I object to the Mixed Use Development Proposal at 100 Edinburgh road Castlecrag.
The building is 5.4 times theLEP height and4.2 times the floor space ratio in reliance on a rezoning that has not been made . This is not a proper exercise of the SSD power.
The site is outside the 800 metre walking distance requirement from Northbridge town centre.
The site does not meet the 30%infill housing bonus. It is not anywhere near a train or metro station and has very limited bus transport
Castlecrag is a unique suburb designed by Walter Burley Griffin and his wife Marion. It was specifically designed to have low impact traffic and housing.This proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on both,The site directly adjoins the Griffin Heritage conservation area, It will have significant overshadowing issues.
Traffic is already level F service and development is positioned right at the gateway to Castlecrag, There is only one legitimate road and out of Castlecrag.Traffi will be a nightmare.
The affordable housing component is 6.7 %of units and only 10 years,It fails both tests.
The consultation process was a disaster The developer has not made one concession from the original proposal, There is total confusion surrounding the 11 stories which seems to be actually 13. The developer has failed to consider any alternative low rise option even though in their words it is commercially viable. 80 to89% of Castlecrag residents are concerned about height scale,traffic. 77% on overshadowing, importantly only 2 or 3% of residents had no major concerns, The WWC also overwhelmingly objects to the proposal.
The proposal has by passed the design excellence competition and the two session DRP review is not equivalent.
Importantly the Willoughby Development Control plan caps the Castlecrag Local centre at 4 stories above eastern valley way and 3 stories above Edinburgh way. Therefore thirteen stories on the corner is in direct contrast to the capped 3 stories provided by the strategic planning council.
In conclusion the residents of Castlecrag are not anti development There was already a DA in place for a 3 / 5 story development, before the current developer purchased the site.
This development is marketed as LUXURY ELEVATED living. The cost of the units, including 8 penthouses, will be way beyond the reach of any school teachers,nurses or police officers.
The developer has dressed this up as affordable housing but it is a luxury high rise building.
The concerns of the residents have not been addressed at any point. If the development was to proceed in its current form in will completely undermine the heritage value and design inspired but WalterBurley Griffin, will create traffic chaos.
The proposal is excessive in its scale.It cannot be justified and is not appropriate for the site or the suburb.I respectfully request the department reject the current proposal and require the developer to resubmit are reduced mid sized development.
Kieran Lane

I object to the SSD application for 100 Edinburgh Road Castlecrag, for reasons including the following:

- The currently approved 3 storey design (DA-2024/13) was developed with the benefit of significant consultation with the local community. It is consistent with the style and history of the area, and appropriately honours the work of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. This design should proceed without the expanded scope of the SSD application.

- The expanded scope of the SSD application is gargantuanly oversized for the area, and has no architectural merit - it is a bland box type design, at the entry to the Griffin HCA. The Griffin design approach was to embed buildings in the landscape; the SSD application plonks a Lego block on top of a crest without any consideration for the impact on the local landscape. It is scaled to maximise developer return and not to honour the long-term vision of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

- The scale of the SSD is not in keeping with any developments in the local area. The position on top of a crest will exacerbate the impact of such a large building.

- The scale and design of the SSD is not in keeping with the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

- The SSD application is full of incorrect information, with data skewed towards the developers who have paid the consultants, and not taking into account public benefit. As a very simple example, on page 12 of the Transport Impact Assessment the times stated for the 275 bus are completely incorrect; all the public transport details imply a far greater availability of public transport than is actually available in the area. The increased population pressure from the expanded development has not been taken into account when considering the availability of public transport.
275 bus times claimed:
Mon-Fri: 30-60 minutes intervals, between 6:55am and 6:56pm
Sat: 60 minutes intervals, between 8:28am and 7:28pm
Sun: 60 minutes intervals, between 9:37am and 6:33pm
275 bus times actual:
Mon-Fri: 1 - 2 hour intervals (per direction), between 9:15am and 3:09pm
Sat: 2 hour intervals (per direction), between 8:15am and 6:09pm
Sun and public holidays: no service.

- The SSD includes no provision for car share arrangements in the apartment parking spaces. If residents are expected to be able to rely on largely public transport, car share arrangements are ideal for optimising car use by people who do not need one daily.

- The traffic count survey and associated work does not adequately take into account the impact of new developments on the western side of Eastern Valley Way which are currently under construction, and which will significantly increase the population and congestion in the area.

- The proposed 'affordable units' return to the developer after only 15 years. There is no long-term community benefit here.

- My understanding is that the SSD application would require 5 healthy eucalypt trees (height 20 - 24m) and 1 healthy angophora (height 22m) to be cut down, 6 more trees than the approved DA. These trees are of significant size and age, and cannot be replaced. Trees of this type need to be preserved whenever possible to provide eventual habitat for species such as the powerful owl, which nests in hollows that typically develop only in trees that are approximately 100 years old.

I am a local resident, having lived in a neighbouring suburb of Castlecrag for over 20 years, and have a deep knowledge of and appreciation for the work of Marion Mahony Griffin and Walter Burley Griffin. I support projects which appropriately increase the density of housing in Sydney, where urban sprawl has created an unsustainably low population density which leaves insufficient natural landscape, a lack of community, and extended commuting times to centralised employment hubs. However, the SSD application for 100 Edinburgh Rd is not an appropriate solution to these issues, as it would create an outsized blot on the landscape at the entry to the Griffin HCA, without providing a sufficiently meaningful boost to affordable housing. The existing approved DA-2024/13, which was developed following meaningful community consultation and is in sympathy with the local area, should be proceeded with.

The project isn't aligned with government stated goals regarding increased housing. The units will not be affordable; there is limited public transport, 1 road in and out and there is no local centre that could support a building of this size. Developing beyond the approved 3-5 storeys will be at the expensive of a historically important conversation area- Griffin is integral to Australian architecture. The proposal of 12-14 storeys doesn't align to the desired outcomes, but it will significantly impact our heritage preservation. There is an approved DA-2024/13 that already exists which fits the suburb.

We can keep pushing new construction to fewer and fewer areas because everyone thinks their suburb is special. This construction is on the outer edge of the local community and will not only supply much needed services but have minimal impact on the suburb itself so seems like a good compromise.

The caveats though
1. I would be extremely concerned about the traffic impacts, surveys by a developer rarely should the true impact.
2. the affordable housing amount should be 10% or higher, this means a minimum of 15 apartments should be allocated as affordable otherwise it will be a mockery of the true purpose of the goals of new housing and becomes just another developer cash grab.

I support the proposed development as it represents a thoughtful and well-considered addition to Castlecrag that respects the area’s unique character while responding to housing needs.

Importantly, the development contributes positively to housing choice in the local area, supporting a more diverse and sustainable community without compromising neighbourhood character.

Overall, the proposal helps to replace the old redundant shopping centre and is a welcome addition to all individuals and locals.

This proposal is supported. It is a thoughtfully designed residential development that will provide much-needed housing while contributing positively to the character and functionality of the area. It reflects a balanced and well-considered approach to planning. Overall, I think that the development will create a liveable, high-quality environment for future and current residents while supporting the border requirement for more new homes and future economic growth.

I strongly oppose the proposed two‑tower development on Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag. The site is not located on a rail corridor, is poorly serviced by public transport, and will significantly increase pressure on already strained local services and road networks. Traffic exiting Castlecrag during peak hours is already severely congested, with vehicles banking far down Edinburgh Road due to a traffic‑light sequence that does not allow adequate flow; adding a development of this scale will materially worsen these conditions.
The proposed height also exceeds what has previously been accepted in Castlecrag and is completely inconsistent with the suburb’s established low‑rise character and heritage values. Castlecrag’s planning principles were built around landscape integration, sensitive design and the preservation of its unique Griffin‑influenced character this development disregards that entirely.
As a resident living on Sunnyside Crescent with young children, I am particularly concerned about the increased risk of “rat‑running” and unsafe traffic behaviour being pushed onto smaller residential streets that were never designed to carry heavier through‑traffic. This creates real safety risks for families, pedestrians and cyclists who rely on these quieter streets.
Importantly, I support the previously approved plans for this site, which were developed through careful consultation between the previous owner/builder and the local community. Those plans represented a balanced, respectful outcome that aligned with Castlecrag’s character, scale and heritage context. The current proposal abandons that collaborative approach and instead introduces a level of height, density and visual impact that the community has already made clear is inappropriate for this location.
The proposal also fails to deliver the diverse housing mix the community actually needs, instead positioning itself as high‑end luxury apartments that do not align with local demographic requirements or affordability expectations. Community consultation to date has felt like a tick‑box exercise, with feedback not genuinely incorporated into the planning process and the development falling short of community expectations for scale, suitability and neighbourhood character.
For these reasons, the proposal is inappropriate for this location and should not proceed in its current form.

I would like to submit my objection to the 100 Edinburgh Rd Castlecrag for the following reasons:

1. The scale of the development is not aligned with the character of the suburb or area and will have a significant negative visual impact. The request for 12+ stories at the crest of a hill is much greater than for any other buildings in the area and much greater than the 6-8 story height limit approved for other medium density developments along Eastern Valley Way (which are any event well below the ridgeline where 100 Edinburgh is located). The heights contemplated are akin to a development such as Blues Point Tower which is generally agreed to have had a significant and permanent negative visual impact.

2. The scale of the development will cause significant overshadowing and loss of light for nearby residences. None of this appears to be addressed in the EIS.

3. The size of the development does not seem consistent with the fact it is not located near a transport hub such as a metro or train. I do not believe the access to a train station is accurately represented in the EIS and does not reflect the fact there is little in the way of public transport connectivity to train or metro hubs which are c. 4 km distant. The only public transport reasonably accessible are bus services that are already overcrowded in peak hours and infrequent outside of peak hours.

4. Given the lack of public transport and the geography of Castlecrag as a peninsula suburb the development is likely to cause major traffic congestion along the eastern side of Edinburgh Road which already suffers significant congestion in peak hours. I am also concerned that this will drive motorists to "rat run"/take short cuts through Sunnyside Crescent where I live, creating a dangerous level of traffic volume through a narrow suburban street. This scenario does not seem to be modelled at all in the EIS and the collateral impact of the development on traffic in surrounding streets has been completed ignored or minimised for the purposes of seeking approval.

5. Community consultation can be best described as cursory and more of a "tick the box" approach. I would say the consultation has not been done in good faith as at no point has the developer indicated that consultation with the community would influence their plans which have been presented in a last and final form.

I would note I am strongly supportive of the development contemplated in the original DA that has been approved for the site. Given the developer acquired the site with the existing DA in place and the price they paid was based on this existing DA, claims by the developer they need to add stories/build a larger block to make the economics work due to inflation seem disingenuous and self-serving. The developer had the ability to commence construction not long after acquiring the site and appears instead to have chosen to put construction on hold in order to submit an SSD application. Given this context any additional inflationary impact of costs since acquisition of the site should be borne by the developer as it chose to opportunistically submit the SSD rather than going ahead with the approved DA which would already have resulted in medium density housing for the suburb.

I hope you can provide some consideration to my submission.

Best regards,

Peter Davis

I am writing in objection of Conquest’s new proposal for DA approval at the site 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag as a resident of the suburb. Critically, my concerns surround the impact to amenity and disruption to the overall area.

The first concern surrounds the flow and management of increased traffic around the site. Edinburgh Rd is functionally a 1 lane road. It is the main thoroughfare in and out of the suburb of castlecrag. Thus it is vital that traffic is appropriately reduced and managed for good access of all residents. It is absolutely unfeasible for an extra 376 cars at this choke point to be added to the current traffic burden, which already queues well past the roundabout during peak times. Furthermore, the major corridor for travel southbound from the Northern Beaches feeds from Eastern Valley Way turning right onto Edinburgh Rd, in front of the outlet from Castlecrag. This is a critical choke point, especially as 2 right-turning lanes merge into one, blocking Edinburgh Rd. It is difficult for a car to pass onto Edinburgh Rd heading west due to this road design during peak time hours. This would be very inconvenient for residents of this new development along with all existing residents.

In terms of public transport access to the city which is feasible - i.e. no lengthy walks to train/metro stations, the options are:
- 194 bus which frequently drops services sporadically and services the entire stretch of lower north shore starting from St Ives. The issue with this bus is due to its long route, it often operates near capacity on services during the day.
- 205/206 bus which only operates during peak times. Due to the way services are scheduled, the bus is already operating at full capacity on most services during the morning. As a result, the Edinburgh Rd stop at castle crag is lucky to be relatively early in the bus’ journey. By the time the bus reaches northbridge or cammeray it is often unable to take on any more passengers with full seating and standing capacity reached. I imagine this would be incredibly frustrating for patients who live further south of the location.

This is the reality of the public transport situation at the Edinburgh Rd bus stop. Adding 11 more storeys of accommodation, with high-income individuals likely to be employed in the professional sector and thus seek work in the city and look to take the bus in would place undue stress on a system with barely any further capacity. I personally do not believe the evaluation put forth in this proposal is accurate or suitable. I urge the developing team to conduct a more thorough investigation into the feasibility of what the current infrastructure permits. They are not using these services everyday like myself and the rest of the castlecrag population is.

HDA/SSDA proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag,
I wish to lodge my objections to the present planned development for 2 main reasons: over development leading to increased traffic congestion, and height of buildings.
I believe there are credibility issues at stake here. I object because I don’t believe that true diligence has been undertaken in designing, planning, listening at community consultations and refinement of this scheme.
Increased Traffic: The site owners purport they are seeking “to create spaces that make life easier, more connected and more sustainable.” (as we are supposed to believe from their PR letter received today from the CEO). Surely, they must think of us as fools.
Why has no one properly investigated the existing traffic flow along Edinburgh Rd at different times of the day and year? Already there are queues going back to Charles st roundabout of a morning during school days. With even more traffic it will take a longer time to get out of the suburb to what is presently happening now. Also, coming into the suburb the back flow from the traffic lights on Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way will mean there will be a huge bottleneck created on these feeder roads. Driver frustration can lead to erratic behaviours and accidents.
Given that across the site it is rezoned for townhouses how is Edinburgh rd going to handle such a surge in traffic on its main single carriage way entry and exit road? At a supposed consultation meeting for the site one resident raised the question of increased traffic to which the apparent response was “old people don’t drive cars”!!!
Height of the buildings. Four storeys above ground were proposed in previous plans but now we are informed this new plan will be 11-13 storeys. From my perspective, it makes me believe that this present owner isn’t interested in the appearance and its impact on the Castlecrag area. The overshadowing it will create for many neighbouring dwellings is a concern.
The CEO’s Open Letter dated 23rd April suggests they are building units so young people can stay in the area. The obvious question to be raised is what young people are going to be able to afford these small units which are being priced upwards from one million dollars? Indeed, me thinks the owners are only seeking as much profit as they can get hence getting as many units built on the site as allowed.
I hope you will consider the above in your deliberations. I am not against change but this is not a suitable redevelopment plan for this site.
At the same time I vehemently object to the manner in which we as residents are being “managed” by the developer and his team throughout this process. Even though the CEO states: At Conquest, we believe development should serve people, not just projects. From my perspective, in this instance we are not being served by his vision.