Mixed Use Development at 5-13 Crane Road, Castle Hill

It is too closed to Main Street. There are two 20 storey buildings over there already and the traffic is terrible.
The environment will be not suitable for residential.
Terminus St is not wide enough for two more 75meters high buildings. There will be over 150 vehicles more in the building and be on the street during traffic hour. The traffic is bad enough at the moment. I cannot imagine we will let it be worse in our community.
Please look after our community well and reject the 75 meters planning.

I strongly object to the proposed Mixed Use Development and Rezoning at Terminus Street and 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill (SSD-95834209), and respectfully request that the application be refused in its current form. I recognise the need for additional housing and appropriate development within Castle Hill. However, housing growth should not come at the expense of the established community’s amenity, safety, infrastructure capacity and liveability. My objection is not to development occurring on this site in principle; it is to the scale, height, intensity and resulting impacts of the proposal, particularly the proposed increase in building height to 75 metres. In my view, the proposal represents an excessive level of development for this particular site and would create impacts that cannot reasonably be imposed on the surrounding community.
1. Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposed increase from the existing maximum building height of 16 metres to 75 metres is an extraordinary increase in scale. A development of this magnitude would fundamentally alter the existing built form and skyline of this part of Castle Hill. The height and massing would create a significant visual presence from surrounding streets and residential properties and would be completely disproportionate to the established low-rise residential environment surrounding the site.
The Department should carefully consider whether the proposed height is genuinely appropriate for this location, rather than treating the site’s proximity to the Castle Hill centre and public transport as sufficient justification for a tower of this scale.
There is an important distinction between supporting housing growth in an appropriate location and accepting an unrestricted level of height and density. A site may be suitable for additional housing without being suitable for a 75-metre development.
I therefore object to the proposed height and consider that a substantially lower and more appropriately graduated built form should be required.
2. Traffic congestion and intersection capacity
Traffic is one of my most significant concerns. The surrounding road network already experiences substantial congestion, particularly during peak periods. Increasing the number of residents, visitors, commercial users, deliveries and service vehicles accessing this site will inevitably place additional pressure on an already heavily used network.
This concern is particularly significant given the site’s relationship to Terminus Street, Crane Road, Old Northern Road and the surrounding intersections. These roads already carry significant volumes of local and through traffic, and congestion can be particularly pronounced during morning and afternoon peaks.
The assessment should not simply consider whether vehicles can technically enter and leave the development. It should properly assess the cumulative network impact of the additional traffic generated by the development, including: existing peak-hour congestion and queue lengths, additional peak-hour traffic generated by residents, visitors and commercial uses, intersection performance and turning movements, impacts on Crane Road, Terminus Street and Old Northern Road, pedestrian and cyclist safety, construction vehicle movements, delivery and servicing movements, potential overflow parking into surrounding streets; and cumulative impacts from other approved and proposed development occurring throughout Castle Hill.
I am particularly concerned that additional traffic could exacerbate existing congestion and make already difficult intersections significantly less functional.
The Department should require robust evidence demonstrating that the surrounding road network can accommodate the development without an unacceptable deterioration in traffic flow, intersection performance, pedestrian safety or residential amenity.
3. Overshadowing and loss of solar access
The proposed height also raises serious concerns regarding overshadowing. A 75-metre development will inevitably cast substantial shadows over surrounding properties and public areas. The impact should not be considered only in relation to whether the apartments within the development itself receive adequate sunlight. Existing homes and established properties surrounding the site also have a legitimate expectation of reasonable solar access and residential amenity. The Department should give particular consideration to the impact of the proposed towers on existing homes during winter, when solar access is already naturally reduced.
I request that the Department carefully scrutinise the submitted shadow diagrams and assess the actual impact on surrounding residential properties, rather than relying solely on compliance with minimum internal apartment requirements. The assessment should clearly demonstrate the extent, duration and seasonal impact of overshadowing on neighbouring homes and surrounding public areas. Where substantial loss of sunlight is identified, the development should be redesigned to reduce the impact.
4. Visual impact and character of Castle Hill
The proposed development would permanently change the visual character of this part of Castle Hill.
The issue is not simply whether the building can be architecturally designed to look attractive. A well-designed building can still be inappropriate in scale and location. A 75-metre tower represents a major departure from the existing built form and would become a dominant element in the local skyline. The visual impact needs to be assessed from surrounding streets, residential properties and public viewpoints, including consideration of the cumulative effect of further high-density development in Castle Hill.
The proposal should be assessed against the principle that development should integrate appropriately with its surrounding context rather than simply maximise the development potential of the site.
5. Impact on existing residential amenity
The increased density and height would also have significant implications for neighbouring residents, including: overlooking and loss of privacy, loss of outlook, increased noise and activity, increased vehicle movements, increased demand for parking, additional light spill, visual dominance of the development; and general loss of the existing sense of residential amenity.
These impacts are particularly concerning where established homes are located close to a development of substantially greater height. Existing residents should not be expected to absorb significant and permanent reductions in amenity simply because the site has been identified for additional housing.
6. Rezoning and proposed increase in development intensity
I am also concerned about the concurrent rezoning proposal and significant increase in permitted building height. The rezoning and height amendment should not be considered as merely technical changes required to facilitate the development. They are fundamental to the scale and intensity of what is being proposed. The Department should require the applicant to clearly demonstrate why the existing planning framework is inadequate and why a substantial increase to 75 metres is necessary at this particular location. There should also be careful consideration of the precedent created by approving such a significant increase in height. Approval of this proposal could contribute to a broader pattern of progressively increasing development intensity in Castle Hill, placing further pressure on roads, infrastructure and existing residential communities.
7. Cumulative impact and infrastructure capacity
The impacts of this proposal should not be assessed in isolation. Castle Hill is experiencing significant development and population growth. Additional high-density development places cumulative pressure on: the local road network, public transport, pedestrian infrastructure, parking, drainage and utilities, public open space, community facilities; and other local infrastructure.
It is important that the assessment considers whether the infrastructure required to support the proposed level of development is actually available or appropriately planned and funded. Simply establishing that housing can physically fit on a site does not demonstrate that the surrounding area can adequately support the resulting population and activity.
8. Construction impacts
I also request that significant consideration be given to the construction phase. A development of this scale will involve substantial demolition, excavation, construction traffic, deliveries, noise, dust and potentially prolonged construction activity. Given the existing congestion in the surrounding road network, construction vehicle movements could have a particularly significant impact on local residents and road users. Any approval should therefore require a detailed and enforceable construction traffic and environmental management plan that protects surrounding residents and ensures construction activity does not create unacceptable impacts on local roads, pedestrians or neighbouring properties.
9. Need for a substantially more appropriate proposal
I respectfully ask the Department to consider whether the site can accommodate additional housing without requiring development of this magnitude. A more appropriate outcome would involve a substantially reduced building height and bulk, a built form that transitions appropriately to surrounding development, significantly reduced overshadowing, appropriate separation from neighbouring properties and demonstrably manageable traffic impacts.
The fact that a site can potentially accommodate a particular development under a proposed amended planning framework does not mean that the proposed scale is appropriate or that the amendment should be supported.

I respectfully request that the Department and the Minister give substantial weight to the impacts on existing residents and the broader Castle Hill community and refuse the proposal in its current form.

I OBJECT to this application. I live locally in Castle Hill and am directly affected.

I am not opposed to housing. My objection rests almost entirely on the applicant's own exhibited documents, which show a proposal roughly double the height the strategic framework anticipates, an overshadowing impact that is asserted rather than assessed, and a traffic conclusion contradicted both by its own modelling and by Council's own Precinct Plan.

1. THE PROPOSAL IS ROUGHLY DOUBLE THE HEIGHT THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ANTICIPATES

The Architectural Design Report (Appendix 7) reproduces The Hills Shire Council Precinct Plan for the Castle Hill Strategic Centre, which states for this exact Focus Area:

"It is anticipated that the site will have a maximum building height of 8 to 12 storeys. This will minimise privacy and overshadowing impacts on adjacent residential areas."

The proposal is Building A at 22 storeys and Building B at 16 storeys. Building A is nearly double the top of the anticipated range.

The Precinct Plan ties that figure directly to overshadowing and privacy impacts on the homes around it. The applicant reproduces the finding, then proposes 22 storeys without displacing it.

The Precinct Plan also requires that "the tallest building element (up to 8 to 12 storeys) [be] located on the western side of the Focus Area... and heights transitioning down towards the south-east," and that "built form should be sympathetic to the scale of existing residential development adjoining the site to the north-east and the current and future character of residential land to the south-east." It notes "two detached dwellings directly to the east of the Focus Area on Mercer Street."

HDA SSD criterion 4.2 requires an applicant to demonstrate strategic merit by showing the proposal "aligns with a relevant strategic plan." A proposal at roughly twice the anticipated height, with the stepping logic not delivered, does not align with the relevant strategic plan. I ask the Department to address the 8-12 storey figure expressly in its Assessment Report rather than passing over it.

2. OVERSHADOWING OF NEIGHBOURS IS ASSERTED, NOT ASSESSED

The Design Report self-assesses ADG Objective 3B-2 ("Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid-winter") as "Complies." The entire supporting reasoning is that overshadowing "is limited" and that "by developing the site as two slim towers vs. single massing overshadowing impact is diminished."

That is not an assessment. It contains:
- no identification of which neighbouring properties are affected;
- no measurement of hours of sunlight lost to any dwelling;
- no test against the three-hour mid-winter benchmark for neighbouring living rooms and private open space;
- a comparison against a hypothetical worse scheme rather than against the existing 16m control or the actual amenity of existing homes.

The contrast within the same document is stark. For the future occupants of this building, amenity is quantified precisely: 71.2% and 70.6% achieving two hours solar access, 3.1% receiving no direct sunlight, 67.4% naturally ventilated, with level-by-level tables. For the people who already live here, there is one sentence and the word "limited."

The shadow diagrams (DA-790-001 and 002) are drawn at 1:1500 - a scale at which individual dwellings and their private open space cannot meaningfully be read. The Sun Eye Diagrams at 1:100 assess the proposal's own apartments, not neighbours.

I ask the Department to require, and to publish, a property-by-property mid-winter analysis at a usable scale identifying every existing dwelling whose private open space or habitable room windows fall below three hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Where that standard is not met, it is a permanent and uncompensated transfer of amenity from existing residents to the applicant.

3. THE SCHEME'S OWN ADG SOLAR COMPLIANCE HAS A MARGIN OF ONE APARTMENT

The ADG requires a minimum of 70% of apartments to achieve two hours solar access mid-winter. The applicant records 114 (71.2%) and 113 (70.6%) of 160 apartments. At 70.6%, the scheme clears the minimum by roughly one apartment.

A development seeking a 369% height increase should not be scraping the floor of the amenity standards that justify tall buildings. I ask that these figures be independently verified: reassessing one or two apartments tips the scheme into non-compliance.

4. THE TRAFFIC CONCLUSION IS CONTRADICTED BY THE APPLICANT'S OWN DATA AND BY COUNCIL'S PRECINCT PLAN

The Traffic and Parking Assessment (Appendix 11) concludes that "no new road improvements or intersection upgrades will be required."

Council's Precinct Plan, reproduced in Appendix 7, states the opposite: "Road widening will be required on the eastern side of the Crane Road and Mercer Street intersection to facilitate the proposed realignment of the intersection and proposed roundabout." It also contemplates a new pedestrian bridge along Crane Road, dedication of land to Council, and a site-specific DCP. None of this is offered.

The traffic modelling is also internally unconvincing:

(a) The signalised Crane Road / Terminus Street intersection already operates at Level of Service D in both peaks. The report's own criteria define LoS D as "operating near capacity" and reserve "satisfactory" for LoS C.

(b) Degree of saturation rises to 0.879 in the PM peak, against the report's own stated ceiling of 0.9, above which it concedes "queues can be anticipated," and its own benchmark that 0.7 represents satisfactory operation.

(c) The 2036 base case produces an AM saturation of 0.847 against an existing 0.846 - one thousandth of an increase across a decade. The report states growth will be "minimal, if any." That cannot be reconciled with the applicant's own case that this is a Strategic Centre and Metro precinct "envisaged to evolve." The rezoning argument and the traffic argument contradict each other.

(d) No other approved or proposed development in the Castle Hill centre is included in the modelling.

(e) The lowest available trip rate was adopted (0.19 AM per dwelling, "high public transport accessibility"), while providing one car space per dwelling and 23 retail/commercial spaces against a DCP requirement of 6.3 - nearly four times the requirement.

Safety: the report records 14 crashes in five years, 13 of them at the Crane Road / Terminus Street intersection, seven in peak periods including one serious injury, near a 40km/h school zone at St Bernadette's. The report dismisses this because the development adds "only about 1%" of volume, and recommends no upgrade and no contribution.

5. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFER FAILS THE DEPARTMENT'S OWN CRITERIA

HDA criterion 3.3 requires that where a concurrent rezoning is sought, the affordable housing offering "should exceed the requirements already in place in a council or State policy, so that the affordable housing rate is proportional to the level of uplift sought," and where uplift is significant, be "provided in perpetuity."

The Bridge Housing letter (Appendix 32) defeats this twice. It confirms management "for a minimum of 15 years" - not in perpetuity, against a 369% uplift. And it states the arrangement fulfils "Section 21, Division 1, Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Housing SEPP" - the in-fill affordable housing provisions, which grant 15% affordable housing a height bonus of 20-30%, or roughly 20.8m on this site. The applicant delivers the statutory minimum of a scheme worth about 21m while seeking 75m. That also answers criterion 4.1, which requires the applicant to explain why the in-fill provisions were not used.

The letter also describes "approximately 152 apartments" with "approximately 24" affordable, not the 160 and 30 exhibited, and is expressly preliminary - "preliminary discussions," "eager to collaborate." There is no executed agreement.

6. CHARACTER, INTERFACE AND THE "MIXED USE" JUSTIFICATION

The State Design Review Panel recorded that "Crane Road is a residential street with strong urban character informed by an abundant canopy and active residential frontage," and that the proposal presented "blank facades along Crane Road, reducing opportunities for activation, passive surveillance and impacting the future character of Crane Road." The applicant's response retains a setback to Crane Road of only 3-6m for a 75m building.

The rezoning is framed as permitting commercial premises. It delivers 524sqm of non-residential floor space out of 19,532sqm - about 2.7% - and 23 ongoing jobs. That is a residential tower with a token frontage. The landscape benefits relied on are expressly "indicative only and subject to design development."

CONCLUSION

I request that SSD-95834209 be REFUSED.

The strategic framework anticipates 8 to 12 storeys here, and says so precisely because of overshadowing and privacy impacts on the homes around it. The applicant proposes 22, assesses the impact on those homes in a single sentence, clears its own amenity standard by one apartment, tells the Department no road upgrades are needed while Council's Precinct Plan says road widening will be required, and offers affordable housing that expires in 15 years.

Without prejudice to refusal, if any development is approved I ask that height be limited to the 8-12 storeys anticipated by the Precinct Plan with genuine stepping to the south-east, that mid-winter solar access to existing dwellings be protected by condition, that affordable housing be secured in perpetuity, and that the Crane Road / Mercer Street works identified in the Precinct Plan be funded.

I request for notification of the determination.

OBJECTION – SSD-95834209
Terminus Street and 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill

I am a Castle Hill landowner and I object to this development application and the rezoning that comes with it.

I support new homes near Castle Hill Metro. But this proposal asks for towers ALMOST TWICE AS TALL as Council's plan allows for this site, and it provides nothing to support the extra people and cars: no plan for roads, schools, parks or trees. The points below come from the developer's own documents and the advice that government agencies gave the Department.

1. IT IS TOO TALL FOR THIS SITE
The current height limit is '16 metres'. The 'developer wants 75 metres', for towers of 22 and 16 storeys.

Council's adopted Castle Hill Precinct Plan allows 8–12 storeys on this site and 4–6 storeys on the streets around it. The site was deliberately planned as a step down from the Atmosphere towers to the homes on Rosa Crescent, Mercer Street and Orange Grove. The Precinct Plan already knew Atmosphere was next door and still chose 8–12 storeys.

The Hills Shire Council formally advised the Department (October 2025) that the site is constrained and unlikely to pass the merit test for rezoning. Council also said the heights sought are inconsistent with the structure of the Castle Hill precinct.

If 22 storeys is approved on land planned for 12, every neighbouring owner can ask for the same, and community-agreed planning means nothing.

2. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
Crane Road and Terminus Street is already the local crash hotspot: 13 of the 14 crashes recorded in the traffic study area happened there. This proposal adds 216 car spaces and a new shop corner at that same spot.

The traffic study does not reflect real conditions:
- It counted traffic on one Thursday and did not model weekends, next door to Castle Towers. Transport for NSW specifically required weekend modelling.
- It ignores traffic from other big developments nearby. Transport for NSW required that too.
- Its travel data comes from the 2021 Census, taken during the COVID lockdown when 55% of locals worked from home.
- It predicts traffic in 2036 will be almost the same as today.

Every car, garbage truck and delivery truck will use a single driveway on Mercer Street, a quiet local street, where visibility only just meets the minimum standard.

3. NO PLAN FOR SCHOOLS, PARKS OR INFRASTRUCTURE
Council told the Department its infrastructure contributions plan cannot fund the extra demand this rezoning creates. Council asked for a funding agreement covering roads, traffic works and additional playing fields. I could find no such agreement in the application.

Council's Precinct Plan also relies on pedestrian bridges over Terminus Street and Crane Road and a new roundabout at Crane Road and Mercer Street. Council said the application must allow for them. It doesn't.

Schools and parks:
- The development includes 50 three- and four-bedroom apartments aimed at families, but there is no assessment of school capacity. Council reports 13 Hills schools are already over their enrolment cap.
- The developer promised a Social Impact Assessment in its early report. None is listed among the application's documents.
- No public open space is provided. The Design Review Panel warned the podium would be children's only open space. The response was a 32 square metre indoor room for 160 apartments.

Sydney Water and Ausgrid both asked for servicing capacity to be confirmed. The Department should confirm this before any decision.

4. EVERY TREE REMOVED IN A HEAT-VULNERABLE SUBURB
All 28 trees on the site and 2 street trees will be removed to dig a four-level basement. Only 7.7% of the site is left as deep soil for planting, about half what design guidance suggests for a site this size.

NSW Government data rates about 65% of neighbourhoods in The Hills as moderately vulnerable to heat, and the Shire's urban tree canopy is below 30%. Yet there is no urban heat assessment in the application. A building within Council's plan would need less excavation and could keep more trees.

5. IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS
- Shade: the developer's own analysis shows apartments at 2–4 Orange Grove losing sun from about 10am to 2pm in midwinter, and homes at 1A Mercer Street and 15 Crane Road losing afternoon sun. Council asked for impacts on southern neighbours to be "negligible". Four hours of winter shade is not negligible.
- Privacy: the architect admits building separation does not fully comply with the Apartment Design Guide, which exists to stop neighbours being overlooked.
- Construction: about 23 months of work, Monday to Saturday. Predicted noise reaches 88 decibels at Rosa Crescent, above the "highly noise affected" level of 75. Affected neighbours include an aged care facility.

6. A POOR DEAL FOR THE COMMUNITY
The height increase is permanent. The 30 affordable apartments stay affordable for only 15 years, according to the developer's Scoping Report, and can then be sold or rented at market rates.

When the NSW Government rezoned Cherrybrook, it required affordable housing in perpetuity and delivered new parks and a tree canopy target. Castle Hill should not get a worse deal through a one-off rezoning.

7. CASTLE HILL IS ALREADY CARRYING MORE THAN ITS SHARE
The Hills has Sydney's largest housing target: 23,300 new homes by 2029, about 35% growth in five years. Ku-ring-gai's target is about 17% and Woollahra's about 7%.

Nearby, a 40-storey tower is proposed on Old Castle Hill Road, and 610 apartments in towers of up to 35 storeys on Cecil Avenue, on land originally rezoned for 460. Nobody has assessed the combined impact. The Design Review Panel asked this developer to, and it did not.

Bella Vista, Kellyville and Cherrybrook were planned with infrastructure funding. Showground was capped at 5,000 homes until infrastructure caught up. Castle Hill is getting spot rezonings one site at a time.

8. THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND UNRELIABLE
- It does not meet the Department's own assessment requirements (SEARs) on traffic and social impact, and does not follow the advice of Council and Transport for NSW.
- The scheme grew after the early report. The stated site area shrank from 4,792 to 3,941 square metres, now below the 4,000 square metre minimum for apartment buildings. Building bulk relative to site size (floor space ratio) rose by about 25%, and apartments from 152 to 160, with no explanation.
- That minimum lot size can only be relaxed if the building suits its neighbours in height, protects privacy and keeps significant trees. This proposal does none of those.
- The Scoping Report used to set the assessment requirements includes material from a different project: a Windsor Road photo, a Rouse Hill footer and Blacktown Council references. The EIS calls the site "vacant", although it has seven homes on it.

WHAT I ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO DO
1. Refuse the rezoning and the development application.
2. If any development is considered, keep it within Council's Precinct Plan (8–12 storeys, stepping down to neighbours) and retain trees.
3. Require a proper infrastructure funding agreement covering roads, playing fields, the pedestrian bridges and the roundabout.
4. Before any decision, require a realistic traffic study (including weekends and other developments), a Social Impact Assessment including schools, and an assessment of the combined impact of all developments on Castle Hill.
5. Require any affordable housing to stay affordable permanently.

Increasing the building height from 16m to 75m on that site being on the high side of the road will create a huge afternoon shadow for the surrounding residences on the Eastern side. I object to any new building being that high set amongst the current level of adjacent buildings. Lowering the building height to a more reasonable level would be far easier to accept.
With some of the current building dilemmas with developers abandoning works and going bust I think we should have both Bank and Developer Guarantees.

The community on Crane Road and the vicinity object to the plans for highrise buildings on Crane Road. The current traffucsituation is dire due to lack of adequate exits and entries onto Terminus intersection. The traffic is so bad as it is without an addition of more high rise apartment blocks. The Council is turning the residential section into a slum area.All the streets eg Mercer Street, Orange Road etc are converging into Crane Road, creating a bottle neck all year round!

Formal Submission of Objection: Proposed High-Density Development (SSD-95834209 – 5–13 Crane Road & Terminus Street, Castle Hill)
As a local resident of Castlewood Estate for over 25 years, I wish to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed high-rise development at 5–13 Crane Road and Terminus Street. The local road network in the Castle Hill Precinct has reached complete saturation, and the addition of 160 residential units—and their associated vehicle movements—will exacerbate an already unsustainable traffic situation.
1. Cumulative Traffic Congestion and Bottlenecks
The road infrastructure servicing Castlewood Estate and the surrounding precinct cannot support further high-density development. Exiting the estate via Crane Road, even during off-peak hours, has become a notoriously slow bottleneck. During morning and evening peak periods, the local network is regularly gridlocked due to the combined volume of:
* High-frequency commuter buses servicing the nearby Castle Hill Bus Interchange.
* Vehicle movements generated by existing high-density complexes, including the Atmosphere apartments.
* Feeder traffic attempting to access Old Northern Road and navigate the heavily constrained Crane Road axis.
2. Severe Intersectional Safety Concerns
The intersection of Crane Road and Terminus Street presents an extreme hazard and operates well beyond its intended capacity at peak times. Traffic queueing back towards Castlewood Estate creates severe delays and heightened safety risks, leading to frequent near-misses and vehicle accidents. Further increasing traffic volume at this key junction without a dedicated, funded road upgrade plan creates severe safety and operational risks.
3. Strategic Infrastructure Deficit and Commuter Parking Shortages
The immediate street network lacks the spatial capacity to absorb additional demand. On-street parking along Crane Road is already severely strained by commuter parking overspill from the metro and bus transport links, leading to vehicle jockeying and unsafe street navigation.
4. Failure to Address Cumulative Impact
This application cannot be viewed in isolation. With major precinct-wide high-density developments already completed or currently under assessment across the Castle Hill Strategic Centre (such as large-scale proposals along Cecil Avenue and Roger Avenue), the cumulative impact on local traffic gridlock is critical. Transport for NSW and local planning authorities have not delivered the essential road capacity upgrades required to match this rate of housing growth.
Continually adding high-rise density to an area where existing infrastructure is failing is untenable and threatens to permanently damage the livability and character of Castle Hill.
For these reasons, I urge the authority to reject this application in its current form due to unsustainable traffic impact, inadequate infrastructure capacity, and heightened public safety concerns.

I write to object to this application (SSD-95834209).
1. Intersection capacity at Old Northern Road / Terminus Street / Crane Road
This development fronts directly onto the signalised intersection of Old Northern Road, Terminus Street and Crane Road. This intersection already operates as a bottleneck at peak times: it carries a busy pedestrian crossing, regional through-traffic on Old Northern Road, and local traffic from the surrounding residential estates, including Castlewood Estate. Castlewood Estate has four exits onto this corridor — two at a stop-sign T-junctions, and one at a left-turn-only T-junction, and this one, the only signalised exit, which is already at or near capacity without this development. Every morning there is traffic queued beyond Orange Grove waiting at the lights for school and work commuters.

I ask that the Department require an independent, site-specific intersection capacity assessment (SIDRA or equivalent) for this exact intersection, rather than relying solely on the applicant's own traffic consultant's modelling, and that this assessment be made public before determination.

2. Cumulative impact of nearby approvals is not being assessed
This is not an isolated proposal. Within a few hundred metres of this site there are several other large residential towers that are either recently completed, approved, or currently under assessment, including developments near 16–20 Old Castle Hill Road and the Kentwell Avenue/Castle Towers site, together adding well over a thousand additional dwellings to the same local road network. I have not been able to find any published traffic assessment that models the combined effect of these developments on the Old Northern Road corridor and the Terminus Street/Crane Road intersection specifically. Assessing each application in isolation understates the real impact on residents. I ask that this application not be determined until a cumulative traffic impact assessment covering these approvals is prepared and exhibited publicly.

3. Scale of the proposed height uplift
The concurrent rezoning seeks to increase the permitted building height on this site from 16m to 75m (up to 22 storeys) — a very substantial departure from the current planning controls. I ask the panel to consider whether a scale of this magnitude, on a site with this level of existing traffic and pedestrian pressure, is appropriate without the road network upgrades to match it, and whether a reduced height/yield with proportionate infrastructure would better serve both new and existing residents.

4. Pedestrian safety
Given the volume of pedestrians already crossing at this intersection (residents, school students, and commuters to Castle Hill Metro station), I ask that pedestrian safety upgrades at this specific intersection be made a condition of consent, informed by current, not historical, pedestrian count data. Already this junction is hazardous for pedestrians - just last month a car nearly hit a pedestrian and only managed to avoid doing so by crashing into the sign of the office building on the other corner of Crane Road (1 Terminus st). More traffic and more pedestrians will exacerbate the problem.

Request
I ask that this application not be approved unless and until independent, cumulative traffic modelling for the Old Northern Road/Terminus Street/Crane Road intersection is undertaken and made public, and unless conditions addressing pedestrian safety are imposed.

Elizabeth Joyce Dench

9 Henley Close Castle Hill NSW 2154

I support the the hirer density and mixed use approach/objectives.
What I want to see documented and to agree with the proposal is that if we want to ensure more affordable family accommodation then a minimum of 10-15% of residential units need to be 4 Bedroom and a minimum of 20% need to be 3 Bedroom units.
This is to ensure that suitable family accommodation is provided in the Hill shopping and transport precinct to replace the family houses being demolished for the high density initiative.

I am a local resident and I strongly object to the proposed mixed-use development and rezoning at 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill. My concerns related particularly to the excessive height and scale of the development, impacts on neighbouring residential properties, geotechnical and construction safety, construction noise and vibration, traffic and pedestrian safety, and the effects on children, older residents and the broader local community.

My first concern is the proposed building height and its relationship with the surrounding low-rise residential area. The earlier Scoping Report describes the existing development on the site as predominantly one- and two-storey buildings, while the proposed development includes towers of approximately 15 and 22 storeys. The current proposal seeks to increase the maximum building height from 16 metres to 75 metres.
I consider this to be a very substantial change in scale. In particular, I am concerned about the abrupt transition between towers of this height and the existing houses and lower-rise residential properties surrounding the site. A development of this scale has the potential to create significant visual bulk and dominance and substantially alter the existing residential character and amenity of the area.
The height difference also raises concerns about overshadowing and visual privacy. Apartments and balconies on multiple upper levels may overlook existing homes, windows, backyards and other private outdoor areas. This is particularly concerning where high-rise apartments have elevated views over much lower residential properties. The Scoping Report itself identifies solar access and overshadowing, visual privacy, views and visual impacts as matters requiring assessment.
These assessments should consider overlooking from all levels of the proposed towers onto existing surrounding properties, as well as the combined effects of overshadowing, loss of outlook, visual dominance and reduced privacy on the existing residential environment.

My second concern relates to geotechnical and construction safety. The site is located on sloping terrain, and a development of this scale, including basement parking and two high-rise towers, would require substantial excavation and structural works. The Scoping Report identifies the need for a geotechnical assessment to demonstrate that the proposed development can be undertaken safely and sustainably.
Given the scale and height of the development and the proximity of surrounding residential properties, particular attention should be given to slope stability, excavation support, potential ground movement, construction vibration and the potential for damage to neighbouring properties. Appropriate monitoring, engineering controls and contingency measures should be clearly demonstrated.

My third concern is construction noise and vibration. Demolition, excavation, basement works and construction of two high-rise towers are likely to involve substantial construction activity over an extended period. The Scoping Report also recognises acoustic impacts as an amenity issue requiring assessment.
This is particularly important because the site is surrounded by an established community rather than an isolated development area. Nearby residents may experience prolonged periods of construction noise, vibration, dust, heavy vehicle movements and other disruption.
I am particularly concerned about older and younger residents in the surrounding Castle Hill community. Older/newborn people who spend significant periods of time at home may experience greater exposure to prolonged construction noise, vibration and disruption. The cumulative effect on the day-to-day amenity and wellbeing of existing residents should therefore be carefully considered, rather than considering individual construction impacts in isolation.

My fourth concern is traffic disruption and road and pedestrian safety. The site is located close to an intersection, and Crane Road, Terminus Street and the surrounding road network are already used by local residents, commuters, pedestrians and school traffic. The Scoping Report states that the Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment will consider existing and forecast traffic movements, vehicle access, service vehicles and loading and unloading arrangements.
Construction of this scale is likely to require frequent heavy vehicle movements and deliveries and may involve construction vehicle queuing, temporary lane occupation or closures, and other restrictions to normal road access. These activities could add further congestion to roads that already accommodate local, commuter and school-related traffic. Any Construction Traffic Management Plan should therefore clearly address construction vehicle routes, delivery and loading arrangements, vehicle queuing, temporary lane or road occupation and the timing of heavy vehicle movements, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods.
This is especially important because children, parents, carers and older residents regularly use the surrounding streets and pedestrian routes. There is a childcare and preschool facility on Crane Road in proximity to the proposed development, as well as schools and education facilities within the surrounding Castle Hill area. Young children may be particularly vulnerable around large construction vehicles because of their smaller size and reduced visibility to drivers. Increased truck movements, deliveries and construction-related congestion could therefore create additional risks for children and their carers, particularly around childcare and school arrival and departure times.
Older pedestrians may also be more affected by temporary footpath changes, construction vehicle crossings, increased traffic and changes to normal pedestrian routes. Pedestrian safety should therefore be considered from the perspective of vulnerable road users, rather than only in terms of overall vehicle traffic capacity. If the development is approved, heavy construction vehicle movements should be restricted during school and childcare drop-off and pick-up periods, as well as major commuter peak periods, wherever practicable. Safe and continuous pedestrian access should also be maintained throughout construction.

Finally, I am concerned about the combined effect of these impacts on the existing community. While traffic, noise, overshadowing, privacy and other impacts may each be considered separately during the assessment process, surrounding residents would experience them together. A development reaching approximately 75 metres in height beside much lower residential development could permanently alter the visual environment, privacy, sunlight access and outlook of surrounding properties, while the construction process may expose the community to an extended period of noise, vibration, excavation, heavy vehicle traffic and disruption.

I understand the need for additional housing and recognise the benefits of locating housing close to public transport. However, proximity to Castle Hill Metro should not, by itself, justify development of this scale and intensity without adequate consideration of the existing character of the area, the site's constraints, its relationship with surrounding lower-scale housing, and the impacts on the people who already live and move through the surrounding community.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. I consider the proposed height, scale and intensity of development are inappropriate for this site and incompatible with the surrounding established residential environment. The cumulative impacts on neighbouring residents, local traffic, pedestrian safety, children, older residents and residential amenity are significant concerns that should not be treated as secondary to the objective of increasing housing density.
I therefore do not support the proposed rezoning and development and believe the application should not be approved in its current form.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Subject: Formal Objection to SSD-95834209 – Terminus Street & 5-13 Crane Road, Castle Hill

Date: 9 September 2026

To the Assessing Officer,
I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application (SSD-95834209) and the concurrent rezoning proposal for Terminus Street and 5-13 Crane Road, Castle Hill.

My objection is grounded in the following planning failures, specifically concerning statutory amenity requirements:

1. SEPP 65 / ADG Breaches Regarding Solar Access and Shadow Impacts
The proposal seeks an excessive height limit increase from 16m to 75m. The shadow cast by a 75m structure during the winter solstice will be exponentially longer than that of a compliant 16m building. This extreme overshadowing will likely cause adjacent residential buildings to fail the minimum solar access requirements mandated by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Objective 4A-1, which requires living rooms and private open spaces of neighbouring properties to receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm in mid-winter.

This impact is disproportionately severe for ground-floor dwellings. For example, ground-floor apartments with patios on nearby Orange Grove rely entirely on an unobstructed solar plane, as they lack the elevation of upper-level balconies to catch sunlight over adjacent obstacles. A 59-metre height variation will plunge these specific lower-level private open spaces and living areas into total shadow. A rigorously audited shadow diagram is required to prove that ground-floor patios in the surrounding footprint will not fall below statutory solar access minimums. If the 75m towers cause a breach of the ADG for surrounding properties, the height must be aggressively reduced.

2. Zoning Transitions and Height Controls
The requested amendment to The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 to leap from 16m to 75m ignores the necessity for a graduated height transition. This abrupt shift from a lower-scale residential zone to a high-density commercial scale degrades local amenity and establishes an unsupportable precedent for the precinct.

3. Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity
Introducing 160 residential dwellings and two floors of commercial premises at the Terminus Street and Crane Road intersection will generate a significant increase in daily vehicle movements. The Department must ensure a cumulative traffic impact assessment is conducted to determine whether local feeder streets can handle the additional volume without causing intersection failure.

4. Canopy Loss
The application entails the removal of existing trees. This loss of canopy increases local heat retention and removes necessary acoustic buffering. Any approval must mandate the retention of boundary vegetation or provide deep soil zones sufficient to replace the lost canopy at a high ratio.

The concurrent rezoning proposal must be rejected. The applicant should submit a redesign that respects the existing 16m height limit and guarantees compliance with adjacent solar access requirements.

Regards,
Mark Rees
4/4-10 Orange Grove, Castle Hill NSW 2154

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed high-rise development and rezoning request at the corner of Crane Road and Terminus Street. While growth around major transit hubs is understood, a proposal to increase the allowable building height from 16 metres to 75 metres (up to 24 storeys) represents an excessive overdevelopment of a narrow and constrained site.

This project poses severe risks to road safety, exacerbates critical traffic bottlenecks, and presents significant environmental and commercial concerns for the local area.

1. Traffic Congestion & Single Signal Bottleneck
* The Single Traffic Light Constraint: The local road network surrounding Crane Road, Terminus Street, and Old Northern Road is severely constrained currently. Entry into and exit from this specific pocket relies on a single controlled traffic signal at the main arterial intersection. Additional traffic in construction and then the additional will further exacerbate the traffic at these lights and create further issues at other entry points without lights such as Cecil Avenue and Brisbane road. 

* Compounded Gridlock: Terminus Street and Crane Road already operate at capacity during morning and afternoon peak periods, as well as weekend shopping hours due to proximity to Castle Towers and the Metro. Adding hundreds of vehicle trips per day from the proposed 200+ parking spaces will cause systemic gridlock.

* Emergency Service Delays: With only one primary signalised access point servicing the surrounding block, gridlock directly impairs access times for emergency vehicles attempting to navigate Terminus Street and into the greater castlewood area which included a nursing a home and several daycares where vital access is required.

2. Road & Pedestrian Safety Concerns
* Hazardous Pedestrian Crossings: The intersection of Crane Road and Terminus Street experiences heavy foot traffic from commuters walking to Castle Hill Metro Station, local workers, and shoppers. The sightlines along Crane Road are already restricted due to street curvature and parked vehicles. Increasing traffic density significantly raises the risk of vehicle-pedestrian collisions with addition high use driveway access points. 

* Inadequate Road Geometry: Crane Road and Mercer street are a narrow feeder streets, ill-equipped to handle construction heavy vehicles or the permanent daily traffic volume generated by a high rise tower. The tight turning radius at the corner of Crane Road and Terminus Street creates a pinch point where turning delivery trucks and residential traffic cross lane markings, endangering oncoming vehicles.

* Blind Spots at Basement Ramp: The high volume of vehicle entries and exits from the proposed multi-level basement directly onto a busy pedestrian footpath creates a persistent safety hazard for passersby.

3. Environmental & Amenity Considerations
* Unacceptable Overshadowing & Microclimate: Raising heights to 75 metres creates significant shadowing over adjacent lower-density residential properties along Crane and Mercer Streets. The extreme height will also create wind-tunnel effects at ground level along Terminus Street, diminishing pedestrian comfort.

* Noise & Air Quality: The concentration of idling vehicles stuck at the Terminus Street traffic light, paired with increased localized delivery traffic, will significantly drop air quality and raise ambient noise levels for neighboring homes.

4. Commercial & Strategic Planning Considerations
* Extreme Departure from Local Planning Controls: A jump from a 16-metre height limit to 75 metres is an aggressive stretch that undermines the strategic transitions intended by the local planning framework.It establishes a dangerous precedent for spot-rezoning in the precinct.

* Impact on Local Small Commercial Operators: The addition of floor-plate commercial space threatens to disrupt the existing street-level commercial balance, while construction disruptions (lasting years) will negatively impact nearby local traders on Crane Road and Old Northern Road.

Conclusion
The proposed development represents a clear overdevelopment of 5–13 Crane Road. Until the local road network is upgraded, pedestrian safety infrastructure is expanded, and alternative access points are established to relieve the single-traffic-light bottleneck, this proposal should be refused.

I urge the Department and Council to reject the 75-metre height rezoning and demand a scaled-back development that respects the site’s physical and infrastructure limitations.

We desperately need more homes. According to the 2021 census homelessness is increasing. According to KPMG home ownership in Sydney is lowest since 1954

I support this proposal. I note that this proposal is a few hundred metres from a shopping centre and metro. People will likely self-select who don't want to drive and can catch the metro to work.

We should take this opportunity to improve the urban planning of the local area - bike paths, cut throughs, parks, shops and other amenities that will make Castle Hill a more pleasant place to live

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to object to SSD-95834209, the proposed 22-storey development and rezoning at 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill.
I am a parent of [number] children at [school/age group] and have lived in [suburb] for [number] years. My main concern is simple: this proposal adds a large number of family homes without any evidence that our schools, parks and sporting fields can cope.
The development includes 46 three-bedroom and 4 four-bedroom apartments, which the applicant itself describes as suitable for families. Yet I could not find any assessment of local school capacity in the exhibited documents. The applicant’s Scoping Report promised a Social Impact Assessment, but the SEARs compliance table points only to a section of the EIS, with no SIA appendix listed.
Open space is equally concerning. No public open space is provided. The State Design Review Panel warned that the podium garden would be the children’s only open space. The response was a single 32 square metre indoor room for 160 apartments.
The Hills Shire Council told the Department in October 2025 that this rezoning would need Contributions Plan amendments or a planning agreement to fund extra infrastructure, specifically including additional playing fields. I have not seen either in the application.
Council also reports that 13 schools in The Hills are already above their enrolment cap with Castle Hill High School at >220% capacity with the highest demountable – 52. With the Cecil Avenue towers, Old Castle Hill Road and other large projects all nearby, every family that moves in will draw on the same schools and fields.
I ask the Department to refuse this application or, at the very least, require a full Social Impact Assessment and advice from School Infrastructure NSW before any decision is made.
[Add a sentence about your own experience, e.g. class sizes, weekend sport field availability, school drop-off traffic.]
Yours sincerely,
Shilpi

Dear Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to object to SSD-95834209, the proposed 22-storey development and rezoning at 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill.
I am a parent of 2children at Castle Hill high school and have lived in castle hill for 2.5 years. My main concern is simple: this proposal adds a large number of family homes without any evidence that our schools, parks and sporting fields can cope.
The development includes 46 three-bedroom and 4 four-bedroom apartments, which the applicant itself describes as suitable for families. Yet I could not find any assessment of local school capacity in the exhibited documents. The applicant’s Scoping Report promised a Social Impact Assessment, but the SEARs compliance table points only to a section of the EIS, with no SIA appendix listed.
Open space is equally concerning. No public open space is provided. The State Design Review Panel warned that the podium garden would be the children’s only open space. The response was a single 32 square metre indoor room for 160 apartments.
The Hills Shire Council told the Department in October 2025 that this rezoning would need Contributions Plan amendments or a planning agreement to fund extra infrastructure, specifically including additional playing fields. I have not seen either in the application.
Council also reports that 13 schools in The Hills are already above their enrolment cap with Castle Hill High School at >220% capacity with the highest demountable – 52. With the Cecil Avenue towers, Old Castle Hill Road and other large projects all nearby, every family that moves in will draw on the same schools and fields.
I ask the Department to refuse this application or, at the very least, require a full Social Impact Assessment and advice from School Infrastructure NSW before any decision is made.
Yours sincerely,
Shilpi

I strongly object to the proposed rezoning and increased development density at **5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill**.

The proposal must be considered in the context of the **existing traffic and infrastructure conditions**, not in isolation.

Crane Road is already severely congested during peak periods. The morning and afternoon traffic is particularly problematic, with long delays at the major intersection and significant volumes of vehicles travelling through the area. This is not occasional congestion — it is an existing and recurring problem that directly affects local residents every day.

For residents like my family, there is also **no realistic alternative route**. We rely on this road to travel to work, school and other essential destinations. When this intersection becomes congested, there is very limited opportunity to divert onto another road and avoid the problem. Additional traffic generated by a high-density development would therefore add directly to an already overloaded road network.

### Infrastructure has not kept pace with development

Castle Hill has undergone substantial residential development and increasing housing density. However, the surrounding road and transport infrastructure has not been upgraded proportionately to accommodate this growth.

It is unreasonable to continue increasing the number of residents and vehicles using the area while relying on the **same already-congested road network**.

Before further high-rise or high-density development is approved on Crane Road, there needs to be clear evidence that the surrounding infrastructure has the capacity to support it.

The issue is not simply whether the proposed buildings can physically fit on the site. The question is whether the **roads, intersections, public transport, pedestrian infrastructure, parking and other essential services can accommodate the additional population and traffic**.

At present, the existing conditions raise serious concerns about whether they can.

### Cumulative impact must be considered

This proposal should also not be assessed as though it were a standalone development.

The impact of this proposal needs to be considered together with the **existing and other proposed high-density developments in the surrounding Crane Road and Castle Hill area**. Each individual development may appear manageable when considered separately, but the cumulative effect is significantly more traffic, more vehicles entering and leaving local roads, and greater pressure on already constrained intersections.

There must be a point at which infrastructure capacity is properly addressed before additional density is imposed on the community.

### Impact on existing residents

Existing residents should not be expected to absorb the consequences of continued intensification without corresponding infrastructure improvements.

More high-rise development means more residents, more cars, more trips during peak hours and greater demand on the surrounding road network. The people who already live in the area should not have their daily travel times and access to work and school further compromised because infrastructure has failed to keep pace with development\.

I am particularly concerned about the **morning and afternoon peak periods**, when the roads are already under significant pressure. Adding substantial additional traffic at these times has the potential to worsen delays and congestion for everyone using this important route.

### Request for the proposal to be reconsidered

I ask Council and the relevant planning authorities to properly consider the **existing congestion and the cumulative impact of high-density development** before approving any rezoning that would enable further intensification at 5–13 Crane Road.

Any proposal for substantially increased density should be accompanied by **demonstrable, funded and adequate infrastructure improvements**, rather than assuming that existing infrastructure can simply accommodate further growth.

Crane Road is already under significant pressure. It should not be treated as an unlimited-capacity corridor for continued high-rise development.

Housing growth needs to be matched by infrastructure growth. Until the traffic and infrastructure constraints in this area are properly addressed, I believe the proposed increase in density at 5–13 Crane Road should not proceed.

I respectfully ask that my objection be formally recorded and that the proposal be reconsidered in light of the existing traffic conditions, lack of alternative routes, infrastructure limitations and cumulative impact of ongoing high-density development in the area.

I am writing to strongly object to the State Significant Development application SSD-95834209: Mixed Use Development and Rezoning at 5-13 Crane Road, Castle Hill.

While I acknowledge the need for housing within the Castle Hill Metro precinct, the scale, density, and design of this specific proposal represent an unacceptable breach of local planning controls and pose severe long-term risks to the local community. I urge the rejection of the proposal in its current form due to the following critical issues:

1. Excessive Building Height and Excessive Visual Bulk
I strongly object to the proposed 75-metre building height limit requested for this site. This represents a massive, unacceptable departure from the established medium-density character of the immediate Crane Road precinct and directly violates The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019. Granting a tower of this scale sets a dangerous precedent for the area. The extreme height and sheer physical mass of the structure will completely dominate the streetscape, looming over low-to-medium density residential pockets and destroying the local neighbourhood character. The public benefits of the project do not justify bypassing local planning controls to this extreme degree.

2. Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
The requested 75-metre height will result in severe overshadowing on neighbouring properties, public spaces, and the surrounding street network. The massive building footprint will block vital solar access to adjacent homes and apartments for significant portions of the day. This loss of natural light will directly impact the liveability, well-being, and energy efficiency of current residents in the immediate vicinity. A development of this scale should not be permitted at the direct expense of the solar access and amenity of the existing community.

3. Significant Traffic Impact, Local Gridlock, and Intersection Safety
I strongly object to the unsustainable impact this development will have on the local road network, particularly the immediate intersection of Mercer Street and Crane Road. The proposal seeks to route all traffic for over 150 apartments and more than 200 parking spaces through a single driveway on Mercer Street. This layout will force an unprecedented volume of vehicles directly onto the Mercer Street and Crane Road intersection.

Mercer Street is a narrow local road. Much needed vehicle parking along one side of Mercer Street restricts traffic flow ever further. With the increased traffic flow vehicles attempting to turn right onto Crane Road from Mercer Street during peak hours will face long delays, creating a severe bottleneck. This will cause traffic to back up heavily along Mercer Street, completely blocking access for service vehicles, emergency services and waste management trucks. Local residents attempting to travel along Mercer Street will be severely impacted along with other traffic passing through the area to the nearby school and church.

Crane Road is already a heavily congested thoroughfare that feeds into Terminus Street junction. Injecting hundreds of additional daily car trips at the Mercer Street intersection will create significant banking of vehicles on Crane Road itself, increasing the risk of accidents. The developer's traffic assessment completely underestimates how this specific intersection will fail under cumulative peak-hour and weekend retail traffic loads.

Conclusion
Without significant reductions to the building's height, a complete redesign of the vehicular access points to protect Mercer Street and Crane Road, this development will cause unacceptable delays and permanently compromise the liveability and safety of the area.

I request that the Department reject this application and protect the community from these significant negative impacts to the community living in the area.

I am writing to object to the proposed mixed-use development and rezoning at 5-13 Crane Road, Castle Hill (SSD-95834209). While I acknowledge the need for strategic growth in transit-oriented zones, the scale and intensity of this specific proposal represent a severe overdevelopment of the site. It introduces unacceptable impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated.
My specific grounds for objection are detailed below:
1. Severe Visual Impact and Incompatible Built Form
• Destruction of Streetscape Character: The existing character of this immediate block the Crane Road, Mercer Street, Brisbane Road consists entirely of low-to-medium density residential buildings, all of which sit comfortably under 5 storeys in height.
• Harsh Transition: The proposed high-rise tower creates a jarring and visually aggressive transition against the established neighborhood. It completely violates the low-rise visual amenity that current residents chose when investing in this area.
• Bulk and Scale: The sheer physical bulk of the towers fails to respect the surrounding streetscape, permanently destroying the visual cohesion of the Crane Road, Mercer Street, Brisbane Road parcel.
2. Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing on Neighbouring Properties
• Solar Deprivation: The proposed height will cast extensive, fast-moving shadows across neighboring low-rise properties. This drastically cuts down the mandatory solar access required for living areas and private open spaces.
• Reduced Liveability: Limiting sunlight to adjacent homes will severely lower residents' quality of life, diminish natural warmth during winter months, and force a heavier reliance on artificial heating and lighting.
3. Traffic Overflow and Local Road Network Strain
• Hazardous Intersection Pressure: The vehicle entry points and connecting local junctions around Crane Road and Mercer Street are already under intense pressure. The Crane Road and Terminus Street junction is a known local hotspot, accounting for the vast majority of vehicle accidents in this immediate precinct. Adding a high-density mixed-use development will inject hundreds of additional daily vehicle trips into a local network and inevitably bring more congestion to current traffic conditions.
• Overspill Parking: The inevitable overflow of visitor and commercial vehicles will spill out onto surrounding residential side streets. This will reduce street safety, restrict sightlines, and make it difficult for existing residents to find parking near their own homes.
4. Unacceptable Noise Impact
• Acoustic Disturbance: Introducing a major commercial and high-density residential hub into a quiet, sub-5-storey block will create ongoing acoustic issues. Residents will face constant noise from mechanical ventilation systems, loading docks, waste collection, and increased late-night foot traffic.
• Enclosed Echo Effect: The height and placement of the proposed towers risk creating an acoustic "canyon effect," reflecting and amplifying traffic and street noise directly into the bedrooms and living spaces of nearby low-rise properties.

The proposed rezoning and scale of SSD-95834209 represent a massive departure from the existing context of the block. The development places an unfair burden on surrounding low-rise residents through lost sunlight, heavy traffic, continuous noise, and ruined visual amenity.
I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject the current proposal and demand a significant reduction in height, bulk, and density to better align with the surrounding neighborhood.

I submit this collective objection as the representative of Strata 85092 (23-35 Crane Road, Castle Hill) residents across 160 units, united in their opposition to State Significant Development application SSD-95834209 EXH-141546992 for the proposed rezoning and mixed-use development at 5–13 Crane Road, Castle Hill.

This objection reflects a broad and firmly held position across our 160-unit community. We support well-planned housing near Castle Hill Metro, but we collectively reject a proposal whose height, density and design exceed what this site and neighbourhood can reasonably sustain. The effects would not be isolated to a few adjoining properties; they would be experienced across our community through loss of amenity, increased congestion and lasting changes to the area’s character. We therefore ask the Department to give substantial weight to the scale of this shared concern and refuse the application for the following reasons.

1. The Proposed Tower Is Far Too Large for Our Neighbourhood
The residents represented by this submission are united in opposing a 75-metre tower in a precinct defined by medium-density development. It would be plainly out of scale with Crane Road and inconsistent with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019. Its height and bulk would loom over lower-rise homes, dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the character experienced by our 160-unit community. We are collectively concerned that approving such a major departure from the planning controls would establish a precedent for further excessive development, compounding these impacts over time. The claimed public benefits do not outweigh the widespread and enduring consequences for existing residents.

2. Our Community Should Not Lose Its Sunlight
Across the 160 units, residents share serious concern about the shadows this development would cast over nearby homes, apartments, public spaces and streets. The tower’s height and broad footprint could deprive many households of direct sunlight for substantial parts of the day. This is a community-wide amenity issue, not a minor impact on a small number of properties: reduced sunlight affects comfort, wellbeing, energy use and the everyday enjoyment of people’s homes. Our residents should not collectively bear that loss so that a development of this scale can proceed.

3. The Traffic Plan Puts Our Local Streets at Risk
Residents across all 160 units share the concern that one driveway on Mercer Street cannot safely accommodate every vehicle movement generated by more than 150 apartments and over 200 parking spaces. Directing all of that traffic through a single access point would place an unreasonable load on the Mercer Street–Crane Road intersection and transfer the resulting congestion and safety risks directly onto the local streets our community relies on every day.

These concerns arise from the daily experience of residents throughout our 160-unit community. Mercer Street is narrow, and kerbside parking reduces the available width even further. At busy times, additional vehicles waiting to turn right into Crane Road would create long queues and could obstruct emergency access, waste collection and other essential services relied upon by all residents. The nearby school and church already add significant activity to the area. Traffic from this development would intensify delays, access problems and road conflicts across the neighbourhood.

The collective view of the residents represented in this submission is that the traffic assessment is not credible. Crane Road is already heavily used on the approach to the Terminus Street junction, and hundreds of additional daily vehicle trips at Mercer Street would worsen queues and increase the risk of collisions. The assessment does not realistically address the combined pressure of weekday peak traffic and weekend retail activity, nor does it adequately recognise the cumulative effect on a community of 160 units that depends on these roads for safe and reliable access.

What We Are Asking the Department to Do
The residents of all 160 units stand together in opposing this proposal in its present form. Through this submission, I convey their unified request that the Department refuse the application. The building height would need to be substantially reduced and the vehicle access fundamentally redesigned before any revised proposal could be considered acceptable. Our community is united in its view that it should not be required to bear unacceptable congestion, safety risks, loss of sunlight and damage to neighbourhood character for the sake of an oversized development.

This objection represents one clear and collective position across the 160 units: SSD-95834209 EXH-141546992 should not be approved in its present form. Residents are speaking with a unified voice because they share the same serious concerns and would collectively live with the consequences of this decision. We urge the Department to recognise the strength and breadth of that opposition, give it substantial weight, and refuse a development that is fundamentally too large for its setting and contrary to the interests of the established community.

I wish to formally object to the proposed 20-level building development on the grounds that its scale and location may create significant long-term impacts on the surrounding community, particularly given the site's hillside location, approximately 12-degree slope, existing high population density, and the large number of elderly residents in the surrounding area.

1. Suitability of the Site and Hillside Stability
The proposed 20-level structure represents substantial additional building mass on a steeply sloping site. The associated excavation, piling, foundations, basement works and retaining structures may alter ground conditions, natural drainage and soil loading.
It could create unacceptable risks of ground movement, slope instability, erosion or damage to neighbouring properties.
The assessment should consider not only the completed building but also risks arising during construction and the cumulative effects over the building's expected lifetime. Plus, there are defect building on top of the hill already. This also reflect the unpromising future of this development plan and the risk it could add on.

2. Excavation, Construction and Neighbouring Properties
A development of this scale is likely to involve significant excavation, piling, heavy machinery and prolonged construction activity. These works may create vibration, noise, dust and potential structural impacts on surrounding properties.
Addressing the below to the existing residents:
excavation and piling;
vibration monitoring;
protection of neighbouring buildings;
construction traffic;
pedestrian safety;
dust and noise;
stormwater and sediment control;
emergency access; and
procedures for unexpected ground movement or damage.

3. Impact on a High-Density Existing Community
The surrounding area is already densely populated. A 20-level development would significantly increase the number of residents, vehicles and daily activities concentrated on the site.
The planning assessment should examine whether existing infrastructure has sufficient long-term capacity for the additional demand, including:
local roads and intersections;
pedestrian facilities;
public transport;
parking;
water and sewer systems;
electricity and telecommunications;
waste services;
stormwater drainage; and
emergency services.
The assessment should also consider the cumulative effect of this proposal together with other existing and proposed developments in the locality. It should not add tremendous pressure on the area then improve on facitility later. This is pushing the original resident away and damaging the hills' ecology.

4. Elderly and Mobility-Impaired Residents
Particular consideration should be given to the existing elderly population. Many elderly residents may have reduced mobility and may be more affected by construction disruption, traffic changes, restricted footpaths, noise and emergency situations.
The development could increase pedestrian and vehicle movements and potentially place additional pressure on local services and emergency access.
The planning assessment should specifically address the needs of elderly and mobility-impaired residents, including safe pedestrian access, emergency evacuation, construction disruption and access to essential services. That entrance of the road is the key pathway for the ambulance to the retirement village/apartment.

5. Emergency Access and Safety
The scale of the proposed building and its hillside location raise important questions about emergency response and evacuation.
The applicant should demonstrate that fire, ambulance and other emergency services can safely and reliably access the development and surrounding streets.
Emergency plans should also consider situations involving extreme weather, road obstruction, power failure, fire, flooding or other events that could affect access and evacuation.

6. Stormwater and Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Development on a sloping site can substantially change natural water flows. Increased hard surfaces and altered drainage may increase runoff, erosion or concentrated water flows onto neighbouring land.
The assessment should account for major rainfall events and the long-term performance and maintenance of drainage infrastructure.

7. Amenity and Character of the Area
A 20-level building would represent a substantial change in scale and visual character. Its height and mass may affect surrounding residents through overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, wind impacts, loss of views and increased noise.

8. Long-Term Consequences
The planning assessment should not focus solely on whether the building can technically be constructed. Or short term profitability and increasing in population of castle hill area. It should also consider the potential consequences over several decades.
The long-term condition and maintenance of foundations, retaining structures, drainage systems and other infrastructure should be considered, particularly given the site's slope and the potential consequences of ground movement or drainage failure. All of the above are going to happen in the deterioured way in considering of this development. plan.