There’s many thousands of comments that could be made on the project and AI will have generated many a response to object to the proposal. So I don’t feel the feel need to go over old ground. 2 Simple facts exist.

1. The local progress association should have not messed around for so long with approving the original development. It is their fault that we find ourselves in this predicament now.
2. Look at the building the developers are proposing. It’s an eyesore, encroaching on the skyline in an area that has never seen development like that. The shadow drawings are not correct and how can you approve a building which darkens those below and prevents them from receiving solar - as an example.You can’t go and plonk an 11 storey building in the middle of a local village when it breaks just about every rule in the book (you don’t need me to repeat the 500 applications you already have on this subject)

So - it needs a compromise…we can’t begrudge local housing but instead of 11 stories, reduce it 6/7 and build it across the whole area, rather than providing a view corridor which serves benefit for the hair salon and maybe the butcher!! A view corridor is irrelevant.

This helps increase the number of apartments but reduces the size and bulk of the development - which let’s be honest looks more at home in the inner west and not Castlecrag - but gives the developers some more units as well.

It’s really not that hard, something needs to be built, just not something resembling an ugly duckling.

Please let common sense prevail rather than corporate greed

I object to the project due to the extra strain, pressure and size that this project will cause. As Castlecrag is a one way in and out suburb by one main road, it will cause a huge disruption to all and will put the suburb in turmoil. It will lose the heritage of the suburb and not suit it at all. Due to the size of it and excessive amount of levels - it should at max be 3-4 levels total. It will also cause for 22 trees to be removed which is a huge part of the suburb and heritage of its infrastructure. I object and this should not go ahead.

The original submission for this project was 5 stories in height. This was the result of years of discussions, negotiations and work by many people. The result was a proposal that was suitable considering the needs for shopping as well as residences taking into consideration the needs and infrastructure that exists. There is no known plan to make any changes to this infrastructure.

The proposed changes will put an incredible load on the existing infrastructure. This includes very limited public transport in the area that is likely to be overwhelmed due to this development and the roads in the area where congestion is a problem.

The form and size of this latest proposal is inappropriate for this area and will be a blight on one of the few suburbs that presently does not allow for high density accommodation due to the proximity of a heritage listed area.

When the original proposal was sold to the present owners, the business case for the development is assumed to have been undertaken as part of their due diligence. By extension, this is a pure profit exercise by the new developer.

On the basis if the above, this proposal should fail due to inappropriate size and form, inadequate infrastructure, not sympathetic with its surroundings, does not take into account the heritage of the subburb and universal disapproval by the residents.

I object to the project due to its size and removal of trees. It should only be 3-4 stories high and with the current transport pressure in this area, no train line or metro this will cause further delays, traffic and issues for all. It would lose its heritage and with being one road in and out the excessive length to build this will be additional stress on traffic and further delays. This should not go ahead.

We write to strongly object to the proposed development by Conquest at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag.

We have both been long term residents of the area, Pamela in Castlecrag from 1951- 1972, David in Middle Cove from 1950 - 1983 with a 9 year absence. We have both lived in Middle Cove from 1984 till the present. We are both well aware of the history and heritage of Castlecrag.

We are very concerned that this new dominant, vertical, bulky development greatly exceeds the excepted height limits and heritage compatible scale of buildings and the importance of the natural environment based on Burley Griffin's valued, unique, historical architectural policy for this area.

This development site is not in a Low to Medium Rise (LMR) area. So, it is NOT eligible for the height & density which is proposed. It even exceeds the height limits of buildings in nearby Northbridge Town Centre which does not have Castlecrag's lower classification & history.
If built, this development would create a very unwelcome precedent in Castlecrag. This proposed development does not meet statuary controls and those who propose it appear to have no interest or concerns for the history or importance of the suburb of Castlecrag.

Besides these general considerations there are other matters of concern.

There is not an adequate, accurate setback from the building's front boundary given the size and bulk of the building. This would result in a narrow footpath which would possibly be a hazard for pedestrians in this busy area.

There is an extremely abrupt transition between the bulk and height of this proposed building and the surrounding low-rise shops and dwellings. There is no integration between this development and the surrounding buildings & the environment. There is no provision for any plantings at the front of the new building to soften it and to integrate it with the trees and natural bush areas characteristic of Castlecrag - a heritage from Burley Griffin.

Castlecrag being on a peninsula has only 2 exit roads from the suburb, Edinburgh Road and Sunnyside Crescent. Edinburgh Road's exit at Eastern Valley Way (a busy major road from/to the City) has traffic lights. It only has a 2-lane exit. This area is already very congested in the morning peak hour and busy at other times. This exit would become extremely congested, especially if cars leaving the new building in the morning, exited onto Edinburgh Road. Sunnyside Crescent is a narrow, winding 2-lane street that exits Castlecrag at Eastern Valley Way.

It seems that there is not adequate parking planned for all the residents in the new development. There is limited parking in the nearby streets. They are often parked out now with few spaces available. If residents of this new development "garaged" their cars on the nearby streets the situation for present residents would become untenable.

Public transport is limited. Castlecrag is serviced only by buses. It is not near a railway station or the Metro. It is not a transport Hub.
There are just 4 bus services to Castlecrag. The 207 bus (also called the 208) goes between the City and East Lindfield every half hour. The 206 bus (also called the 205) goes, at peak times only, between Willoughby bus Depot and the City. The 194 bus goes between St Ives and the QVB in the City via Cammeray half hourly. The 267 bus goes to Chatswood hourly during the day. There is not enough Public transport here to act as a Hub. That a building will be near a transport Hub is often justification for high-rise buildings being built in the area. This is not the case in Castlecrag.

Only 6.67% of the Units in this new building are being provided for affordable housing. This seems inadequate.

Our general concern is that the people proposing this development seem to be only concerned with the number of dwellings that can be built on this site in Edinburgh Road.

They seem to have little concern for the heritage of Castlecrag or to have any commitment to the needs or wishes of the Castlecrag community or to the effect their development will have on the surrounding areas. In their proposal they seem to have failed to comply with many Government controls, requirements and standards to the disadvantage of the community.

Yours sincerely,

Pamela & David Arnold

P.S. David has read and concurs with everything written here.

This proposal represents a substantial shift away from the approved development and Castlecrag’s planning framework. It would bring greater height and density, significantly increase traffic, create overshadowing, and have serious impacts on the heritage conservation area and the village character.
Consultation was limited in scope and did not reflect the scale of this proposal. Thank you.

We are the Castlecrag local dentists serving the community for the past 20+ years. We take pride living here because this suburb is unique, representing and expressing the Griffin vision, which our community has fought to keep in the last 100 years.
I object to the project because the proposed tower goes against Griffin landscape principles. Not only it rips and kills the character of Castlecrag by removing far too many trees, it will also create traffic chaos.
Currently, traffic jams around the only round-about is evident every weekdays. But imagine having 50 more families /cars rushing to school or work in the morning! Not only getting in and out of Castlecrag, but parking will be nearly impossible.
This will significantly impact our business and our patients, let alone safety for the pedestrians (especially local school children walking to schools) will be a big concern. I can foresee dangerous driving from desperate drivers will be inevitable.
I felt betrayed when we agreed on a 4 stories village building, but the plan came back with a 11+ stories monster tower. This simply is not ethical, not sustainable and it will create problems that may cost the government millions dollars to fix, and worse, it may cost lives. Please represent our voice and choose what is best for the local residents.

Unfortunately the state government has been duped into approving this development.
It erodes the whole idea envisaged by the Griffins of a village where development considers and integrates the landscape.
The apartments in this development are not affordable.
The area cannot cope with the increased traffic.
There is not enough public transport.
I do not support this development.