I write to formally object to the proposed development at Castlecrag on planning, heritage, and public interest grounds.
It is important to note that an approved development (DA-2024/13) already exists for this site. That scheme, comprising a 3–5 storey mixed-use development, demonstrates that additional housing can be delivered in a manner that is appropriately scaled and responsive to the local environment. It achieves a balance between development and preservation, and shows that housing supply can be increased without compromising the area’s heritage significance.
The current proposal departs dramatically from this considered approach. At 12 to 14 storeys, the building is excessive in height, and would dominate the surrounding streetscape. This scale is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise character of Castlecrag and would overwhelm the natural and built environment.
The site’s proximity to the Griffin Conservation Area heightens these concerns. This area is internationally recognised for its heritage significance and reflects the planning philosophy of Walter Burley Griffin, which emphasises that buildings should be integrated with and subservient to the natural landscape. The proposed development conflicts fundamentally with this philosophy, introducing a built form that is visually intrusive and incompatible with the surrounding heritage context.
The proposal also conflicts with established planning controls and strategic frameworks. Height controls for the area generally limit development to around three storeys above Edinburgh Road, and Castlecrag is not identified as a housing growth area in either state or local planning strategies. The site is not within a transport-oriented development zone and does not benefit from the level of infrastructure typically required to support high-density development.
Public transport accessibility is limited, with no nearby train or metro station and only constrained bus services outside peak hours. This reinforces that the scale and intensity of the proposed development are inappropriate for this location.
More broadly, the proposal is inconsistent with Council’s planning framework and heritage preservation priorities. Its scale and design diverge from established planning and design policies, and approval would risk setting an undesirable precedent for high-rise developments in low-rise suburban areas.
Increased traffic and congestion associated with a development of this scale would undoubtedly restrict access for residents.
Finally, the proposal is unlikely to deliver meaningful improvements in housing affordability, given its apparent focus on high-end residential units.
In summary, the proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site that is inconsistent with planning controls, unsupported by infrastructure, and fundamentally at odds with the heritage and character of Castlecrag. It would result in irreversible harm to a unique and internationally significant environment.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the NSW Government to reject the proposed development.

Attn: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (Major Projects)
Re: Mixed use development — 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag — SSD 90134958

Introduction and clear request

My family and I object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag and respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD 90134958.

This proposal, two (2) residential towers of up to thirteen (13) storeys delivering 150 apartments, with extensive retail, basement parking and services would fundamentally and permanently harm Castlecrag’s unique village character, heritage setting, landscape identity and residential amenity.

Core issue: A small, heritage rich community would be dwarfed

Castlecrag is a small, distinctive community of around 2,965 people living in approximately 1,060 private dwellings. By adding an estimated 350–400 residents, this single development would inflate Castlecrag’s population by approximately 12–14%, overwhelming a small, heritage significant village never planned for such growth.

Castlecrag’s identity is internationally recognised as a planned “garden estate” shaped by the principles of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, emphasising harmony with the landscape rather than domination of it.

Against that context, a double tower form of up to thirteen (13) storeys is out of proportion and out of character. It would visually and physically overwhelm the local centre and adjoining low rise neighbourhood, setting a precedent that erodes the very qualities that make Castlecrag special.

Local community planning principles for the Castlecrag centre explicitly state that development must be compatible with the Griffins’ philosophy, be “subservient to the landscape”, and read as a small local village—not “blocks of apartments” or a “corporate” centre. This proposal does the opposite.

Planning non-compliance and strategic misalignment: scale, zoning intent and misuse of uplift logic

In my view, the proposal relies on an inflated planning narrative to justify a level of height and bulk that is not suited to an E1 Local Centre setting in a heritage sensitive suburb. The Department should give substantial weight to the local planning purpose of Willoughby’s framework, including aims to conserve ecological integrity and environmental heritage and to allow development at a scale sensitive to site constraints.

Key concerns include:

• Strategic misfit: The proposal represents high rise intensification in a locality that is not planned as a growth centre and is highly sensitive in heritage and landscape terms.

• Design excellence not demonstrated: The built form (bulk, massing, street interface, heritage response and overshadowing) remains fundamentally unresolved and should not proceed based on Conquest’s promotional claims. NSW Planning must be satisfied by evidence, not assumption.

• Misleading characterisation as a “modified development”: The EIS repeatedly frames the scheme as a modification of an earlier approval, yet it is supported by a rezoning pathway seeking a significant uplift in development standards. That is not a “modification” in any meaningful sense; it is a materially different project requiring discipline studies specific to this scale and form.


Poor public transport basis — no transit oriented development justification

The proposal’s density is not supported by genuine transit access. Castlecrag has no train station; the nearest stations (including Chatswood and Artarmon) are several kilometres away, approximately 3.5–3.8 km.

A high-density outcome at this location is therefore inconsistent with the core planning principle of locating major uplift where frequent, high-capacity public transport is available.

Traffic, parking and local road network impacts are unacceptable

The proposal includes five basement levels and a large parking provision (reported as approximately 376 spaces), indicating that the development will be car dependent. This will intensify congestion, safety risks and “rat running” through local streets not designed to accommodate such volumes.

The Department should require transparent and credible traffic modelling that aligns with the proposed scale increase and realistic mode share assumptions for a suburb without rail access.

Overshadowing and loss of amenity — failure to protect neighbourhoods and community

A dramatic increase in height inevitably produces deeper and longer shadows and amenity impacts, including loss of solar access, privacy, outlook and adverse wind effects.

The EIS documentation should be rejected where it fails to provide a clear comparative analysis against the approved DA scheme and instead defers shadow and wind impacts to future mitigation. A project of this magnitude must demonstrate acceptable impacts at the assessment stage, not later.

Native Flora and Fauna loss and environmental harm contradict the Griffin landscape identity

Castlecrag’s landscape character and tree canopy are not decorative; they are foundational to the suburb’s identity and are consistent with the Griffins’ intent that landscape remain the dominant experience.

The proposal’s scale and footprint create strong incentives for tree removal, reduced deep soil zones and diminished long term canopy cover—outcomes incompatible with both the suburb’s established character and Willoughby’s broader environmental objectives.

Heritage impacts are not minor; they are fundamental

Castlecrag’s heritage significance is not limited to isolated “items”. It lies in the planned relationship between built form, reserves, bushland and village scale. Walter Burley Griffin described the features that distinguish Castlecrag as including a shared landscape experience and a built form that does not intrude upon it.

A pair of towers of up to thirteen (13) storeys would read as a dominant marker at a sensitive gateway and would overwhelm the heritage setting, undermining the conservation area’s visual and spatial integrity.

“Affordable housing” claims do not justify the harm

The project proposes 150 apartments, including ten (10) designated affordable housing units.

That limited proportion does not justify irreversible impacts on heritage values, neighbourhood character, community cohesion, tree canopy, traffic safety or solar access—particularly in a location without rail transport and with well established environmental constraints.

Conclusion

This proposal fails to respect the scale, character and capacity of the Castlecrag community and ignores the intent and provisions of the relevant Willoughby LEP and DCP.

Castlecrag is an intimate community (approximately 2,965 people across around 1,060 dwellings) with a globally recognised planning legacy.

The proposed two (2) towers of up to thirteen (13) storeys would dwarf the village centre, erode the Griffin landscape led identity and impose unacceptable amenity, heritage, environmental and traffic impacts.

For these reasons, My family and I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD 90134958.
Yours sincerely,

Carl O Peterson

Please register my support for the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road. The site currently functions as a poor pedestrian environment with limited activation. The proposed permeable layout, including a dedicated सार्वजनिक walkway connecting through to the bushland reserves, would significantly enhance local connectivity.

From a planning perspective, this represents a substantial public benefit. In addition, the commitment to Universal Design—ensuring the supermarket and public areas are accessible via ramps and lifts—is vital for fostering an inclusive community. The proposal effectively transforms a private site into accessible, community-oriented urban infrastructure.

The proposed height is way too high - it should not be more than 5 stories max! It is really out of character with the neighbourhood and will lower property prices for everyone around it - Castle cove, middle cove, castle crag, willoughby etc. We live in a really unique suburb with pedigree architects having designed the street landscapes (Walter burleigh Griffin)- please ensure that heritage is retained for everyone. That site needs to be an appropriate portal to our wonderful suburbs - not some faceless, charmless tower block that the current proposal appears to be.

The large high development is not in keeping with the beautiful heritage of Castlecrag and will place further stress on public transport and travel routes through this intersection. Being on high land, it will likely overshadow many houses and dwellings to south in valley behind. These large developments are more suited to cbd areas like Chatswood and Crows Nest areas that have good transport links and many apartments already. It would be a shame to lose the suburban leafy aspect of Castlecrag and similar suburbs in lower north shore.

I write in support of the proposed mixed-use redevelopment at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

In my view, the proposal represents an appropriate form of urban renewal on a highly accessible site within an established local centre and responds to the urgent need to increase housing supply within Sydney’s existing urban footprint.

The development would provide a meaningful increase in housing diversity, including apartment housing and affordable housing, within a lower north shore location where new housing opportunities are historically limited and where demand for well-located housing remains extremely high.

I particularly support the inclusion of affordable housing within the proposal. Affordable housing is critically needed across Sydney, including on the lower north shore where escalating housing costs continue to exclude many key workers, younger residents and lower-income households from living close to employment, services and established communities. Delivering affordable housing as part of mixed-use infill redevelopment assists in creating more socially diverse and inclusive communities and is an important public benefit arising from the proposal.

Importantly, the proposal would consolidate growth within an existing commercial centre rather than contributing to further urban sprawl. This is consistent with broader metropolitan planning objectives relating to housing delivery, sustainability, walkability and more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services.

From a sustainability perspective, well-located infill housing plays an essential role in reducing pressure for continued greenfield expansion on the metropolitan fringe. Concentrating additional housing within established urban areas makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure, utilities, public services and transport networks while reducing the environmental impacts associated with outward expansion.

Higher density housing within existing centres can also support more walkable communities, reduce car dependency over time and improve access to shops, services and employment opportunities. Infill development is an important component of a more sustainable metropolitan growth pattern and assists in limiting the loss of undeveloped land and natural areas at the urban edge.

The inclusion of retail and active ground floor uses would also strengthen the local centre and improve its vitality and activation. Increased residential density within walking distance of shops and services supports local businesses and contributes to a more vibrant and economically resilient neighbourhood.

While the proposal represents an increase in density compared to the existing development, it is appropriate that strategically located sites evolve over time to respond to Sydney’s housing needs. In this regard, I support a planning approach that balances local character considerations with the broader public interest associated with housing supply and affordability.

Having reviewed the publicly available material, I note that the proposal includes detailed assessment of key environmental and amenity matters including traffic, visual impact, overshadowing, landscaping and heritage considerations. Subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and conditions of consent, I consider these impacts capable of being appropriately managed.

I also support the contemporary architectural approach and the delivery of communal open space and landscaping within the development. The proposal has the potential to significantly improve the presentation and activation of this site relative to its current condition.

More broadly, Sydney requires increased housing delivery in well-established areas with access to employment, services and infrastructure. Projects such as this play an important role in addressing the housing shortage and providing greater housing choice across the metropolitan area.

For these reasons, I support the approval of the application.

My husband and I object to the proposed development at 100 Edinburgh Road.

OUR HISTORY:
We have lived in Castlecrag for 36 years, first in Sunnyside Avenue and now in The Rampart. We raised our children here.
Like many residents, we chose to live here because Castlecrag is not a typical Sydney suburb. Its unique bushland setting, low-scale built form and heritage character have been carefully protected over many decades through strict planning and conservation controls.
And to preserve that, residents are expected to comply with very detailed requirements intended to preserve the Griffin planning philosophy and landscape character of the suburb.
And these controls have applied to all residents, influencing everything from fencing and visual presentation to colours, vegetation and streetscape integration.
While these restrictions are not always convenient, residents accept them because they are part of preserving the broader environmental and heritage integrity of Castlecrag.

DISPROPORTIONATE HEIGHT AND IMPACT:
For this reason, the proposed scale and height of this development appear fundamentally inconsistent with the very planning principles and controls that have shaped the suburb for decades.
The proposal introduces a building form that is visually dominant, excessive in bulk and entirely out of scale with the surrounding low-rise residential environment. It represents a significant departure from the established character of Castlecrag and from the landscape-integrated principles associated with Walter Burley Griffin’s vision for the area.

CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC:
Traffic and parking impacts are another major concern. Castlecrag functions as a constrained peninsula suburb with limited entry and exit points and a narrow internal road network.

Existing congestion already occurs at peak times, and it is difficult to understand how a development of this scale can be accommodated without significant impacts on traffic flow, safety and parking overflow into surrounding residential streets.

PRECEDENT:
I am also concerned that approval of a development of this scale would establish a damaging precedent for future intensification inconsistent with Castlecrag’s heritage and conservation framework.

NEIGHBOURS:
I am also concerned about the impact on surrounding residential amenity, particularly overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring homes. The proposal appears to introduce substantial height and mass into a location surrounded predominantly by low-scale housing and bushland.

CONSULATIONS:
Finally, while consultation sessions were conducted, but were informational rather than genuinely consultative. Many residents attended with serious concerns regarding scale, traffic, overshadowing and neighbourhood character. Yet to most of us attending these meetings, there was little indication that our concerns, questions, feedback - would meaningfully influence the proposal. It felt like ‘lip service’.

I respectfully request that the proposal be refused or substantially reconsidered due to its inconsistency with the established planning, heritage and environmental character of Castlecrag.


CLAIRE & PETER WILKINSON

I support the proposed development at the intersection of Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road. In terms of building height, this site is both topographically and strategically well suited to accommodate increased density. Concentrating height at this transit-oriented corner helps preserve the low-density character and heritage significance of the Griffin-designed homes further along the peninsula.
The design’s use of sandstone and other natural materials demonstrates a strong level of architectural compatibility with the surrounding bushland setting. Overall, it represents a sound planning outcome—directing Sydney’s growth to a primary arterial road rather than allowing it to encroach on quieter, more sensitive residential areas.

I object to this SSD proposal.
Based on the publicly available SSD assessment materials (including the EIS, the Design Review Panel Design Advice Letters, and the NSW design review framework), the proposal has not demonstrated an acceptable level of design excellence and heritage-sensitive outcomes, particularly given the site’s cultural and place-based significance.
Please refer to the attached submission for further details. This development MUST be stopped.