Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing - Cecil Avenue and Roger Avenue, Castle Hill

This Project has evolved out of zoning creep from the Castle Hill CBD into residential areas and high restrictions were removed during COVID with little notice and community consultation. The Castle Hill CBD has a massive footprint of low rise often unoccupied retail buildings and carparks with development being withheld by large corporations (eg local government and QIC who are withholding development in the existing footprint to pressure higher density and building heights for financial benefit) . In the meantime this new development encroaches on a broad scale residential community who will look directly at this eyesore, being the highest building in Castle Hill under the guess of mixed use and low affordability housing.
In addition the project has close to 1000 residents adding to the already constricted vehicle flow through exiting on Rogers Avenue clogging an already traffic constrained Francis Street/Orange Grove Parade and Crane Road or an already heavily impacted Cecil Avenue. In peak and during Funeral Events/School drop off/ Church and general Towers events these roads become congested with no controlled exit on Francis Street or Cecil Avenue bit of which dump onto a saturated Old Northern Road/ Terminus Street which are carparks particular during school zone hours. What is the traffic plan for these roads and for existing local residents? Where is the traffic study analysing this impact for Francis/ Orange Grove/ Crane/ Terminus/ Old Northern and Cecil Avenues. We already have rat runners and trucks regularly breaching the 3 tonnes weight limit on these back streets. These side streets are regularly packed with cars from commuters, funeral attendees, school, vet clinic attendees such that vehicles cannot pass and must give way to oncoming cars. I personally have already had 2 vehicles written off by drivers unable to negotiate existing heavily used streets. A full and satisfactory traffic assessment is required including solutions for entry on multiple streets to Old Northern Rd and Terminus Streets
In addition this Francis Street valley is one of the few valleys that dace east. This monstrous development will impact airflow which through our experience is very different to the rest of the streets at this end of Castle Hill eg Church Street/ Parsonage Rd. As the valley has easterly exposure through West Pennant Hills and Bigjigal Reserve and the associated creek ways we have unique birdlike which is often seasonal and rarely seen in the hills district particularly on the southern fringe including King Parrot, Crimson Rossella, the migratory Eastern Koel, Red Tail Black Cockatoos etc. The high rise structure together with modification to air flow and loss of vegetation will have a significant impact on these species and their range.
Finally this development is perched on the edge of the Western escarpment significantly interfering with the well being of local residence who predominately live in single dwelling , town house or duplex structures. This is an eyesore and should not ne part of the local development. One block back in the designated CBD fine. With the new alignment local residence are having their lifestyles and outlook interrupted. This is the only Ridgeline I Castle Hill where the development has residential properties facing directly from an opposing Ridge line or valley. To the east is medium density on an incline. To the north the high rise developments are somewhat hidden by the Ridge line. To the west the city slopes to the Western planes which is fine and to the south west we have medium density.
High rise development should be contained within the existing undeveloped Castle Hill CBD case to public transport and mostly away from the existing residential view.
A thorough traffic and wildlife assessment plan and solutions are a must for this project to proceed.
I should note I have attachments however these attachments despite being pdf and within size cannot be uploaded (is this system set up so objections are not submitted! ) Attachments can be provided upon request

Please see attached submission.

We are writing to formally object to the proposed development at 93-107 Cecil Avenue & 9-10 Roger Avenue Castle Hill, which is immediately adjacent to our property at 20 Lincoln Place Castle Hill. While we understand the need for development in our community, we believe this proposal will have a significant adverse impact on our neighbourhood in following ways:

1. Shading issue
ADG requires the developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the PPOS (principal private open space) for at least 3 hours between 9am to 3pm on 21 June. PPOS for dwelling house comprises a private outdoor space which is generally adjacent to a living room and typically provided as an alfresco and backyard. Front space is not included in PPOS. The solar access diagrams (attached Solar Analysis) provided by A+Design Group demonstrate that only from 2pm to 3pm, our 50% of backyard and alfresco area at 20 Lincoln Place will get direct sunlight, because our house is very close to joint fence with proposed development. It doesn’t meet the solar access requirement.

In addition, the solar access was assessed without considering other factors. Our home at 20 Lincoln Place already has shading issues in our backyard left and right corner because neighbours’ trees block sunlight from afternoon onwards, especially in winter. Please see attached solar panel report (imaged dated on 5 June 2021 based on afternoon sunlight). Without adequate sunlight, we are having moss, weeds and muddy soil already. The proposed development with 25 storeys will also significantly block out our morning sunlight, which leads to the increase of mosquitos, lichen and mould problems.

Thus, our concern is we will not have morning sunlight because of proposed development and afternoon sunlight because of neighbours’ tree in winter.

Our house and most of our neighbours currently have solar panels installed, which provide a significant portion of household’s energy needs. The proposed development’s height and proximity would overshadow our roof, significantly reducing the amount of sunlight available for solar system. The increase use of electricity will compromise our environment efforts and contradicts government commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Privacy issue
The proposed development includes windows and balconies that will overlook our private outdoor and indoor areas (bedrooms facing north-east). From the floor plans listed on Appendix 6 Architectural Package, apartments (layout D0201, D0301 and D0401) in Building D from level 2 have balcony facing directly to our place at 20 Lincoln Place and neighbours on the same street. Residents in Building C also can overlook our backyard and the bedrooms (facing to the proposal) from one side. We don't list floor plan in Building C here because half of units have balconies and bedrooms facing to Lincoln Place.

3. Traffic issue
Residents living in the East of Castle Towers (Old Northern Rd) between Francis St and Telfer Rd, are already facing significant traffic challenges. Out of these streets and roads, only Crane Road has traffic lights, which help residents exit slightly easy. During peak hours (Monday to Friday 7:30am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 6pm), turning right onto Old Northern Rd is extremely difficult for our residents to travel to/from work or access shopping centre. As a result, some residents take Crane Road to make the right turn, while others use Francis Street to turn left. With over 600 apartments and 900 parking spaces provided in proposed development, it will lead to more significant congestion on these streets during peak hours.

The “Appendix 11_Traffic and Parking Assessment Report” (Section 6.4 Traffic Impact on Page 29) suggests that the proposed development is expected to result in a theoretical nett increase of just 30 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak and a nett increase of just 23 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak period. However, according to 2021 Census, 47.9% of households in Castle Hill comprised couples with children and 34.8% of employed residents in Castle Hill commuted to work by private car. If we apply these statistics to the proposed development (617 apartments), it can be estimated that approximately 280 families in the proposed development will have children and approximately 200 of families will either drive their children to school/day care, or travel to/from work during the peak hour period. Given these figures, the reported increase of just 23-30 vehicles represents only 11-12% rise in traffic, which seems to significantly underestimate the actual impact.

In addition, Hills Adventist College, located on Cecil Avenue, had 795 enrolled students in 2023. During the peak hours, with current vehicles entering and existing the school area to drop off and pick up kids, the increase of vehicles trips from the proposed development will cause significant traffic congestion. This does not even take into account the additional traffic generated by commercial establishment in the proposal. We would like to raise the concern about traffic congestion and kids’ safety on the street.

4. Overdevelopment
Generally tall apartments have a separation gap such as a main road between the apartments and houses. This ensures there is a separation between the city centre and suburbs. We can see property developments in other suburbs such as Epping, Macquarie and Chatswood have clear separation between high-rise and low-rise.

The proposed 25-story buildings appear to encroach very close to our residential boundary, with minimal setbacks. This contributes to the sense of overdevelopment in an otherwise low-medium density residential area. Based on attached advertisement sent by A+Design Group, the proposed development site is not considered as city centre of castle hill. We concern that the proposed development with 25 story surrounded by low-rise residentials and commercials is not consistent with urban development plan.

In conclusion, we understand and support the development in our community as we love living in this area and we want to see the sustainable growth and prosperity of the Hills Shire. However, we are not happy with the proposed development as it will have a significant adverse impact on our neighbourhood.

Objection to Proposed Residential Tower Development

I am a local resident living in Cecil Ave. I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed residential tower development, primarily due to concerns regarding traffic congestion and pedestrian safety.

The intersections at Cecil Avenue and Terminus Street, as well as Francis Street and Old Northern Road, are already heavily congested during peak hours. The addition of a high-density residential development will significantly exacerbate delays and increase traffic volume and safety hazards in these already overburdened areas.

Furthermore, this development poses a serious safety risk to students of Hills Adventist College, particularly during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. Increased traffic in the vicinity of the school will heighten the potential for accidents and endanger the well-being of young pedestrians.

I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider this proposal in light of its potential to compromise both traffic flow and public safety.

As long-time residents of Castle Hill and Roger Avenue, we strongly oppose the proposed mixed-use development encompassing Cecil Avenue and Roger Avenue.

The proposed building height—up to 25 storeys—is excessive and out of character with all other apartment blocks currently built or under construction in Castle Hill. The scale and density of the development will significantly impact our privacy, property values, traffic congestion, local wildlife, and the overall quality of life we have been fortunate to enjoy in this neighbourhood.

Roger Avenue is a quiet, family-friendly cul-de-sac, where children regularly play in their front yards and neighbours gather under the canopy of mature Liquid Amber trees. These trees not only define the character of the street but also support a variety of native bird species. This development poses a threat to the tranquil, community-focused environment that makes our street so special.

Our local streets—particularly Cecil Avenue, Francis Street, and Orange Grove Road—are not designed to accommodate the dramatic increase in traffic that 615 apartments will generate. Currently, it is already difficult to exit Francis Street onto Old Northern Road during peak hours. The development proposal makes no mention of traffic lights, roundabouts, or other traffic-calming measures to address the increased congestion at already-busy intersections.

While pedestrian access through Roger Avenue is proposed, we are concerned about the inevitable overflow of on-street parking by residents and their visitors. This would reduce available parking for existing residents and erode the privacy we enjoy as a no-through road. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about potential disruptions during the construction phase—noise, dust, heavy vehicle access, and general disruption would significantly affect the peace, safety, and livability of our homes.

This development will place further strain on already stretched local infrastructure, particularly public schools. Many local schools in the Castle Hill area are already operating at or near capacity, and the addition of hundreds of new households will only intensify enrolment pressures. Class sizes are likely to increase, and school catchments may be redrawn, affecting long-standing community ties and the ability of families to access quality education close to home. Without significant upgrades to local schools and supporting infrastructure, this development is simply unsustainable.

We also object to the overshadowing impacts of the proposed high-rise buildings. Tall structures of this scale will cast long shadows over nearby homes, gardens, and public spaces, particularly in the afternoon. This will not only reduce natural sunlight in private backyards but may also affect the growth of vegetation and negatively impact the overall amenity of the area. Loss of sunlight is a serious concern for families, the elderly, and anyone who values the health and wellbeing benefits of natural light in their homes and outdoor areas.

I am a local resident of development proposal SSD-78156221 and have reservations on several aspects.
1. The proposed site is bordered by Cecil Ave, Orange Grove, Francis Street and Roger Avenue. These streets are narrow suburban roads and already suffer from congestion. This reaches peak around school open / close and normal work hours open / close. Indeed, the major arterial roads of Northern Road and Terminus Street are very difficult to navigate at certain periods each day. The proposed development will add to this congestion exponentially and an unwanted burden to local residents.
I see no proposal to address this issue from the development application, Hills Council or State Government to alleviate.
2. Access to the major arterial road (Northern Road) is limited to Francis Street, Crane Road and to a limited degree Cecil Avenue / Terminus Street. The additional traffic volume will add to the already congested nature of these roads. The major access point for Castlewood is also via Crane Road. The intersection of Crane / Terminus is controlled by lights and major choke point already. This intersection used by buses to access Castle Hill Metro and related bus terminal. The proposed development will add further to traffic congestion in the local area.
3. Demolition works will be extensive and create much noise and pollution affecting surrounding area. The probability of asbestos dust exposure is real and associated heavy vehicle traffic is a hazard to local residents and pedestrians. Debris on roads is also highly probable during the development phase. Many cyclists / motorcyclists use the surrounding roads and this is a significant hazard.
4. On street parking is already a constant daily hazard for local residents. The potential for more vehicles increases this hazard during development phase (tradesmen / construction workers etc) and afterwards by development resident overflow parking. The local area must be classified as resident permit parking only to suppress this hazard.
5. The proposed development is not in keeping with the local area which is primarily residential only. These towers are of significant height and the loss of privacy for neighbouring properties is unwanted and unfair. Indeed, it's probable local property prices will be negatively affected by this development. Many local residents are retirees and a potential loss of home values will have adverse affect on their retirement plans and standard of living.
6. The proposed development further limits the green spaces available to local residents. A residential complex does nothing for preserving this aspect of the local area.
7. There is a school / and preschool immediately opposite the development site. Cecil Avenue to be be avoided during school hours (traffic congestion / school zone) yet the proposed development is right at the front door and a hazard to these services.
8. I am not in favour of affordable housing in the local area. The social issues associated with social / low income / affordable housing will unavoidably affect the nature of the local community.

The instrastructure is not ready to support this project. The Old Northern Road, Terminus Street and Crane Road are so jam every morning and late afternoon.
Since the entrance is going to be located in Cecil Avenue or Roger Avenue, it is foreseeable that the traffic required to turn right into Francis Street would definitely increase significantly, compared to just the 2 lots in Roger Avenue now. This would block the Old Northern Road severely, as there is no right turn bay. Unless the Old Northern Road shall be expanded, I doubt if there other alternative to support this project without impacting the community.
At the same time, the school, library, and other public utilities are with high ratio already, adding another lots of residences would increase the burden.

Please refer to attached PDF document. Also refer to the video link below which is being referred into the attached document. Please read the document and then watch 2 of the attached video clips. They are also located at below URL.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bqpxs476GsXjmKBe7

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on SSD-78156221. Please see the attached response, Growth Data Form and Information Sheet for the applicant. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions or would like to discuss.

This is monstrous development which incorporates a small quiet back street (Roger Ave), and is totally out of character with what the surrounding residents originally purchased their properties for! The noise and traffic chaos that this proposal will cause once completed, will be totally extreme. It is very unreasonable to subject the local community on this side of Castle Towers precinct to this over the top development!!! This is a very beautiful suburb and area, but this over-development has to stop!
Look at any past developments and check out the street parking are totally full cause residents own more vehicles than the development caters for! And that is a fact!
My sentiments and objections reflects that of all the residents in the Roger Ave, Lincoln Place, Francis Street area

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the proposed mixed-use development located at Cecil Avenue and Roger Avenue, Castle Hill. This development, featuring a 5-25 story building, raises significant concerns for the local community.

Specific Concerns:
Building Height
The proposed building height will likely cast significant shadows on surrounding residential properties, reducing natural light and potentially impacting property values.
The Scoping Report and the Architectural Package contain conflicting information about sunlight duration on June 21st between 9am and 3pm. The Scoping Report (DCP Provision 2.5, page 37) indicates that only one property receives 3.5 hours of sunlight during this period. However, the Architectural Package (page 159) shows three properties receiving 3.5 hours of sunlight and one property receiving 3 hours. Additionally, the legend in the architectural plan states that properties receive at least 3 hours of sunlight, contradicting the Scoping Report's claim that properties receive at least 4 hours. These inconsistencies and conflicting information make it difficult to determine the actual sunlight duration.
The Architectural Package (page 159) also shows that at 12pm-1pm, the shadow of the buildings affect D, E, F, G in the image, but show them receiving sunlight during those times. I would like further clarification as if this is a mistake, D and E would be receiving 2/2.5 hours of sunlight during 9am - 3pm which is unacceptable.
How will privacy be maintained for the residential houses surrounding the building?

Traffic and Transportation
Increased traffic congestion due to the influx of residents and commercial activity.
Changes to parking regulations on public streets, potentially leading to parking shortages for existing residents. The easier access to the metro may lead to an increase in people parking on Roger Avenue and Francis Street.
The addition of traffic lights and roundabouts may not adequately address the increased traffic flow and could create further disruptions.
Access to the building through a small residential street is inadequate and will create traffic hazards.
Construction parking for workers and vehicles will further exacerbate parking issues.
In Appendix 11_Traffic and Parking Assessment Report (2.3 Site-Specific DCP 2012, Part D, Section 21, page 12,14) it states that “Residential vehicles are to have a maximum of two vehicular access points; one on Roger Avenue and one on Cecil Avenue” meaning that Roger Avenue will be an access point into the buildings and also includes adding a roundabout on Roger Avenue and Francis Street. Architectural Plan (page 15-17) scope of work does not mention new driveway for access for Roger Avenue.
Will Cecil Avenue be modified to allow easier access into and out of the building. How will this affect traffic in the surrounding area.
Infrastructure and Services
The existing infrastructure, including schools, may not be able to support the influx of new residents.
Potential strain on local amenities and public services.
Noise Pollution
Increased noise pollution from construction activities, commercial operations, and increased traffic.
Pedestrian Thoroughfare
While the public access pedestrian link between Cecil Avenue and Roger Avenue is intended to be beneficial, its design and management need careful consideration to ensure safety and minimize disruption to residents.
Construction Impact
Disruption during the construction phase, including noise, dust, and traffic diversions.
Community Impact
The scale and nature of the development may not be in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood.
Potential impact on property values for existing residences.

Additional Issues:

Waste management and disposal for the increased number of residents and commercial tenants.
Emergency vehicle access to the building and surrounding areas.
Potential for overcrowding of public transport.
Impact on local wildlife and green spaces.
Security concerns related to increased population density.

I request that these concerns be thoroughly investigated and addressed before any approvals are granted for this development. I urge the council to consider the potential negative impacts on the existing community and to ensure that any development is sustainable and integrated responsibly into the neighborhood.

I live almost opposite this planned project, in a unit complex (of 5 storeys height) on Old Northern Rd.
The height of the planned buildings in this project is extreme. 25 storeys is not appropriate for Castle Hill.
The buildings would visually dominate a large number of residential houses and low-medium-profile buildings in the area of Cecil Ave, Roger Ave and Old Northern Rd. The shade that these planned buildings would cast would be unpleasant and would reduce the quality of living in our own homes. In my opinion, this development should be scaled back, to be no more than 12-14 storeys high.

- Shadowing effect on my property as a result of the adjacent development project.
- Parking congestion on Roger avenue and surrounding streets, during and completion of the composed construction.
- Postponement of initial planning of 5 single level townhouses on 7 roger avenue castle hill.
- The perceived lack of infrastructure relating to power, water and road vehicle access.
- Insufficient public schools to cater for occupiers of the development if it proceeds
- Total disruption to the surrounding area during construction if it proceeds (noise, pollution, the absence of wild life and general upheaval of the surrounding narrow streets)
- A large number of registered vehicles are owned y occupiers of roger avenue, many of which have to street park

I wish to indicate my strong opposition to the proposed development. The scale of the proposed structure is not consistent with the surrounding area and will severely impact amenity and the community’s way of life. It is also a hugely compounding factor with the numerous other large scale residential developments in the area.

Specifically, I object to:
1. Roger Avenue being used as any kind of thoroughfare.
2. the number of and the maximum height of the proposed buildings. They are simply too big for the area.
3. The 3 car parking levels above ground. These will unacceptably increase noise, sound, pollution
4. the presumed necessitated alterations to local traffic flow in and around small surrounding streets, including Roger Avenue, and any proposed widening of roads, addition of roundabouts and traffic lights in nearby streets
5. the inclusion of affordable housing accommodation
6. disturbance and dislocation of many birds and other wildlife in the surrounds: The area is home to lorikeets, rosellas, brush turkeys, masked lapwings, cockatoos, sparrows, and a large possum population.
7. construction: there will be a detrimental impact to local homes and the health of residents given the scale of and proximity to the proposed development
8. increase in the volume of cars, people, noise into our area: the proposed scale of the development would significantly disrupt traffic flow in the area
9. detrimental and significant impact to local property values, particularly given the number and size of the proposed development
10. increase in local crime
11. impacts to local services including the local government schools
12. other similar, significant developments in the same area being proposed or being built at the same time.

The proposed 25-storey building is located a short distance from my family property. Any increase in shade or reduction in sun exposure will significantly impact our solar panel's power generation, which currently fully offsets our electricity costs. This would cause economic disadvantage to my family due to the construction project. I kindly request that you provide a remediation plan to address this issue.

Additionally, our street traffic is already heavily congested, particularly during school hours in the morning. How do you intend to ensure that local residents will not face further disruption from the increased traffic caused by your construction project?

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development near our residence at 24 Lincoln Place. This development will have a significant impact on our property and our quality of life. We urge the departmenet to reconsider aspects of this plan and address our concerns.

1. Loss of Sunlight and Impact on Solar Access
As owners of a single-story home, we have a legal right to access sunlight in winter for at least four hours per day. The proposed high-rise buildings will cast significant shadows on our property, further reducing our access to natural light.

Has there been a thorough study on how the upper floors of the new buildings will impact sunlight access for adjacent properties?

Has the shade study considered that Lincoln Place is situated on a slope and is approximately 15-20 meters lower than Cecil Avenue? This elevation difference means that overshadowing effects will be more severe than in a flat terrain scenario.

2. Impact on Solar Panels and Energy Costs

We have invested a considerable amount of money in solar panels to access affordable and clean energy. This development will significantly reduce the effectiveness of our solar panels, leading to increased electricity costs.

Is the developer committed to compensating homeowners for the loss of sunlight and the resulting increase in energy bills?

3. Noise, Dust, and Construction Disruptions

The construction of high-rise buildings will result in long-term noise pollution, dust, and vibrations, which will affect our daily lives. What measures will be in place to minimize these disruptions for nearby residents?

4. Privacy Concerns

The height of the proposed buildings will directly impact the privacy of surrounding homes, including ours. Has any consideration been given to privacy screens or setbacks to mitigate this issue?

We strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to conduct a thorough review of these concerns and take necessary actions to mitigate the adverse impacts on existing residents. We appreciate the opportunity to have our say and look forward to your response on how these issues will be addressed.

This development at first glance appears to significantly stick out from it's immediate surroundings. However, in the future, Castle Hill will be one of the main town centres in Sydney's North West. This development needs to be considered in line with the future site context. The Hills Council is planning for the Castle Hill area to become the premier centre of the Shire. As a result, Council are planning for 20-30 story developments in select spots. This particular development site was earmarked for up to a maximum of 18 stories. Combined with the affordable housing provisions in the SEPP, the development is consistent with government plans.

This development will be beneficial for the future of Castle Hill and the greater North West for a few reasons:
- It increases residential density near a metro station which reduces the demand for car-use, and thus reduces the increase in traffic.
- It increase the walkability of the centre by providing a walking link through the site from Roger Avenue to Cecil Avenue.
- It increase the financial sustainability of council by providing a large revenue base without significantly increasing the amount of infrastructure which council owns which require expensive maintenance like roads, thus reducing council rates for existing ratepayers.
- Reduces cost of providing new infrastructure for Sydney Water, and Endeavour energy and compared to new greenfield developments, which thus reduces costs for existing Sydney Water and Endevour energy customers.
- Helps support growth in local business opportunities by increasing the population catchment.

There a few constraints for the future growth of the Castle Hill precinct, mainly:
- Castle Hill high school is currently significantly overcrowded, with 1883 students enrolled in 2024, despite a 840 student enrollment cap.
- Castle Hill public school did receive an upgrade, which provided an extra 36 classrooms and opened on Day 1 of Term 1 2025.
- The precinct is bisected by major roads which limits pedestrian connectivity, and therefore the effectiveness of transport oriented development and the transition to public transport use. In their Castle Hill precinct plan, the Hills Shire Council proposes a pedestrian bridge across Cecil avenue right next to this development to facilitate pedestrian connectivity.
- There is a lack of open space in Castle Hill, with existing open space and playing fields at capacity. The Hills Council expects there to be an additional requirement of 10ha of open space if the residential growth within Castle Hill is expected to materialise under the Castle Hill precinct plan.

These constraints can be fixed, but they will be expensive for council and state government. As a result, the developer should contribute by building the pedestrian bridge over Cecil Avenue as identified by council. The cost of such a bridge would likely be between 5-10 million, as a similar size pedestrian bridge was built in Beecroft for around 5 million. This contribution should be on-top of normal developer contributions.

This development will help revitalise the Caste Hill centre in line with Council desires, and therefore should be approved.

Please refer to the attached documents.