I have lived in Castlecrag for 48 years.

I strongly object to the proposed SSD.

Heritage Impact
The overbearing height (13-15 storeys, not 11), bulk and and scale are incompatible with the Walter Burley Griffin vision and plan for this nationally and internationally renowned suburb, where development is subservient to the natural landscape - no dwelling higher than the trees.

This development, well above the tree line, will be an eyesore, whose visual impact, due to its dominant ridge top location, will extend well into the Heritage Conservation Area and the district beyond.

The SSD is a brutal Gateway to Castlecrag. It does not acknowledge the heritage values of the suburb, is inconsistent with the adjacent Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is devoid of village and local character.

Planning
The SSD cannot be justified.
Castlecrag has not been identified as a planned housing growth area.
It is several kilometres from the nearest rail or metro, therefore TOD does not apply.
Bus services are poor, infrequent and unreliable, therefore TOD does not apply.
The proposal does not comply with any of the relevant state or local planning instruments, strategies, policies, plans or guidelines.

EIS
The EIS is full of errors and misinformation. Prominent among these is the incorrect assertion that the LMR Policy apples to the site, that Castlecrag is a transport hub and the attempt to justify the height of the development with reference to future anticipated development, which is unknown and which may never happen. Neither may attempts to mitigate errors, inconsistencies and incomplete assessments.

The EIS is a document of wishful thinking at best, an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Overshadowing
The SSD underestimates the extent of overwhelming overshadowing which will severely affect the amenity, enjoyment of and value of the properties on both sides of The Postern, including the Community Center (a Local Heritage Item) which houses a KU Pre-School, and parts of The Rampart. This degree of overshadowing may well affect the mental health of the affected residents.
This is unfair and unacceptable.
It is farcical for the EIS to claim that this degree of overshadowing will be comparable to that of the already approved DA.

Traffic
Edinburgh Road is the only major road and entrance to the peninsula. It serves residents, local shops, Castlecrag Hospital, Glenaeon School and the KU Pre-School.

Vehicles from 150 apartments, plus those from retail, visitors and services, will exacerbate the intersection with Eastern Valley Way (EV Way), which is acknowledged as already at capacity. This will encourage rat-running through local streets to the only other exit to EV Way - narrow, bendy Sunnyside Crescent, where a RH exit (no lights) is already dangerous.
Further traffic congestion will endanger public safety and may hamper emergency services.

Trees
Existing trees are highly valued, providing ecological functions, visual amenity, screening and an important counter to urban heating.

Trees also enhance property values.

There is no current Arborist Report for this SSD, therefore any loss of trees cannot be quantified. Only the 2025 Arborist Report was supplied. It referred to the retention of trees.

The reduced southern setback and further basement excavation will decrease the deep soil zone, impacting existing trees, threatening their viability and that of my future plantings.

Affordable Housing
The provision is less than the minimum policy standard, is only for 10 years, and is not in perpetuity. This is not helpful to those who are in need of affordable housing and benefits the developer who can then sell these apartments.
Based on current Castlecrag real estate values these apartments are unlikely to be affordable, especially by those on very low and mid-level incomes they are supposed to be intended for.
These ground floor apartments have the worst amenity in the building due to their location and to reduced sunlight access. ‘high ceilings and landscaped outlook’ - an EIS claim - don’t compensate for lack of sunlight. This applies also to other apartments which will lack sunlight access.

Community Consultation
This was tokenistic, tick-a-box, and dismissive of residents’ concerns. There was clearly no intention of responding to these concerns or of modifying the proposal accordingly.
At the November 2025 event which I attended, there were only Conquest PR representatives in attendance. There was no opportunity to hear questions from other residents nor the developer’s replies.
I was unable to attend any of the further consultations which were held in March in Chatswood. This location would have been difficult for some to attend. Why were they not held in the local Willoughby Bowling Club where the Castlecrag Progress Association holds public meetings? This venue caters for a large audience which Conquest would have been well aware of, having had representatives at previous at previous meetings.

Objective of this SSD
The site was purchased with an approved DA. Residents were told this development would proceed, then almost immediately the SSD was announced.
This was an opportunistic purchase for profit, to benefit the developer and investors - the latter being guaranteed a 20% ROI.
The only ‘value’ considered is profit, not the values of the Heritage Conservation Area as required by WLEP 12, nor the Griffin heritage, nor the well- being and amenity of nearby residents.
The apartments are being marketed as ‘luxury’, at approximately $3 million, a figure which will exclude those desperately in need of housing, so these apartments are
unlikely to contribute to easing the housing shortage. Indeed, the market is awash with luxury apartments.

Conclusion
I strongly urge the consent authority to refuse this SSD in its entirety.

It is not in the Public Interest.

An approved DA exists which respects heritage and the Griffin vision, complies with all planning criteria - including design excellence and tree retention - and which has community support.
I request that the developer be required to proceed with the approved DA which existed when he bought the site.

I object to this development mostly because it’s a farce under the premise of supplying “affordable housing”. Advertised as “Luxury Residences” within one of the most expensive areas to rent in Sydney, the temporary status (it will only be managed under a cloak of affordable housing within a 5–15 year timeline) - of the approx 6% of the total units proposed (10 out of 150 units deemed to be put up for affordable rentals) as being affordable will be anything but! At a stretch it will be only affordable for middle-upper classes or those looking for a “weekend” pad. This begs further questioning to the plight of those seeking affordable housing, they will likely set up life in the area during the temporary period they can rent at these “affordable rents”, then after this period, will likely be thrown “to the wolves” into a private rental situation where their rental increase will not only click over to the outrageous current market rental value, but will increase substantially each year after. Who then purchases these post affordable units after the time period lapses? …most likely a well off investor who will probably change status of their investment to airbnbs in order to gain the most unethical highest returns on said investment. This is not sustainable affordable housing, this is lip service to allow greedy foreign and homegrown investors profit yet again and pushing the divide between the haves and the have-nots even further! This is NOT the appropriate use of a development for affordable housing, it will be anything but affordable!
My secondary reason is the area is not on a sufficient enough transport network. We only have a bus service, a service that has been wrongly privatised and not as reliable as it once was when publicly owned.
How is an essential worker meant to now get to work easier while waiting on an unreliable bus service vying with a fast growing population in the area for a spot on a measly bus service. There’s already several new recently finished building developments nearby on Eastern Valley Way, placing extreme pressure on local services and infrastructure that already cannot cope with the expansion in the population even before 100 Edinburgh has laid its foundations.
The 3/4 level current development that was approved several years ago is suffice enough, the community was welcoming it and it was appropriate in size and scale for providing more housing within the area without ruining the gem of a heritage area that Walter & Marion Burley Griffin set foundations for, and should be kept as such, one of the few iconic historical areas of Sydney for future generations to enjoy.

Submission for SSD90134958………………………………….. Castlecrag Development
Impact of proposed plans at 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag 2068
3 May 2026

Planning non-Compliance and Strategic Misalignment
1. There are numerus anomalies in the proposal with regard to primarily ‘Large Sizes’ being of vast concern to residents for the simple fact that ‘Lack of Space’ in the form of a high-rise will cause extra density and congestion in many aspects and will cause problems associated with that.
2. This plan contradicts the Zoning Regulation for the area for the practical reason of lack of space. The reason that states the proposal will also increase other forms of congestion and if it was to become the central hub for transport which will add additional population growth for n already overloaded limited and seldom-serviced bus system.
3. Another anomaly is the substantial increase in new residents bringing in more cars adding to the totally unsatisfactory flow of not only -peak-hour traffic already existing for residents and locals:
a) exiting Edinburgh Rd from the suburb travelling East to West at traffic lights; and
b) travelling East turning Left at traffic lights Into Eastern Valley way in afternoon Peak hour where gridlocks exist for too long even under present flow conditions, and visa versa in the mornings when traffic wil surely pile up way beuond the roundabout.
Q. How do your plans support these and other reasons for this largely inaccurate over- sizing to ‘BIG’ when a plan for a community that wants collaboration to realise size to be in proportion and cannot afford these anomalies in the ’BIG’ plan to go ahead?

The Environmental Impact of Tree Removal
4. The value of trees in the whole of the Municipality is a deeply valued tradition reinforced by council rules and in keeping with the famous Burley-Griffin conservation function.
Q? How do you propose to alter or reduce the removal of trees and keep to the Council , Burley-Griffin Plan and the Tree Management Plan as has been continuously in the care of us all? And what of replanting and replacing or even gifting of those great-ancients that are lost that belonged to history?
Parking and Access to Services in the Development
5. With 376 new spaces being made available for new residents, will there be enough room for supermarket-shoppers, café society, visitors to residents, and others visiting the restaurants and businesses in the area.
As recorded in recent documents the response to parking short-sightedness is continuing to be ignored. Even with the addition of extra spaces, surely it is obvious that the plan is too big for the provisions and the existing infrastructure.
Q? How does the Conquest configuration fit the needs of a community with parking and the promise of a casual street society with meeting place and community gathering?
How do you propose the congestion be resolved at the all-important-traffic-lights to cope with the Ambulance and police that run regularly along the main road and through that intersection ?

Finally, I hope you see the value of the responses of the residents for their community and alleviate some of their concerns and re-evaluate some of the priorities which were why we bought into this area in the first place.
It might be big dollars for you to build an empire but for us it’s our home…..being pulled apart by Big Business…. Surely, in a democracy and fair play there should be some collaboration, compliance and connection.

Sincerely,
Concerned resident
Diana Burgess

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed development at the corner of Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way in Castlecrag.

I am also a student of Construction Management and Property at UNSW, so I have a strong interest in housing, development and how cities grow. I understand that Sydney has a housing shortage, and I agree that we need more housing so that people my age have a chance of living here in the future.

However, I don’t believe this proposal is the right development in the right place.

The size of the project is far beyond what is currently allowed on the site. The height limit is 9 metres, but this proposal is almost 49 metres tall. The amount of floor space is also much higher than what is permitted. From what I’ve learned in my studies, this isn’t a small change — it’s a very large jump that doesn’t follow the existing planning rules. Even the Council’s more recent plans for the site were much smaller than what is now being proposed.

It’s also concerning that the applicant hasn’t followed the usual process to justify these changes. Instead of properly working within the rules or applying to vary them, the proposal relies on a future rezoning that hasn’t actually been approved yet. To me, that doesn’t seem like the right way to approach development.

The references to the Housing SEPP also don’t seem to apply here. The site is too far from the nearest town centre to qualify for those provisions, and the application itself says this. It also mentions that another option, which would have required more affordable housing, was rejected because it wasn’t considered feasible. This makes it seem like the focus is more on maximising the size of the development rather than delivering the type of housing that is most needed.

Another major issue is the location. The site is right next to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area and the Griffin Centre, which are important parts of Castlecrag’s history. Castlecrag was designed to fit in with the natural landscape, with low-scale buildings that don’t dominate their surroundings. That’s what makes the area special.

Even the applicant’s own heritage report admits that the building will be much larger than the surrounding homes and will stand out. It also says that the design can’t really match the style of the area because of how big it is, and that there will be impacts like overshadowing. The site is also at a key entry point into the heritage area, which means the building will be very noticeable. To me, this shows that the development just doesn’t fit the character of the area.

There are also serious concerns about traffic and transport. The intersection at Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley Way is already very congested, especially during peak times, and the application itself says it is operating beyond capacity. What is particularly concerning is that the traffic modelling used isn’t reliable under these conditions, which means there is no clear understanding of how much worse things will get.

Public transport is an even bigger concern for me personally. As a student travelling to university and often to part-time work, I rely on buses to get into the city and connect to other transport. These services are already limited, not very frequent, and often full during peak hours. It is common to have to wait for two or even three buses before being able to get on, especially in the morning. This makes it difficult to get to university classes or work on time, even when leaving early.

The site is not close to a train station, and there are no high-frequency transport options nearby. This means that most new residents will also rely on buses or cars. Adding a large number of new residents without improving public transport will put even more pressure on a system that is already struggling. For people like me, this doesn’t just mean inconvenience — it affects our ability to reliably get to university, attend classes, and maintain part-time jobs.

The proposal also doesn’t properly consider the impact of other developments nearby. There has already been a lot of new housing built in the Willoughby area, and this is putting pressure on roads, transport and services. Looking at this project on its own doesn’t show the full picture.

I believe we need more housing in Sydney, and as someone studying this field, I want to see development done properly. But that doesn’t mean building large developments anywhere. They need to be in the right locations, with the right infrastructure, and in a way that respects important areas like Castlecrag.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the application be refused.

Yours faithfully,
Local Resident

I strongly support the proposed residential and retail project in Castlecrag, particularly for what it means for local businesses.

Village businesses rely on regular foot traffic. Right now, the lack of modern apartment living limits the number of people close enough to support shops, cafés and services day to day.

More well-designed homes in the village means more locals walking past shopfronts, spending locally, and keeping the village active throughout the week. It also helps long-term residents downsize without leaving the area, keeping both people and spending power in Castlecrag.

This project will help keep the village commercially viable, lively, and sustainable for the long term.

Thanks for considering my view.

The proposed buildings are completely out of line with the character of the neighbourhood. Even as someone who does not live in Castlecrag, I do not wish to see another Sydney resident suffer from such atrocity in their neighbourhood. There has been no thought (and certainly no care) put into the impact such an eyesore will have on house prices on areas where it’s visible. Having people in that tower looking down into people’s backyards is an intrusion into privacy. And there’s been no thought on the burden of the mass of residents on the surrounding area. I strongly oppose this ugly development proposed for Castlecrag.

For all of the reasons below I object to the development application as made.

1. Incompatible with the unique architectural heritage of the area
This site sits within one of Australia’s most important enclaves of early modernist architecture. The scale, bulk, and visual dominance of two towers up to 13 storeys are fundamentally incompatible with this context.

The benefits of the project in terms of units does not justify the impacts and detraction from a unique Sydney suburb.

2. Loss of architectural character
This area was designed with a clear idea in mind. Buildings should sit within the landscape, not dominate it. The natural shape of the land, the trees, and the bush setting are part of the design. The buildings are kept to a human scale and feel connected to their surroundings. This approach, associated with planners such as Walter Burley Griffin, is what gives the area its distinctive character and underpins its importance as a rare and nationally significant part of Australia’s architectural and cultural history.

3. Detracts from beauty and cultural significance
The proposed development departs from these principles. Its height and bulk will overwhelm the area. It will detract from the beauty of this place and from its cultural significance. This is not just a local issue. This area represents something unique in Australian architectural history, and once it is changed in this way, it cannot be restored.

4. Overdevelopment of the site
The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. The height and density exceed what is appropriate for this setting. It will be highly visible and will disrupt the existing scale of the area.

5. Lack of public transport
I am also concerned about the location of such a dense development in an area with limited public transport. Developments of this scale require strong, accessible transport links to function sustainably. In this case, public transport access is limited, traffic demand will increase, and residents will rely heavily on private vehicles. This outcome conflicts with sound urban planning and environmental goals.

6. Minimal affordable housing benefit
The inclusion of 10 affordable housing units within a 150-apartment development is minimal and does not reflect the intent of planning frameworks designed to increase access to housing for those in need. The proportion is too low to deliver meaningful impact, and the location lacks the transport connectivity required for equitable access to employment and services. The proposal appears to rely on planning mechanisms without delivering genuine public benefit.

7. Harmful precedent
Approval of this development will set a precedent for similar proposals and accelerate the erosion of a unique architectural and environmental asset. Short-term financial gain should not outweigh the protection of places that are part of Australia’s shared history and identity, or our responsibility to preserve them for future generations.

8. Inconsistent with planning intent
This proposal is inconsistent with the character, planning principles, and infrastructure capacity of the area. It fails to respect the architectural significance of the precinct, does not align with sustainable transport planning, and provides only a token contribution to affordable housing.

I strongly object to the proposed development.
The building height is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding low-density character of Castlecrag. The scale of the development will result in significant overshadowing, reducing access to natural sunlight for neighbouring properties and impacting residential amenity.
In addition, the increase in population density will place substantial pressure on local traffic and parking, which are already constrained in the area. The existing road network is not designed to accommodate such an increase.
Furthermore, the proposal does not respect or align with the established character and heritage values of Castlecrag, which is known for its unique architectural identity and natural environment.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused.

The project grossly exceeds Willoughby Council’s adopted master planning for the site.
The project is detrimental to the character of the adjacent Griffin Conservation Area.
Public transport to the site of the proposal is currently poor (3x half-hourly bus routes and 1x 2-hourly route) and therefore residents of the project will likely resort to private vehicle use. Development of this scale is more appropriate in areas that are serviced by high-frequency rapid transit (such as Chatswood).

I write to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-90134958) involving two residential towers of up to 11 storeys, approximately 150 apartments, retail premises including a supermarket, basement parking, and associated works.
My concern is not with redevelopment itself. A redevelopment proposal for this site was already approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel in December 2024 under DA-2024/13. That approved proposal was a significantly smaller and lower-scale mixed-use development comprising approximately 38 apartments and a form that was more consistent with the surrounding area.
The current proposal represents a dramatic escalation in height, density, and bulk compared with what was previously considered appropriate for the site.
It is difficult to understand how a site that was previously deemed suitable for a modest lower-rise development can now support towers of up to 11 storeys and approximately 150 apartments simply because the project has been reclassified as State Significant Development.
I am particularly concerned that the SSD pathway appears to have been used to bypass the existing local planning controls that previously limited development in this area to substantially lower heights. Those controls exist for a reason. They reflect the recognised character, heritage significance, environmental constraints, and infrastructure capacity of the precinct.
This area is widely recognised for its important architectural and landscape character associated with the Walter Burley Griffin planning philosophy. One of the defining features of the precinct is that buildings sit within the landscape rather than dominate it. The natural topography, vegetation, and low-scale built form are integral to its identity and significance.
The proposed towers are fundamentally inconsistent with those principles. Their scale and visual prominence would overwhelm the surrounding character and permanently alter the appearance of the area.
I am also concerned about the precedent this proposal would create. If this level of overdevelopment is permitted through the SSD process, it risks encouraging similar proposals that incrementally erode the heritage and environmental qualities of the precinct.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure, and transport capacity. This is not an area supported by high-capacity public transport appropriate for development of this scale. Increased density in locations without corresponding infrastructure planning will place additional pressure on local roads and services and increase reliance on private vehicles.
While the proposal includes affordable housing, this appears limited in proportion relative to the overall development. I also understand the affordable housing provisions apply only for a limited period, after which those dwellings may be sold on the open market. This raises legitimate questions as to whether the permanent impacts of the proposal are being justified by only a temporary public benefit.
In my view, the proposal is excessive, inconsistent with the established planning intent for the area, and incompatible with the recognised architectural and environmental significance of the precinct.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and respectfully request that it be refused in its current form.