I am writing to strongly support the DA.
The proposed development is well located in a desirable area with good amenities.
This is precisely the kind of projects that should encouraged all across the Sydney Metro area.
I urge the Planning Committee to disregard the loud minority of NIMBYs who will reflexively oppose any and all development and approve the DA.

I am writing to formally express my support for the proposed development. As a resident within the Willoughby LGA for over 10 years, I believe this project is a welcomed addition to our community. I am excited to see how this development will benefit our community. It is definitely a new look for Castlecrag.

I am writing to formally lodge a strong objection to the proposed high-rise development at 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag.

My objections are based on the following planning grounds:

• Incompatibility with Local Character: The proposed height and scale are entirely inconsistent with the established "garden suburb" character of Castlecrag, which is defined by low-rise dwellings integrated into the natural bushland.

• Impact on Heritage: This development poses a significant threat to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. It disregards the original visionary planning by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, which prioritises the natural landscape over built forms.

• Excessive Scale and Bulk: The proposed 11 to 13 storeys far exceed the height limits set in the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan No. 3, which aim to restrict development so it does not dominate the ridgeline or landscape.

• Environmental & Amenity Impacts: I am concerned about the loss of significant tree canopy, increased traffic congestion on Edinburgh Road/Eastern Valley Way, Raeburn Avenue and Sunnyside Crescent the resulting overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighbouring residences.

• The impact of extra traffic attempting to exit/enter the only driveway of the proposed 13 storey complex especially during peak hour traffic on Edinburgh Road which already experiences congestion issues.

I urge the NSW State Planning department refuse this application in order to protect the unique architectural and environmental heritage of Castlecrag.

May sanity prevail and the current approved DA be enacted. Surely 3 stories on the northern side and five stories on the southern side is more than adequate and also in keeping with other recently built residential units along Eastern Valley Way. The lower profile is a better scale for the area especially as this location is on the ridge which is the highest point in the are and 11 to 13 stories will create a monolithic eyesore.

The problems with this project are many. Too many for me to highlight them all.
My two main concerns relate to transport. The location is not a transport hub. It has two bus routes to the city. One the 207/205 is fine in peak hours but only good at that time. The 194 only connects with the city and Cammeray, so to go north, you have to go into the city, 30 minutes, and then catch a train from Wynyard. It has a weekend service to Chatswood - 4 busses a day and 8 services to North Sydney a day. Maybe eight to Crows Nest via the 267.
None of these busses are anything like the services to Northbridge and yet the height limits there are well under 13 stories as proposed.
Secondly, the developer has complained about cost. But why did it pay so much for a project that was smaller and approved after extensive community consultation. Why is it fair for the community to pay for a choice MADE SOLEY BY THE DEVELOPER to try and chance its arm by overriding community and council approval for a smaller project and taking it through this process.
It smacks of corruption to me. At the very least it is abuse of process.

This development application should not have been allowed to achieve SSD status.
This application does not align to ANY of the NSW governments declared SSD priority growth areas, nor does it adhere to the NSW Government planning controls of 24meters maximum development height within a Transport Orientated Development.
This is simply a mechanism for the new developers to try and get rich quick. This has become evident during the 'lack of community consultation' phase since the sale of the site from one property developer to another.
The current approved DA by Willoughby Council for 38 new units was approved in close collaboration with the community and represents a good outcome for all stakeholders. It is reflective of the overall need for more housing and is in line with Willoughby Councils overall budget for additional new homes within the area.
The Conquest Development Application seeks to amend this approved DA via the SSD process.
Their proposal for 150 units & 11 stories high development is grossly out of sync in size, scale & keeping for the area.
This SSD development application should be rejected outright and the developer encouraged to construct their currently approved DA, not manipulate the NSW government SSD process as a 'get rich quick scheme' by converting an approved DA for 38 units into one for 150units, at the expense of the local community and its heritage.

Grossly inappropriate construction height for this residential area. This development is more suited to a business district near heavy rail or metro, not a quiet suburban area with limited facilities and very limited transport services. I mean VERY limited and VERY infrequent bus services.

This whole area is run down and needs to be regenerated and have more shops and houses. It still looks like a 1990 built area with rundown shops and old houses. my children do not want to stay near me now and will end up moving away because this area is so behind. I will then be forced to go into a facility or move to be with them.

There has been considerable commentary over recent years regarding this development. At times, the debate has become unnecessarily heated, with a number of individuals—some claiming to represent the entire local community, which they clearly do not—pursuing personal agendas opposed to any form of development on the site.

I write as a local resident to encourage a rational and balanced review process that enables the community to move forward, while ensuring an appropriate development is delivered—one that benefits the broader community as a whole.

After many years of opposition (by a vocal minority) to any proposal, a sensible decision was previously reached to approve a mixed-use development comprising retail and approximately three to four levels of residential apartments.

This has since now been superseded by the current proposal for up to 12 /13 levels. It is clear to any dispassionate and reasonable observer that a development of this scale is not appropriate. As outlined in the accompanying impact report, it would dominate the immediate streetscape.

It has been argued that the originally approved three-to-four-level development was not commercially viable, and there may be some merit in that position. However, this should not justify a proposal at the opposite extreme. A more balanced compromise should be pursued—one that supports commercial viability without overwhelming the local environment. While I am not an architect, a development in the range of seven to eight levels would appear to be a far more reasonable outcome, and one that could be broadly acceptable to most stakeholders.

The key point is that development of the site is essential. The community stands to benefit significantly from new local amenities and spaces that encourage engagement and interaction. The site has remained unused for many years, and this prolonged inactivity is having a detrimental impact on the community and the spirit of Castlecrag.

It is often noted that Walter and Marion Burley Griffin’s vision was for a vibrant and thriving community. It is hard to imagine that they would not support a thoughtfully designed, appropriately scaled development that contributes positively to that vision.

It is to be hoped that a common-sense approach prevails, bringing an end to what has at times been an acrimonious local debate, and allowing the community to move forward constructively.

Jeopardising the historical significance of the area.
This site is world heritage quality
Creates environmental impacts.
There’s insufficient infrastructure to cope with the scale of the development
This is not providing affordable and social housing for the demographics that require it

I object to the project - see attachment for detailed response