FORMAL SUBMISSION – OBJECTION
Proposed Mixed Use Development and Rezoning
Site: 16–20 Old Castle Hill Road, Castle Hill NSW
Application: SSD 85238209
Consent Authority: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
1. Introduction
I lodge this submission to formally object to the proposed mixed use development at 16–20 Old Castle Hill Road, Castle Hill.
The proposal seeks approval for:
• Approximately 371 residential dwellings, including 42 affordable dwellings for a period of 15 years
• A 40 storey residential tower
• Six basement levels
• A proposed FSR of 12.31:1 as part of a concurrent rezoning
While increased housing supply and transit oriented development are legitimate planning objectives, the proposal represents a substantial overdevelopment of the site and is inconsistent with key statutory, strategic, and urban design requirements.
2. Section 4.15 – Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Under Section 4.15, the consent authority must consider:
• Environmental planning instruments
• The likely impacts of development
• Suitability of the site
• The public interest
The proposal raises serious concerns across each of these considerations.
3. Strategic Planning Inconsistency
The proposal is inconsistent with the following strategic planning frameworks:
• Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities
• Central City District Plan
• The Hills Future 2036 Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS)
Although Castle Hill is identified as a Strategic Centre, these frameworks require density to be coordinated with infrastructure capacity and appropriate built-form transitions.
A 40 storey tower significantly exceeds the scale typically envisaged for suburban strategic centres and risks undermining orderly and coherent planning outcomes.
4. Excessive FSR and Overdevelopment
The proposed FSR of 12.31:1 is extremely high relative to the site context.
Concerns include:
• Excessive bulk and scale
• Reduced tower separation
• Poor environmental performance
• Cumulative overcrowding within the precinct
Land and Environment Court (LEC) principles consistently hold that development must not result in an unacceptable level of site overdevelopment, even if technically permissible.
5. Apartment Design Guide and SEPP (Housing) 2021 Compliance
The proposal raises significant concerns under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as required by SEPP (Housing) 2021, including:
• Building separation and privacy: potential overlooking and loss of visual amenity
• Solar access: many apartments may not receive the ADG minimum 2 hours direct sunlight in winter; surrounding properties and public spaces will also be overshadowed
• Deep soil zones and landscaping: constrained by six basement levels and high site coverage, undermining environmental performance and urban greenery
6. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
Approximately 371 additional dwellings will place significant strain on existing infrastructure:
• Road congestion: Old Castle Hill Road, Old Northern Road, and Castle Towers precinct
• Public transport: Castle Hill Metro station may not accommodate the additional demand
• Schools, community services, and public open space are already under pressure
The proposal fails to demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to accommodate this scale of development.
Strategic planning policies emphasise that infrastructure must lead development, not respond to it.
7. Insufficient Community Benefit
The proposal provides 42 affordable dwellings for only 15 years, which is disproportionate given the significant height and density uplift sought.
For a project of this scale, the following would normally be expected:
• Permanent affordable housing
• Public open space or plazas
• Major public domain improvements
The current proposal provides insufficient public benefit to justify the scale of development.
8. Urban Design, Amenity, and Construction Impacts
• The 40 storey tower would dominate the Castle Hill skyline, creating abrupt visual transitions and poor urban design integration
• Overshadowing and loss of amenity to surrounding properties are likely
• Six basement levels raise concerns regarding:
o Noise and vibration
o Construction traffic
o Groundwater management
o Structural impacts on neighbouring properties
9. Failure to Demonstrate Strategic Merit
The proposal effectively seeks a site-specific rezoning driven by a single development outcome, rather than being justified by a broader precinct strategy.
Strategic merit requires that a proposal:
• Aligns with regional and district planning frameworks
• Supports orderly, efficient, and coordinated development
• Maintains the integrity of planning controls
The proposal does not demonstrate strategic merit and may undermine the integrity of the planning framework.
10. Risk of Undesirable Planning Precedent
Approving a development of this scale could establish a planning precedent for similar extreme height and density proposals in Castle Hill.
Consequences include:
• Incremental erosion of established planning controls
• Cumulative overdevelopment of the precinct
• Increased pressure on infrastructure and amenity
11. Cumulative Impact
The Department must consider cumulative impacts within the Castle Hill Strategic Centre:
• Traffic congestion
• Reduced solar access and overshadowing across the precinct
• Strain on public domain quality
• Potential “tower-in-the-park” outcomes inconsistent with coordinated urban design
12. Land and Environment Court (LEC) Precedents
The following LEC decisions reinforce the issues identified:
1. Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC – Development must not result in unacceptable site overdevelopment
2. Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC – Development must respond to context and be compatible with surrounding built form
3. Roseth SC Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC – Development must protect amenity of neighbouring properties and public spaces
13. Public Interest
Planning decisions must balance housing delivery with amenity, infrastructure, urban design quality, and sustainability.
The proposal does not satisfy the public interest, given the scale, inadequate infrastructure planning, and insufficient community benefits.
14. Conclusion and Requests
The proposal represents an excessive and unjustified intensification of the site. It is inconsistent with:
• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• Strategic planning frameworks
• Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and SEPP (Housing) 2021
• Established LEC principles
I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning refuse the application in its current form.
Should the Department consider approval, substantial redesign is required, including:
1. Significant reduction in building height
2. Significant reduction in FSR
3. Demonstration of adequate infrastructure capacity for the proposed scale
4. Provision of stronger and permanent community benefits, including affordable housing and public open space
Additionally, I request that this submission be formally considered in the Department’s Assessment Report, ensuring that each concern is addressed prior to any determination.

I wish to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed mixed-use residential development at 16-20 Old Castle Hill Rd. While I recognise the importance of housing supply and transit oriented development near the Castle Hill Metro Station, the proposed scale and design raise significant concerns regarding overshadowing, privacy, urban form, traffic impacts and consistency with the overall Hills Shire planning framework.

1) Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposed 40-storey building represents a significant increase in scale relative to the surrounding built (and planned) environment. Notably, a previous submission for the site proposed approximately 26 storeys was already considered high density at the time. Nearby residential developments generally do not exceed ~24 storeys, including the recently constructed apartments at 8-18 Garthowen Crescent and the planned works at 1/28 Garthowen Crescent. The proposed increase to 40 storeys represents a substantial departure from the established and emerging scale of developments in the precinct. This raises concerns under Section 5.4D of the Hills Development Control Plan that requires towers to "include slender designs so as not to be overwhelming in bulk and scale".

2) Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
Height and bulk of proposed works will likely generate significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential and public property. Under Objective 4A1 of the Apartment Design Guide development should be designed to minimise overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties and maintain adequate solar access. The ADG also states that "living rooms and private open spaces should receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter". Given the location and extreme height of the proposed tower, there is a strong likelihood that this is a realistic concern for neighbouring property. This also relatives to Section 5.2D of the Hills DCP which seeks to "ensure adequate separation between buildings on different sites to alleviate amenity impacts including privacy, daylight access, acoustic control and natural ventilation."

3)) Privacy and Overlooking Impacts
Due to height and proximity of proposed tower, there are concerns regarding direct overlooking and loss of visual privacy which impede on Objective 3F-1 of the ADG. Proposed tower height and proximity may result in direct sightlines into neighbouring balconies and living areas, overlooking of bedrooms and private open spaces and reduced residential amenity for existing and future residents. These impacts may be particularly pronounced for neighbouring apartment buildings where balconies and living spaces face toward the proposed tower.

4) Inadequate Tower Separation and View Corridors
Given proposed location and height, it is important that sufficient setbacks and separation distances are maintained. This pertains mostly to Section 5.4D of the Hills DCP.

5) Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
The proposal must also be considered within the broader context of significant development occurring throughout the Castle Hill precinct. With approximately 330 apartments the development will generate a substantial increase of stress in vehicle movements, service/delivery traffic and local parking demand. Given the infamous traffic concerns that already exist around Castle Towers and the right turn into Old Caslte Hill Road from McMullen Avenue without the development of 1/28 Garthowen Crescent, I strongly question the sustainability of current further development (to this scale) without significant plans from council to develop traffic management plans (outside of the already planned roundabout). Given the cumulative impact of nearby developments (the new apartments on Old Castle Hill Road are also not yet occupied) a comprehensive traffic and infrastructure impact assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the road network can accommodate the additional demand. Examples of overdevelopment across Carlingford and Epping (e.g. Cliff Rd, Maida Rd) have seen a deterioration of value, charm and convenience.

6) Construction and Excavation Impacts
While more related to the Early Works of 16-20 Old Castle Hill Road, development for multiple levels of basement parking while adjacent to McMullen Avenue is an additional concern.

7) Inconsistency with the "Garden Shire" Character
A key objective of the Hills planning framework is to preserve the "Garden Shire" character of the area. This work undermines the character by reducing visual openness, diminishing green space between buildings and creating a dense urban mass. While increased density near transport hubs is expected, development should still maintain appropriate building proportions, spacing and landscaping.

8) Saleability
Given the pipelines of developing and planned apartments in the area, the impetus for further large scale works is highly questionable as we do not yet understand the stress and impacts of new works as they become occupied. The ability for these new apartments to be built (and overall appetite) is an additional concern and the success of recent and upcoming buildings should be closely monitored.

For the above reasons. I respectfully request that the proposal not proceed in its current form and that significant revisions be required to better address local planning objectives.

I am the owner of land located in close proximity to the site at 16–20 Old Castle Hill Road, Castle Hill. I write in response to the public exhibition of State Significant Development Application SSD-85238209 and the associated proposal to amend The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2009 to permit a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of up to 12.31:1.
This submission formally objects to the proposed mixed-use development and concurrent rezoning for the reasons outlined below.

1. Lack of Strategic Merit for the Proposed Rezoning
The proposal seeks a substantial amendment to planning controls under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2009 to facilitate development well beyond the existing FSR permitted for the site. Such a rezoning should demonstrate clear strategic merit and alignment with the broader strategic planning framework, including:
The Greater Sydney Region Plan
The North District Plan
The Hills Local Strategic Planning Statement
The current proposal does not provide adequate justification as a strategically coordinated change to land use. Rather, it appears to be a site-specific intensification that exceeds the density anticipated in the strategic framework. This raises material planning concerns regarding overdevelopment, precedent-setting, and inconsistency with the broader urban planning objectives for Castle Hill.

2. Metro Station Precinct / FSR Incompatibility
Although the site is located within the Castle Hill Metro station precinct, the proposed FSR of 12.31:1 significantly exceeds the density envisaged in both The Hills LEP 2009 and the North District Plan for this precinct. Metro precinct planning anticipates staged and coordinated growth, balancing high-density development near transport nodes with lower-rise surrounding areas. Concentrating such extraordinary density on a single site is inconsistent with these requirements and increases the risk of:
Inadequate infrastructure provision (transport, utilities, open space)
Unmanageable traffic impacts on Old Castle Hill Road and surrounding streets
Significant overshadowing, light spill, and amenity loss for neighbouring properties
This is a material consideration the Department must assess when determining whether the rezoning and development are justified.

3. Overdevelopment and Amenity Impacts
The proposed 40-storey tower is substantially taller than surrounding low-rise development and lacks an appropriate transitional scale to neighbouring properties. The resulting bulk and height will:
Visually dominate adjacent streets and residences
Overshadow neighbouring dwellings and private open spaces
Increase light spill and noise impacts
Compromise residential amenity and the character of the local neighbourhood
The Hills LEP 2009 explicitly requires development to be compatible with the surrounding urban context, and this proposal does not demonstrate adequate measures to mitigate its overbearing impact.

4. Traffic, Infrastructure, and Community Impacts
The introduction of 371 dwellings, with only 42 proposed as affordable housing for 15 years, will generate significant additional traffic, placing further pressure on Old Castle Hill Road and surrounding streets. Infrastructure capacity (including public transport, utilities, and community facilities) appears insufficient to support the proposed intensity of development without adverse effects on neighbouring residents.

5. Environmental and Construction Impacts
The concurrent Early Works application involves demolition, bulk excavation, and tree removal, resulting in:
Loss of local vegetation and urban tree canopy
Disruption to local wildlife and biodiversity
Noise, vibration, and dust impacts for an extended construction period
These early works further exacerbate the cumulative impacts of the development and reduce environmental amenity in the area.

6. Limited Public Benefit
While the development includes 42 affordable dwellings for a 15-year period, this represents a relatively modest public benefit when weighed against the scale and intensity of the development. For a proposal requesting a significant departure from planning controls, a more substantial and enduring contribution to the community would be expected.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development and associated rezoning:
Lack strategic merit and are inconsistent with the broader planning framework
Exceed FSR guidance for the Castle Hill Metro precinct, undermining staged and coordinated growth
Represent overdevelopment relative to the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood
Impose unacceptable traffic, infrastructure, environmental, and amenity impacts
Deliver limited public benefit relative to the scale of the project
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure give careful consideration to these matters and refuse the rezoning and the associated development in its current form.
For these reasons, I formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-85238209.

My previous submission which mainly covered objection relating to traffic still stands, but I wish to add my objection to the re-zoning proposal which more than doubles the current floor space ratio from a maximum of 6:1 to 12.31:1
A 40 storey building will have a detrimental impact on views, shading and amenity for neighbouring properties and seems to be entirely inappropriate for this particular site, and I even wonder if the water/sewerage system will be able to cope.

please also refer to my objections to SSD-86460458

My objections to this application include both the construction of the 40 storey building and the rezoning required for it to be approved. They also cover both the construction phase and the long-term impacts of the development.

The application covers the mandatory compliance reports as far as I can see, and relies heavily on claimed consistency with NSW government housing policies, including the desire for more affordable housing. However, whilst acknowledging the impacts on local residents during the early works and construction phases and ongoing, claimed mitigants are unlikely to resolve several key concerns.

During construction I have significant concerns based on the experience of Garthowen residents
during the construction of 18 and 13 storey unit blocks at 6-12 and 16-20 Garthowen. This included noise, dust, illegal parking, out of hours work, blocked driveways and rubbish left in front of properties for two years. I have no reason to believe that the behaviour of construction staff and truck drivers would be any different during the 16-20 Old Castle Hill Rd project.

The problem is exacerbated by the pending commencement of 3 high rise unit blocks and a 19 storey hotel fronting Garthowen Crescent as approved in DA 366/2025/JP. I notice that these developments are conveniently ignored in the 16-20 Old Castle Hill Rd application. There is a comment about co-ordination with other developments that overlap, but it is difficult to see real co-operation between multiple, self interested developers and builders.

My objections are included in and consistent with the many objections covered in the Social Impact assessment prepared by Sarah Georg Consulting. I assume that assessment has been reviewed by the Department of Planning so will not reiterate them all.

However, I will comment specifically on the issue of traffic congestion. The entry to the proposed development will be in Garthowen, almost directly opposite the proposed entry to the new 19 storey hotel. That will create congestion both during and after construction. As described in the application, Garthowen is "a narrow local street", not suited to heavy traffic. The attached Traffic Report uses modelling that produces impressive looking but totally unrealistic outcomes. For example, it notes that by 2039 the average exit time from Garthowen into Old Castle Hill Rd will be 1-5 seconds. It already can take over 5 minutes.

One of the mitigants during construction is the employment of professional traffic managers. The competency of the staff employed in theses roles can vary greatly and they need to be independently overseen. At the very least, there should be a maximum delay period of around 5 minutes applied with appropriate penalties for non compliance.

Following completion of the project, the most significant ongoing issue will be traffic congestion. At present Garthowen Crescent struggles at times to handle the traffic from the residents of 266 units plus a few stand alone houses.Completion of the 40 storey building and the 3 unit blocks and hotel under DA366/2025/JP would increase this to the residents of 849 units plus stand alone houses. With an almost blind corner mid way along Garthowen, this would be both highly disruptive and dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. It might be too late ato change DA 366/2025/JP but 16-20 Old Castle Hill Rd could be either stopped or scaled back to current zoning levels.

I understand the need for more housing in Sydney and for affordable housing, but this application for a 40 storey building is way over the top and an abuse of the planning process

John Matthews

My objection relates to traffic congestion in the area surrounding this project, on Old Castle Hill Road, McMullen Avenue, Old Northern Road and Pennant Street. The area is badly congested already, and that is before the completion of three large high-rise apartment blocks currently under construction (on the corner of Pennant Street and Old Castle Hill Road) as well as other projects proposed for further north on Old Castle Hill Road. Once occupied they will add to the gridlock. The roads surrounding this 40 storey project would be unable to cope with increased trade vehicles during construction and tradespeople would have to be designated an off-site carpark and be shuttled to and from the site. Once the project is built and occupied, ingress and egress to and from the basement carpark is likely to be extremely difficult due to general road congestion in the surrounding streets, and access to Old Castle Hill Road for all residents of Garthowen Crescent will be significantly worse than it already is.

The size of the proposed building will considerably impact the natural light my apartment receives and will likely require me to install additional lighting to be able to use my lounge room during the day. The proposed height is unreasonably too tall, and will significantly ruin the current view and aesthetic of Castle Hill (noting the next closest building height is not even 20 floors). I welcome additional housing at a more reasonable height.

First of all, Carlingford is a very car dependent suburb. After the T6 Carlingford line was abolished, the accessibility of the train network is absent. The current L4 Westmead & Carlingford line only connects to Parramatta CBD. But if you want want to go to the Northern Suburbs or anywhere in the east, the only option is taking the bus 550 to Epping then change the Metro or train services there, which is inconvenient. Second, this project is situated next to the main road - Pennant Hills Road (A28), which connects between Parramatta and Hornsby. This project will inevitably add on the already saturated traffic load in the Carlingford part of the A28. Not to mention the already approved Carlingford Community Centre and Meriton High-rises just 700m north of this project. The traffic condition will become an unbearable nighmare to Carlingford residents. In short, this project should not commence unless there is a train line or metro line or the main road will be widened to support the infrastucture.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed residential development located adjacent to the existing major power station.
My objection is based on public safety, land use compatibility and risk management concerns, supported by international precedent , including the 2025 Putra Heights gas pipeline explosion in Malaysia( 500 -1 km away).
The Putra Heights incident demonstrates the serious consequences of placing residential dwellings in close proximity to high risk energy infrastructure. In April 2025, a nature gas pipeline failure occurred in a residential area near Putrajaya due to ground instability. Although the pipe was professionally designed and regulated, unforeseen soil movement caused the pipe to rupture, resulting in a large scale explosion and fire. The incident led to significant injuries, mass evacuation of residents. Destruction of homes and people mental health.
The severity of the impact was directly related to the close proximity of residential dwellings to major energy infrastructure.

Given the potential consequences, I respectfully submit my objection and urge planning authority to reconsider this proposal.

We are currently living across from the location of the project and currently already experience excessive noise and pollution coming from Pennant Hills Road. The demolition and construction would only add to this noise and pollution. There is already construction of the Meriton up the road which has caused disturbance to the community with the dangerous crane tilting and excessive noise. We do not need another disruption taking place.