Of main concern I note:

1. Failure to Demonstrate Design Excellence
The application asserts compliance with Clause 6.23 of the Willoughby LEP; however, the independent Design Review Panel (DRP) identifies that multiple criteria will be difficult to satisfy, including bulk and massing, street frontage height, heritage response, and overshadowing. These issues remain unresolved.

2. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposal introduces tower elements reaching approximately 44m above a previously approved low-scale podium. This scale is inconsistent with:

The prevailing 2–3 storey character of Castlecrag
The established tree canopy skyline
The surrounding heritage conservation context

Strategic housing arguments do not justify a built form that is incompatible with its immediate setting.

3. Adverse Heritage and Character Impacts
The site adjoins the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. The proposal’s height and mass will visually dominate the locality and disrupt the established landscape and built form. Material choices do not mitigate these impacts.

4. Significant Overshadowing and Amenity Impacts
Independent review confirms that the development will generate significant shadowing, exacerbated by topography. The application understates these impacts and does not adequately address effects on neighbouring properties, especially concerning is silence on overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

5. Reliance on Unsupported Assertions
Across the submitted material, there is a consistent reliance on qualitative statements of compliance without sufficient quantitative evidence. This undermines confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the assessment.

6. Public Domain Benefits Are Overstated
While ground-level activation and open space are positive, they do not outweigh the broader impacts arising from excessive scale, overshadowing, and incompatibility with local character.

The proposal fails to meet the requirements for design excellence and represents an inappropriate scale of development for this site. The identified issues are fundamental and unresolved.

This application should be refused, or substantially redesigned to address height, bulk, scale, heritage integration, traffic and amenity impacts.

The proposed development of two towers at 11+ storey and 150+ apartments is a massive over-reach in an area without adequate public transport or access, and without context for a development of this size. The previous approval of three storeys could be expanded to 4-5 storey but absolutely not higher.

The design aesthetic is not at all in keeping with the previous approval and will turn this unique suburb into a crass facsimile of what the original designers had conceived of. The Labor Govt is known for protecting urban heritage and if this is allowed to proceed it will be a damning indictment on the values of preservation of things that matter. I support hight rise in areas served by the rail network or the metro, however the roads are already clogged and there is no prospect of further expansion in the future.

Please do not allow this property investment bank to put profits over quality.

Building is well designed, development has additional housing and diverse housing. Development will also provide much needed shops

The proposal is too big for the site. Issues are:
- Scale at the entry to a heritage suburb. There are many Burley Griffin designed homes and streets and the proposal is not sympathetic to the amenity of the area and its historical values.
- Overshadowing of the neighbourhood. Properties to the south are lower now and this will exacerbate that.
- Traffic. There are only two roads in and out of Castlecrag and only one currently with lights. Adding several hundred vehicle movements a day will place strain on the whole area and impact traffic in all directions.
- Fire. The suburb is surrounded by bush and in the event of a bushfire as in 1993 or more recently, 2019, residents would not be able to get out in an emergency. What has RFS said about this proposal?

For the record, I had no objection to the previously approved development (DA-2024/13). That development was in my opinion one with size and scale that was in line with the development guidelines provided community benefits and simply “fitted-in”.
I understand it is important to have more dwellings in Sydney, this proposed development is the wrong scale and has no substantive public infrastructure supporting it. To me, the obvious alternatives are the three to four storey developments that are either built or being built in the area between Castlecrag and Northbridge. This development’s scale conflicts with the very planning controls that are guiding the aforementioned developments.

Therefore this development is in the wrong place and it is incompatible with the buildings around it and the LMR uplift which is targeted closer to the city or along public transport routes. Page 48 of the developer’s Urban Design and Architectural Statement/Design Report illustrates the scale, abrupt transition, and overshadowing from the top of the hill on the dwellings on the southern side. (I didn’t see any modelling of shadowing expect for a reference to which get sun in winter and summer)
In Conquest’s own The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix MM), ‘Section 4.6 Surrounding construction activity’, makes the point that “Most other major residential projects are more than 2km away from the project site.” These major developments cited in that section have two things in common: near transport hubs; and have other buildings of similar scale nearby. The implication therefore is that if this proceeds these tower blocks will be the only ones in 2kms of another similar building. The other local developments are of the size and scale of the originally approved on this site (DA-2024/13).

I believe there will be a traffic problem too because the increase of the traffic at a key junction. The bus services to the city are good in peak hour (somewhat traffic constrained). Outside those hours the residents of this proposal will travel by car because the bus services are limited. Young people have moved from this and surrounding suburbs because of the lack of transport and amenity. This development is on an already busy intersection getting traffic through that intersection will delay the larger volumes that transit through the Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road from the northern suburbs and beaches. The development underestimates parking shortfalls. The surrounding streets are narrow, already filled with parked cars in the side streets near to the current precinct. Compared to the smaller scale developments cars along Eastern Valley Way, cars join the traffic flow between light changes much more easily and there is sufficient parking in these buildings.

I am writing in strong support of the development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

Sydney's housing crisis is not abstract. It is forcing people – teachers, nurses, young families – to move hours away from their jobs and families because they simply cannot afford to live near where they work. That is not a functioning city. It is a failure of planning over decades, and it falls hardest on people who had nothing to do with causing it.

Areas like Castlecrag are part of that failure. Well-located, well-serviced, and well-resourced – and yet barely changed. The housing stock reflects the preferences of those who already own property and benefit financially every time a development is blocked, not the community Sydney actually needs to house.

I am tired of watching a privileged few treat their suburb like a private asset, opposing any change while their land values climb and the next generation gets pushed further out. The people who suffer are not the ones at the community meetings. They are the ones who have already left, or who never got the chance to stay.

This development is exactly what should be happening here and at more sites like it – on a main road, near transport, replacing something that has sat idle for too long. I support it wholeheartedly.

My grandmother has been a resident of Castlecrag for over 30 years. She has been telling me that she looks forward to a new transformation happening in the Quadrangle. As a resident for many decades, she longs to see how this proposed mixed use development can add vibrancy to the community in Castlecrag.

I support this project as it's not only an attractive design, but it also provides affordable & diverse housing in the area.

I am writing in opposition of the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Rd. The proposed building envelope, specifically height and scale of development is completely inappropriate for this area.

I support development in the area and was a supporter for the prior DA which demonstrated what could be done through thoughtful architecture and community consultation. This current proposal however is a clear example of private developers looking to maximise profit by exploiting loopholes.

Conquest's proposal has zero sympathy with the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation area and will be a blight on the landscape for many miles in every direction. The visual impact sitting on a ridgeline and overshadowing will be a legacy we could do without and is completely out of scale with the local shops and surrounding environs.

As a resident that has had to abide by strict planning requirements of the Walter Burley Griffin Conservation planning requirements it is ironic to see big developer duck and weave to avoid meeting a similar standard. Whilst residents are asked to adhere to strict guidelines around built form it seems there are clearly two sets of rule. This cannot be allowed as a precedent - especially given the architectural significance of this suburb. As the gateway to what is one of Sydney's most significant architectural suburbs this building would have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the heritage setting.

Additionally as someone who only uses public transport I am also painfully aware of the fact that Castlecrag is already underserved by buses and remote from major transit hubs. With no train or trams this will place further pressure on limited bus services and will provide a choke point to a suburb that has only one point of access.

Neither the developer or the State Government should not be suggesting this will provide affordable housing either - given none of the apartments will be affordable in the true sense of the word. As someone who has worked extensively in public sector community engagement I would also note Conquest's attempts at engagement have been extremely disingenuous.

In closing Castlecrag is a community of people who value the vision of Walter & Marion Burly Griffin to provide sustainable and integrated architecture suitable for its environment. This is a site that can support higher density - but it should also adhere to the planning principles that have been established to ensure the cultural value of this suburb is preserved.

Regards,

Adam

I support this project because this project will provide much needed affordable housing in the area. This project will add verities of shops, cafes and diverse housing. It also has stunning design.