I am writing to object to the proposed development at Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way. As a young adult living at home in Castlecrag, I care about the future of this area and whether it remains a place people actually want to live in.

One of my biggest concerns is that the development simply doesn’t follow the rules. The height limit is 9 metres, but this proposal is almost 49 metres tall. That’s not a small variation—it’s a completely different scale of development. The justification seems to rely on a rezoning that hasn’t even happened yet. That doesn’t feel fair or transparent, especially for a project of this size.

I’m also concerned about the quality of the living environment the project is creating. The applicant admits that 30% of apartments won’t get any direct sunlight in winter. That means a large number of people would be living in dark apartments, which doesn’t seem like good design or good planning. If this is meant to help housing supply, it should at least deliver decent living conditions.

Traffic is another major issue. Even now, the intersection near the site is often congested. The report says it’s already failing, and that the modelling isn’t reliable under those conditions. Adding hundreds more cars without a clear solution doesn’t make sense, especially in an area without strong public transport.

Finally, the “affordable housing” component feels minimal. Only 10 apartments out of 150, and only for 10 years, doesn’t seem like a meaningful contribution, especially compared to how big and impactful the development is.

I’m not against development, but this proposal feels out of proportion and not properly justified. It risks changing the character of Castlecrag, and diminishing the quality of living conditions for current residents, without delivering enough real benefit.

I ask that the application be refused, or be delayed until it goes through a proper planning process with full community input.

I have no reportable political donations to declare.

I am in high support of this project as this would be beneficial for me and my family as I visit the area on a weekly basis. We have been excited for this upcoming project and believe it would bring positive change to the area

I object to the project due to:
1. Overshadowing - South neighbouring properties are likely to lose many hours of meaningful sunlight for long periods, possibly up to six months of the year.

2.Public Transport Limited
2.1 Misrepresentation of accessibility
The location of the building site is 3-4 km's from the nearest rail stations, and theefore not a viable transport option for residents.
2.2 Relies on inadequate bus services
Bus frequency is limited, particularly outside of weekday peak hours, making public transport impractical for daily commuting.
2.3 Contradiction within project documentation
Construction planning acknowledges poor transport access, while planning justification claims the opposite.

3. Planning Non-Compliance and Strategic Misalignment
3.1 Fails to meet zoning and statutory controls
The proposal exceeds E1 Local Centre expectations, which are intended for small-scale, village-based mixed use development. The approved planning framework anticipates low to mid-rise built form, not high-rise intensification.
3.2 Incorrect reliance on Low to Medium Rise (LMR) uplift
The site is not within an LMR designated area and is not eligible for associated height or density bonuses. The EIS incorrectly imports planning logic from Northbridge, which is a designated growth centre.
3.3 No Transit Oriented Development (TOD) justification
The site is not serviced by rail or metro infrastructure, and bus services are limited and infrequent. This fails the fundamental principle of locating density near transport hubs.
3.4 Excessive height and scale beyond local and regional benchmarks
The proposal exceeds even nearby Northbridge Town Centre height limits, despite Castlecrag having a lower classification and sensitivity.
3.5 Incompatibility with surrounding built form
The development alongside to low-rise residential dwellings - homes and introduces a scale that has no precedent in the local area.
3.6 Misrepresentation of planning context
Future growth assumptions used in the EIS are unsupported by Castlecrag’s zoning structure, which is explicitly non-growth and heritage-sensitive.

The development as proposed will add cars for occupants, their visitors and servicing personnel for 150 apartments; plus shoppers and retail and centre employees. The location has single access which is about to be exacerbated by the development nearing completion nearby on Eastern Valley Way. The streets adjacent to the proposed development are increasingly used as a transport hub by non-locals completing their car journeys. As a 40 year Castlecrag resident I am experiencing the ever increasing delays in entering and exiting Castlecrag. The narrow streets providing alternative access to Edinburgh Rd via Sunnyside Crescent are increasingly dangerous due to excessive speed and single lanes between parked cars on n both sides.
The scale of the development boosted by the commanding position of the site will provide an everlasting Manhattans experience with related shadowing. If allowed to proceed as planned, the approval will prove to be eternally regrettable creating a forever traffic nightmare and destroying the unique ambiance of the suburb.

I support the project fully.

I strongly object to the 11 storey development firstly due to the outrageous scale. This will tower over everything else in the surrounding area of castlecrag. It does not suit the community/village style. We believe that it fails to meet the zoning and planning for the location.
There is no tree management scheme and it doesn’t blend with the Griffin principles.
We agreed to a 3-5 story scheme. It is the 11+ stories that have caused the mass concern. We agreed to a set back on the 3 -5 stories and this design has been completely overlooked for this new design. It seems to be far too big for the block and has no respect for the shade, property devaluation and overbearing presence it will create for the surrounding properties. In addition the monstrous size, environmental both soft area and residents oversights the traffic and parking impacts will be significantly negatively impacted. There will not be enough spots to park which will mean the local shops will have less passing traffic as people can’t pop in. This directly hurts local businesses and destroys the village. This building is NOT a “modified development” frequently referenced in the EIS statement it is this is misleading and doesn’t give any hope to the residents that conquest has any care for the people and community that they are upsetting.

The Federation objects to this development on the grounds included in the attached document

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission against the proposed development by Conquest at 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag.

On first glance at the architectural renderings for this building, it becomes immediately apparent that it should not fall on me, as a voting member of this community, to explain to the state government what is wrong with this development application.

The responsibility to prove the need for such a building in Castlecrag, should be placed on the private equity firm Conquest, to make its case to our elected representatives, who act in our interests, why this high-rise building should be built on this particular site at this point in time.

As per Willoughby Council’s zoning of the land surrounding the Edinburgh Road site, Castlecrag is primarily for “low-impact residential development that blends with the suburb’s unique, rugged natural landscape, bushland, and rocky terrain.”

The addition of a high rise building in the middle of Castlecrag, is so obviously out of place. When a previously approved DA for a 3-5 storey housing/retail development already exists, with community support, it raises questions as to the intention behind the introduction of high rise building in this area.

With the political tide turning at a State and Federal level, it will be decisions like this that remain in the minds of voters, not just in Castlecrag, but all around the state, where residents feel that their elected representatives are not serving the interests of their constituents.

Is this proposed development of state significance?

From the State Government website;

State Significant Development (SSD) in NSW refers to major projects deemed essential for the state’s economic, environmental, or social well-being under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Assessed by the NSW Department of Planning due to their size, cost, or complexity, these projects—such as large hospitals, schools, or mines—are approved by the Minister for Planning or the Independent Planning Commission

As an average voting resident of NSW, I can’t see how building this high-rise project in Castlecrag, qualifies as ‘essential’ for the economic, environmental or social well-being of the State in general, the residents of Castlecrag and the broader community.

Economic well-being:
Economic well-being resulting from a Conquest development, could be gained from erecting the same building on a more suitable site.

In keeping with the current development trend around Sydney, this sizeable building would be better suited to a site over a metro station, where there is generally a higher density environment already in existence, with the appropriate infrastructure and a greater surrounding population to turn a better profit in the retail space and luxury apartment market.

The Castlecrag site is more suited to a 3-5 storey building as per approved DA-2024/13.
The more suitable community friendly retail space will still provide economic well-being.

Environmental well-being:
The proposed buildings will cast significant shadows over nearby low-rise houses and apartments. This will reduce access to natural light and impact solar power generation, particularly during autumn and winter. Residents will be forced to rely more heavily on electricity for heating, cooking, laundry etc especially during peak usage times.
Native plant life and local wildlife will also be affected by the reduced daylight.
It is also important to consider the mental well-being of residents, which ultimately affects their social well-being. The impact of reduced natural light on mental health is well documented and needs to be taken seriously.

Castlecrag has a long and well-respected history shaped by the Griffin design principles, and this proposal runs counter to its core objectives of integrating architecture with the natural environment. Instead, it imposes a high-rise structure that dominates the area, diminishing the character of surrounding buildings and removing a substantial number of established, mature trees. Please, in considering this application from Conquest, pay particular attention to the loss of trees and the impact this excessive development will have on our precious natural environment.

Another environmental concern will be the impact of increased traffic if this development goes ahead. The roads surrounding the site were not designed to accommodate the increase that 150 new apartments, along with additional retail space, will bring.

Our community has proudly and consistently valued the Griffin legacy and its connection to the planning of our nation’s capital. That legacy, along with the broader importance of New South Wales heritage, appears to have been overlooked, or even scoffed at. Why is my State Government even contemplating the destruction of such an historically significant and unique suburb?

Social well-being:
Castlecrag has always functioned as a village, and development of this site has traditionally centred on a community hub. My personal memories of “The Quadrangle” are ones of a relaxed shopping environment with quality retail outlets, a convenient supermarket (Coles then IGA) and many happy occasions celebrated at cafes and restaurants with local friends and family, in a central courtyard area. It seems that community feel, is now set to be replaced with ‘retail space’ under the current proposal. The argument that the suburb needs a supermarket is ridiculous. We already had a supermarket that functioned very well without an 11-storey building above it. How is this proposed SSD essential for ‘social well-being’ when approved DA-2024/13 is more likely to serve the community’s needs.

The justification of this high-rise development in Castlecrag as a State Significant Development, in my opinion, has not been validated. The so-called affordable housing component appears to be below the minimum 10%-15% requirements. Given the high cost of the remaining apartments being valued from around $3.7 - $10 million, it is difficult to see how this luxury real estate would be classed as essential for ‘social well-being”.

Social well-being is “the ability to form meaningful, healthy relationships, feel a sense of belonging and interact positively with others and the community.” Conquest’s proposed SSD is completely opposed to this objective. Their lack of community consultation, minimisation of social spaces in the retail area, and their ‘it’s a done deal’ attitude, is unfortunately attracting negative attention throughout the local community and beyond.

Castlecrag attracts visitors from all around NSW, who come to see the brilliant architecture lovingly preserved by the Griffin society, and walk the many bush trails throughout the area. If this high-rise development goes ahead, it will build a sentiment of State Significant Disdain and the people of NSW who value the preservation of sites with esteemed historical significance, character and heritage, will remember this state government’s decision for generations to come. The 2026 decision that destroyed Castlecrag.

Why would the elected representatives of this state government act against the interests of its voters, by placing the wants of a faceless private equity company before the needs of the community, particularly when the argument for the SSD status is unclear?

The approval of a building of this nature, in this environment, will leave a lasting impression of a state government that is not acting in the interest of its people. However, I have faith that my elected state government will be a preserver of history, a protector of the environment, and a rational decision maker based on the community’s needs, by opposing this development application.

I object to the proposal by Conquest to build high rise apartments at 100 Edinburgh Rd because the size and scale of the development is inappropriate for a site abutting the Griffin Conservation Area, it is not serviced by a train station and would destroy the village character and lifestyle that locals have enjoyed for decades. While there is a need for more housing in Sydney Metropolitan Area, the 3 storey plans approved by Sydney North Planning Panel in 2024 were far more appropriate and acceptable to existing and potential future residents, and did not completely alter the character of the area where famous architects Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin made their home and constructed housing that today still blends with the surrounding bushland. Burley Griffin, who designed Canberra, is noted to have maintained, "I believe in architecture that is the logical outgrowth of the environment in which the building in mind is to be located". The Conquest development does not align with this philosophy and should be rejected.

This development is too big and completely out of context in Castlecrag, given its massive height and scale which is not only NOT in keeping with surrounding properties, but the entire area

It sits directly next to a heritage listed site - The Griffen Centre and will completely overshadow it and surrounding properties.

This site does NOT have close access to rail or metro services.

People who own herritage listed properties in our area are prohibited from putting a 2nd storey on their property, yet serious consideration is being given to big a massive tower immediately next to a heritage listed site which makes an absolute mockery of the historical relevance it is supposed to be given

This project will NOT address affordable housing as our area as the vast majority of these units will be multi million dollar units sold for profit by the developer.

I am tired of seeing developers pockets grow bigger and planning regulations being completely overlooked by our NSW Government under the guise of affordable housing. It is totally misleading and absolutely unacceptable.

Please reject this proposal in it's entirely and make the developer go back to build the original approved DA.

The developers community consultation showed no understanding or care of the very real issues in our local area and seems it was used just to tick a box in the application process.

The character of the Castlecrag village will be ruined by this tower. The community will lose valuable areas to meet and use as was previously such an important gateway to our suburb.