My children don’t need to be in danger by increased traffic, no footpaths to get around, schools in the area that are already overflowing & sun taken away by shadowing towers.
Please don’t do the wrong thing. Let them use the previously approved proposal and allow the community to continue preserving this beautiful heritage suburb.

As a resident of Castlecrag since 2013 I have to object to this project for a number of reasons:
1. The sheer bulk and scale is not appropriate for a suburban area that is not near any public transport hubs. These large developments are logical in places like North Sydney and Chatswood where there is precedent and train/metro stations.
2. This sets a very dangerous precedent that suggests that any suburban shopping centre could be developed in this way.
3. There is going to be a lot of shading to the surrounding properties.
4. This project abuts the Griffin Conservation Zone which is very important from a historical perspective.
5. Castlecrag has always been an area where nature is subservient to architecture - our houses have 1.5 and 3m setbacks from the side boundaries. We cannot have high fences and it has a "bush" feel with pathways between the houses for walking. A building of the size and scale will detract from these characteristics.
6. It will destroy the entire suburb - there will be major parking issues with 150 apartments and all the surrounding streets will become very crowded with such a massive increase in the population of the area.
7. The traffic will become impossible - as a peninsula suburb there is really only one way in and out. Edinburgh road will become a carpark and it will be very difficult to enter and exist the suburb. This will have an impact on both right and left turns into Edinburgh road from Eastern Valley Way. There will also be increased congestion on the Willoughby side of Edinburgh rd which will then have an impact on Alpha road as well.
8. There will be congestion on Sunnyside crescent and the all the side streets as people find alternative routes due the congestion on Edinburgh road.
9. In short, the idyllic village feel will be totally destroyed. While the small businesses may have increased turnover, the entire shopping area is going to be overwhelmed. The entire place is going to become a crowded mess and the atmosphere will be ruined completely. The very heart and soul of the suburb is going to be destroyed.
10. Development is inevitable and necessary. However, it must be of an appropriate scale and preserve the character of the area. The approved 3 storey development is more appropriate. Our suburb should not be destroyed for the profits of a multinational corporation.
11. There is little social value to this project - 10 "affordable" apartments. The remaining 140 are certain to cost millions.

In summary, there is NO WAY this project should be approved.

This development is way too large for our leafy Castlecrag suburb. We do not want another St Leonards.
- there is no train or metro servicing Castlecrag and Willoughby
- buses are very limited and full at peak times
- It will cast shadows across nearby houses
- and the “affordable housing” argument is a big joke. If people want affordable housing then search on realestate.com.au and you will get heaps
The originally planned and approved 4 storey development was far better for Castlecrag