While supporting the NSW Governments initiatives to provide more housing, especially for first home buyers and families at an affordable level, this needs to be done with a clear respect to the small amount of of very significant architectural heritage we have in Sydney. Acknowledging the whole of Sydney should share the housing intensification, it must be done where there is good public transportation and with sensitivity to the quality of the public domain and must not be done while destroying irreplaceable heritage.

Castlecrag is an exemplar of where the original developers created sub-divisions with strict caveats to ensure the low rise housing fitted sympathetically into the very special, rocky, native flora, steep harbour side landscape. The design and layout of the roads and inter-connecting bush paths was planned to retain as much of bushland character as possible.

The developers weren't any developers, Walter Burley Griffin and Marian Mahoney Griffin had won a international completion for the design of the nation's capital in Canberra. Their design for Canberra paid great respect for and enhanced the natural features of the site. Their legacy in creating Castlecrag must be protected not only for its intrinsic value but for its heritage connection to Canberra. With little built environment heritage of this quality, we can't afford to loose it or have it severly impacted on, because once this happens we will never get it back.

The houses they designed themselves were made of local sandstone with mainly flat roofs and sited in a staggered way to make sure they sat firmly in the landscape, didn't dominate the Eucalyptus trees and maintained views between them and/or over the top to either the surrounding retained bush or the water.

The proposed development on the corner of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Rd is the complete antithesis of this by completely dominating the landscape and surrounding low-rise development , which by careful conservation have maintained the very high design quality of this unique garden suburb.

The current approved DA shows how the community can be provided with a new mixed development in a way that is sympathetic to the surrounding Griffin and Haven Conservation Areas.

While Willoughby City has clearly shown in the Chatswood Town Centre and other places it can take its share of the additional housing required, the State Government must not make Castlecrag a showpiece for where the 'burden must be shared'!

A quote from the late James Valentine, radio presenter on 702Sydney- "where will the cars be parked?"
To quote from an article by HG Nelson in the SMH on Saturday 26th April
"James established an umbrella group the Even Greater Sydney Planning Committe (EGSPEC), a weekly half hour must listen on ABC702.This committee oversaw sydney's enthusiasm to knock everything down . Persuading governments of all colours to bend development & finance rules. Rinse & repeat.
Citizens were distraught every time they stepped out their front door wondering which clowns in the big house had allowed that heap of S... to be hurled skywards Without any oversight."
When I read this and the whole article,it is so applicable to the current development proposed in Castlecrag.
The scale of the development is the most outstanding error in my opinion.
1.The visual impact of an 14 storey high twin towers on top of a ridge, which will be seen for multiple kms around, in a heritage area where tree canopies and nature lead the way is crazy, sticking up like a sore thumb. The question of shadowing & loss of light has not been addressed in this new proposal.
2.. Where are all the residents parking their cars? And parking they will need, as Castlecrag is NOT a transport hub. Not near a railway station & has buses which regularly don't stop to pick up passengers, as they are already full.
3. There is an approved development proposal already in place. It is for a low to midrise block of apartments. the current proposal has used many of the dimensions of that proposal and not changed the dimensions for many of the aspects of the building.
From the Incorrect methodology for setback to failure to adjust for increased height & others.
4. Traffic snarls are a common occurrence at the one set of traffic lights where the majority of residents exit the suburb.
There is a 2 lane exit strategy, one to turn right & one to turn left & straight ahead. With the addition of cars from the development, the ability to exit the suburb safely & in a timely manner will be impacted in a negative manner.
5. The aspect of safety is not addressed - Castlecrag has a lot of bushland, in the event of a fire emergency - the ability of residents to leave will be impacted.
6. Affordable housing in this proposal ? The first home buyers are struggling bigtime with expensive mortgages- these apartments will not be affordable given the location in Castlecrag.
7. In the construction of the underground carparks, Castlecrag has already experienced the lack of compliance by the developer in following the requirements for sensible, safe & minimal disruption. The noise, the dust & the traffic snarls were an example of lack of compliance.

I would like to object to the project on a number of grounds including incompatibility with surrounding built form, significant increase in traffic generation, parking shortfall, questionable affordability outcomes, public transport limitations, excessive tree removal and lack of meaningful engagement. The original approved development was the result of lengthy community consultation, whilst tenuous, the outcome was acceptable to the local community given the height, amenity and access to meaningful retail space which has been removed from the area.
The recent developments along Eastern Valley Way have been respectful of the local built form compared to the height of this development which sets an excessively high precedent and is not compatible with the local Burley Griffin planning philosophy that defines the Castlecrag streetscapes. The original approved DA was more respectful and there is concern that this will create a precedent for an abundance of high rise buildings which conflicts with the Castlecrag heritage.
The number of apartments will add pressure to an already strained main road and intersection. The residents fought hard to get a right hand turn at the Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way intersection due to major safety concerns. The Motor Transport Authority was reluctant to introduce due to the added strain placed on Eastern Valley Way. This level of additional traffic from the apartments will add further to a very congested thoroughfare and could pose additional safety concerns with cars trying to turn right into Eastern Valley Way from the apartments against the lights.
Furthermore, parking is an issue the local vicinity and the multitude if occupants and lack of adequate parking in the proposed building will create parking issues and local residents will lose amenity as parking spreads into the residential streets. The public transportation in Castlecrag is also inadequate without access to trains, the bus service is already inadequate and therefore, traffic pressure will inevitably increase. This is clearly trying to take advantage of the TOD planning guidelines but the transport infrastructure does not qualify for such guidelines.
The likelihood of selling/renting homes in the for affordability purposes is unlikely to meet the legitimate needs of local healthcare and service employees and is clearly being used as a means to obtain approval for a development that does not meet the local planning guidelines.
The loss of 22 trees also impacts the local landscape of Castlecrag particularly as this intersection is the gateway to Castlecrag and the loss of landscape only adds to the unsightly impact of the high rise which is uncharacteristic with the local conservation area.
The developer has openly commented that they will not consider any community input in its proposal. Given the extensive consultation previously and the mutually acceptable amenity of the approved development this proposal defies community planning principles. I understand that the SSDA relies on past consultant reports relating to the previous development - these reports should be redone taking into account the revised scale of this development including refence to setbacks and traffic volumes.
The heritage of Castlecrag should be respected Whilst I am not against development and change the previous approved scheme and developments recently completed or underway are much more respectful of the heritage of Castlecrag particularly noting the. strict heritage overlays on a number of the buildings in the area including Castlecrag Private Hospital. I strongly object the development and urge consideration be given to declining teh application and reverting to the previously approved scheme.

After years of intense and ultimately productive negotiations, a DA was approved by Willoughby Council for a 3-5 story development which largely met the needs of residents and the (previous) owner. Now, this new proposal emerges with no notice, no negotiation and no meaningful consultation with Castlecrag residents. The proposal can only be described as preposterous: in its scale and in its total disregard of the impact on Castlecrag residents and the century-long heritage of the area. The proposal, which is non-compliant on so many levels, has one aim, and one aim only: to maximize the commercial return to the developer.
I have no objection to the re-development of the site, given the demolition of the previous Quadrangle which was clearly past its use-by date. I also sympathise with the State Government's need to increase housing stock in NSW. However, this development is simply in the wrong place and will have lasting negative impacts on all who live in Castlecrag, many of whom are long term residents who have fought hard (with Willoughby Council's ongoing support) to preserve the unique character of Castlecrag as established by Burley Griffin.
The proposal falls short of an acceptable development in numerous ways, amongst them:
TRAFFIC IMPACTS: the addition of 150 plus households will potentially add 300 plus extra vehicles to an intersection that is increasingly problematic. The inclusion of a full-scale supermarket will also significantly increase visitor traffic to the area. It is highly likely that access to the suburb, given that this is the only realistic access point, will be severely affected, and commuter traffic to and from the city will also be adversely affected as the intersection becomes more congested
COMMUNITY SPACE: the development does not provide adequate community space/facilities. This is crucial as this is the ONLY location in Castlecrag where a village-atmosphere cab be created
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS: The development is adjacent to low rise buildings (which is THE regulatory plan for Castlecrag entirely) and has a scale that has no precedent anywhere near the site. Further, the site is not within the remit of LMR and TOD zonings so has no justification under any current State Government zoning initiatives
ADVERSE VISUAL AND SHADOWING IMPACTS: The site is the only gateway to a unique suburb. The proposed buildings will dominate the landscape by their inappropriate height and bulk. Further, nearby residents, especially on the southern side, will be severely affected by overshadowing
HERITAGE IMPACTS: The development is completely at odds with the Griffin plan, one which is recognized worldwide as a major success in urban planning in its ability to create a living environment which is sympathetic with the fundamental nature of the landscape and its pre-existing biodiversity. There is nothing about the proposal which gives due regard to the Grifin plan, the central tenet of which is that the built form is secondary to the existing landscape. (It is interesting to note that at one of the public meetings I attended, the Heritage expert within the developer's team openly acknowledged that the plan had completely inadequate regard to the Griffin legacy. It was also at that meeting that the developer's main representative essentially acknowledged that the meeting was just "a box-ticking exercise")

With the inclusion of additional issues, including significant tree loss, inadequate setbacks and insufficient affordable housing allocation, it can be seen that the proposal is completely unacceptable and must be rejected. Should the development proceed unaltered it has the real potential of ruining the whole character of the suburb and its livability.

I am a nearby resident and I strongly object to this proposal.

At a fundamental level, this development does not align with the planning framework that applies to Castlecrag. The scale, height and density being proposed are far beyond what is envisaged for an E1 Local Centre, which is intended to support small-scale, village-style development. This is not a designated growth area, and it is not supported by the level of public transport infrastructure that would justify a development of this intensity. Despite this, the proposal appears to rely on planning logic and uplift provisions that apply elsewhere, but not here. This creates a strong impression that the controls are being stretched to accommodate a development that is out of place from the outset.

The most immediate and serious impact for residents is the sheer scale of the building and how it sits within its surroundings. An 11+ storey form adjacent to low-rise homes, with no meaningful transition, is not a minor variation — it is a complete departure from the existing and intended character of the area. This will have direct consequences for neighbouring properties, particularly in terms of overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Based on the information provided, it is likely that nearby homes will lose significant winter sunlight for extended periods. This is a substantial impact on amenity and liveability, and it has not been transparently or adequately assessed in the documentation.

Equally concerning is the environmental impact. The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established trees, including mature canopy trees that contribute significantly to the character and ecological function of the area. In a suburb defined by its landscape setting, this level of tree loss is not a minor issue — it is a permanent and irreversible change. The ability to replace this canopy is limited by reduced deep soil areas, meaning the long-term environmental loss is likely to be far greater than what is suggested.

Traffic and safety impacts also raise serious concerns. The proposal represents a substantial increase in density and parking, yet the surrounding road network is already congested and operating under pressure. The claim that traffic impacts will be reduced or manageable is difficult to reconcile with the scale of the increase. It is far more likely that this will lead to worsening congestion, increased rat-running through local streets, and heightened risks for pedestrians, particularly around shops and schools. These are not theoretical concerns but practical, everyday impacts on the safety and function of the এলাকায়.

There are also broader concerns about the credibility and completeness of the proposal. Key information appears inconsistent or incomplete, including the way compliance with planning controls is presented. In some instances, metrics appear to have been manipulated or selectively interpreted to meet requirements. Important impacts, such as overshadowing and visual bulk, are not clearly or directly compared with the already approved scheme, making it difficult to properly understand the extent of change. Community consultation also appears to have been limited and has not resulted in meaningful design changes, which further undermines confidence in the process.

Taken together, these issues point to a proposal that is not simply a marginal variation, but one that is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning intent for the area and would result in significant and lasting impacts on residents, the environment, and the character of Castlecrag.

For these reasons, I strongly urge that this proposal be refused.

Objection to Development by Conquest at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag 2068

Personal background
Grandfather and Grandmother purchased property in Castlecrag in 1924, my mother was born in Castlecrag ( 87 yrs there ) as were her children. I spent sixty-five years (65) there, moving out a couple of years ago. My grandparents knowing Walter & Marion Mahony Griffin personally arranging for Marion to set up the first school in their home in 59 Sunnyside Cres., Castlecrag called the K.O.L. (Kingdom Of Love) the home is still standing.
It is from what I’ve learnt through this family history I draw my objections
In my opinion the Government must be mad to approve Conquest plans for a 13 storey apartment building to be built here at Castlecrag. It would destroy our heritage and destroy Walter Burly Griffins Plans for the aera and the environment which they so eagerly fought to preserve, OR does the NSW Government not understand the importance of Walter Burly Griffin who along with his wife designed the Capital City of Australia.
• Walter and Marion Griffin designed Castlecrag as a low density community based suburb.
• This 13 storey monstrosity would have Walter and Marion Burley Griffin turning in their graves to see something they planned and loved totally destroyed
• There is absolutely no necessity for a 13 storey block of units to be built or even thought about being constructed here at Castlecrag
PARKING and CARS
• Conquest says there will be ground and lower ground floor space for retail shops
1 Conquest does not offer parking for people expected to use these retail shops, where are they going to park! “on cloud nine”?? they wont be able to use Edinburgh Road or the off streets as these are already chocked even when the ‘Quadrangle Shopping Centre’ was there. Which had roughly same for the spaces than what Conquest is suggesting for residence alone.

2 Conquest does not even supply enough parking for the residence either, expecting people not to own cars and defiantly not to have visitors. . . in this day and age people will be purchasing electric cars, Conquest should be supplying more parking - have they made provision for car charging in the units car spaces

3 CAR MOVEMENT The no of permeant residents expected to live here (most will have 2 cars, but nowhere to park them) where are they going to park? Conquest says that people over 65 don’t drive, who’s ivory tower are they living in . . . this will create havoc getting out of and into Castlecrag.

• To my understanding the maximum should be 3 stories as in Northbridge
The Government has not approved 13 storey apartment buildings on Penshurst Street where there is better and faster transport either to Chatswood Station for Metro or Train. Or direct into The CBD.

• Conquest plans to cut down old trees that have been around for many many moons thus destroying the environment which the NSW Government is so intent on retaining..

• What trees are they planting and what open space are they going to provide????

• It would become an eye sore just like the block of units right on the tip of McMahons Point, Which is totally out of place and should never have been built in the first place. The only difference between this building and the proposed one to be built st Castlecrag is that they are both well out of character with the surrounding area, that has destroyed the area as a whole at McMahon’s Point, this one to be built would do the same totally wreck the character of Castlecrag and surrounds while sticking out like a sore thumb.

• I can not think of anywhere in the Willoughby City Council area other than Chatswood that has high rise to this extent. Castlecrag is well outside the area designated for developments of this type of 13 stories

David Robertson

The proposed development is too big, both in its height and the number of units.
This is amplified by being located on one of the highest points in the suburb, thereby causing detrimental shadowing effects and visual blight.
It will be there for generations to come.
Will it be like Eddie Obeid's developments?
And be remembered by the public for a long time as Scully's Scourge or Minns' Monster?
Would it not be better to provide a development that leaves a positive legacy for current and future generations?
Thank you,
Lesley Naimo

Objection to Proposed SSD — 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag

There is something instructive in how this application began. A thoughtful, low-rise design had already been approved for this site, one that respected the Griffin Conservation Area, retained nearly all its trees, and sat comfortably within the scale of the suburb. Then Conquest bought the site, looked at the approved plans, and decided the problem with them was insufficient profit. The proposed 11-storey towers now before you is the solution to that problem. Not a planning solution. A financial one.

That reframing matters, because the SSD Housing Pathway was never intended as a mechanism for private uplift. It was designed for suburbs with rail, metro, frequent buses and genuine transport capacity. Castlecrag has one road in and one road out, no train station within walking distance, and bus services that residents describe with the weary affection one reserves for a relative who is always late. Designating it a housing hub because a neighbourhood supermarket once operated on the site is not strategic planning. It is a policy applied without judgment.

Castlecrag is not precious about change. The Griffin philosophy was never about stasis, it was about buildings that defer to landscape, that sit below the canopy, that arrive in a suburb rather than announce themselves above it. Two 11-storey towers at the gateway of a low-rise heritage conservation area does not defer to anything. They dominate the ridge line, permanently alter the sense of arrival, and cast the kind of shadows that trees, which provide filtered, living light, do not.

Twenty-two trees will be removed, including eight high-value indigenous canopy trees. Deep soil zones will be reduced, meaning whatever is planted in their place will not, in any of our lifetimes, become equivalent. The EIS knows this, which is perhaps why it has not provided a Tree Management Plan. What you cannot measure, you need not defend.

The affordable housing offer, 6.67% for 15 years, at rents still beyond most moderate-income earners, is the fig leaf on an otherwise naked act of overdevelopment.

The Department is being asked to override local planning controls, discard an already-approved sympathetic design, and permanently alter one of Sydney's most architecturally significant suburbs. In exchange, the community receives a couple of towers it never asked for and housing it cannot afford.

That is not a trade-off. It is an imposition.

I urge the Department to refuse this application.

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD 90134958 at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag.
The proposal for two 11 storey towers, 150 dwellings, a floor space ratio of 4.2:1 and five basement levels constitutes an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site.
This scale bears no reasonable relationship to:
• the approved development outcome already granted for this land,
• the surrounding built form, which is overwhelmingly one to three storeys, or
• the established character of Castlecrag as a low rise, landscape dominated suburb.
The height increase from approximately 15.75m to nearly 49m represents a profound and unjustified departure from what has been considered appropriate for this site.
The proposal provides no credible transition to adjoining low density residential land or the nearby Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Instead, it introduces a visually dominant, skyline altering form that would permanently erode local character.
The proposal would also place significant additional pressure on already constrained local infrastructure, particularly the surrounding road network and public transport system. Roads such as Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way already experience congestion during peak periods, with queuing and delays common at key intersections and access points. The introduction of approximately 150 additional dwellings would materially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion, reducing safety, and impacting local accessibility.
In addition, the local bus network servicing Castlecrag is limited in both frequency and capacity, particularly outside peak periods. These services are already heavily relied upon by residents, including school commuters, and are not designed to accommodate a substantial uplift in population density. Increased demand would likely result in overcrowding, reduced service reliability, and longer wait times. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate how these impacts would be mitigated or supported by meaningful infrastructure improvements.
Approval would create a serious precedent, It would signal that established planning controls, approved envelopes, and community expectations can be overridden through the SSD process to facilitate extreme intensification.
For these reasons, the application is not in the public interest and should be refused.

I object to this project - its scale and impact will have significant negative impact on our community. I have detailed my concerns in the attached document.