*there is nothing of comparable scale in the surrounding heritage area
*The existing approved DA-2024/13 that is sympathetically designed and scaled should chosen
*The approved DA would sit beneath the tree canopy and thus appropriately harmonise with the landscape
*The SSD would cause irreparable destruction to the gateway of Castlecrag - an entry into the internationally recognised architectural heritage of the 20th century - the work of the creator of our National Capital.
*The community “consultation” process did not truly reflect the concerns expressed by audience members.
*The consultants were paid by the developer and their findings ignored the significance of Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin's major Australian suburban.
*Whereas Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin's designs are on a human scale, the SSD size would be jaring against the beauty of Crastlecrag's elegant design.

Subject: Objection to SSD-90134958 – 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag
I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development proposal at 100 Edinburgh Road. This application represents a significant overdevelopment that fails both strategic and site-specific merit tests.
• Infrastructure & Safety: The two access points to the Castlecrag peninsula are already at Level of Service F (failure). This proposal increases peak hour trips by up to 78.3% compared to the approved DA2024/13, relying on a flawed Traffic Impact Assessment that assumes "high accessibility" where none exists.
• Heritage Destruction: The height of 49m—a 209% increase over current controls—will see two 14-storey towers protrude eight storeys above the tree canopy. This destroys Walter Burley Griffin’s vision of architecture being subordinate to the landscape.
• Amenity & Environment: The building breaches the ridgeline and skyline, creating excessive overshadowing for southern neighbours.
• Misleading Information: The EIS incorrectly identifies Castlecrag as a "Town Centre" and misrepresents the height limits of adjoining R2-zoned land to justify its own bulk.
• Legal Non-Compliance: The proposal fails the statutory 20% non-residential floor space requirement set by the WLEP 2012, providing only 16.5%. As no Clause 4.6 Variation has been submitted to justify this, the application is legally incapable of determination.
I urge the Department to refuse this application as it is not in the public interest.

I wish to object to the development as proposed by Conquest for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (SSD90134958)
The site for this development is already a traffic nightmare at peak times with schoolchildren, tradesmen and commuters trying to get in and out of Castlecrag vis the Edinburgh Road/Eastern Valley Way crossroads.

The scale of the proposed development is such that it will increase the resident car owning population of the village by around 300 who will all need access to Eastern Valley Way through this one junction. In addition, there will be employees and customers of the proposed supermarket, retail and food outlets who will all need access and parking.

The result will be increased traffic congestion and interminable waits at the traffic lights.

In my opinion, it would be an absolute travesty if the State Government were to permit a development of this height and density in Castlecrag; it would destroy the unique character of this neighbourhood peninsula for posterity and only benefit a greedy developer!!

I have read all the details regarding this DA submission and am dismayed how this has even been considered for Castlecrag. This doesn't pass the pub test. Heritage considerations seem irrelevant when big money is at the table. There was a pre-existing approved DA that limited this development to 5 storeys which in itself was controversial. This is a grotesque oversized monstrosity that will harm the village like character of Castlecrag. This is not consistent with the council's heritage preservation priorities. Sets a precedent for other over the top big high rise developments. The shadowing and privacy of surrounding properties will be impacted. Apparently 42% of trees will be removed and no plan in place on how to protect the remaining ones. Access in and out of Castlecrag currently during peak times leads to long queuing from the lights. This will be congestion on a nightmare scale if this project gets up.
I strongly object to what appears to be the start of a destruction of this beautiful, natural, landscaped heritage suburb.
Please reconsider and think for future's sake.

I object to the development at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag for the following reasons.
The proposal of a development which is higher that the council mandated height is unacceptable and excessive. There is no need for a development of this size in Castlecrag as there are already new apartment blocks already built or being built in Warners Avenue and Eastern Valley Way. Castlecrag is not within the State mandated boundaries of any public transport hub. The bus only public transport which does exist in this area is limited and infrequent which necessitates the use of personal vehicles for people wishing to access the city or other centres such as Chatswood. If there are more residents in the area as a result of this development the already bad traffic congestion will be increased greatly. There is only one road into and out of Castlecrag with no capacity to expand except by removing local businesses which would be untenable. the previously approved DA of 4 storeys (5 at the rear) was accepted by the community and was much more in keeping with the area than this unacceptable and inappropriate development.
The proposed plan includes a large supermarket which would be totally redundant in the area. There are already large supermarkets in nearby Northbridge, Crows Nest, Chatswood and Chatswood City. The express IGA in the former Quadrangle site was more than adequate for and well used by the local community. This supermarket inclusion indicates yet again that no market research has been done by the developer nor is there any understanding of what is acceptable and needed by the residents of the area.

I have lived in this community for 25 years. Travelling by bus is never easy unless you are going into the city. Therefore, a car has been a requirement and with the increase number of residents proposed with the towers, congestion will be inevitable and dangerous to the local school children and residents of the area.

The suburb design has been carefully considered and there is significant wildlife that reside in this area. With increased housing to the extend of the proposal, there will be excessive risk to these animals. The existing housing allows for these animals to move amongst the neighborhood and enjoy relative safety from urban life.

The thoughtful and considered architecture of the suburb is an important part of our recent heritage and should be honored and considered. Entry into the suburb passing the two towers does not support the vision nor the heritage of this neighborhood.

Overall, there are many objections to this application but the last is the eyesore it would create. Where tall trees housing birds and wildlife should exist, the community would be overwelmed by the tower structure, offering no aesthetic appeal to the area.

Thank you

I would like to make a strong objection to the development at 100 Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag. I am completely shocked that this proposal is even being considered. A development of this size is NOT appropriate for this location for many reasons. Most importantly:
- lack of public transport near the site. There are currently not enough buses for current residents and it is NOT close to a train station or Metro
- not in line with history and heritage of Castlecrag
- does not meet zoning and statutory controls
- massive traffic congestion due to the number of new units and cars associated with this - I read some of the traffic modelling and don't believe this could possibly be accurate - seems manipulated
- totally out of character with the surrounds
- size and scale is absolutely ridiculous for the proposed site
- they will not be "affordable" so any argument around the affordable housing issue is simply not true
- could set catastrophic precedents where only developers will benefit
- developer should not be allowed to build a complex of this size without meeting the requirements for adequate parking, traffic congestion, increased public transport, green spaces and general quality of living for not just Castlecrag but all adjoining suburbs

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant zoning restrictions, height restrictions, there is no public transport servicing this area other than buses.
The increased cars and buses required to transport the additional residents will severely clog the single entry/exit into Castlecrag. There are not enough car spaces to house the increased traffic this development will bring to the area.
The area is of significant cultural and heritage status which will be destroyed by this development.
There are not enough resources to service so many people in this area - schools, hospital, medical facilities, childcare, etc
The proposed buildings are bulky, imposing, shadowing, and excessively high and not in keeping with the surrounding areas including Northbridge.
How can such proposal be approved when hundreds of Castlecrag residents spent 10 years consulting with the previous developer/owner to come to a satisfactory outcome to both the developer and the residents of Castlecrag? It is unacceptable on many levels that it is proposed this DA be overridden
This development will irreparably change what is currently a very special and unique area in Sydney.
The development does not satisfy the affordable housing considerations and requirements.

The proposed project is simply too tall and too massive.
The smaller project approved by the Council was appropriate.
This huge proposed project is completely out of keeping with the low-rise nature of the area.
It is discordant with the heritage conservation area adjacent.
The traffic implications will negatively impact all residents in Castlecrag. It will dramatically increase the inability of residents to exit the suburb along Edinburgh Rd, especially in peak times. It will have a dreadful impact on the residents in nearby streets (Raeburn and Rutland Ave, Charles and Edith Sts and Sunnyside Cres) as those streets become "rat-runs" for people trying to escape the congestion in Edinburgh Rd. That is particularly serious given there is a school located on the corner of Edith St and Edinburgh Rd.

The proponent purchased a site with an approved DA for a price that it considered reasonable for that development. That is, it purchased the site satisfied that it would make a healthy profit from constructing and selling that building. It is now seeking to make super-profits by adding an extra 100+ dwellings to the site. It is simply about greed.

It is not helping the affordable housing crisis when the properties are all expensive, high-end apartments.

The "community consultations" conducted by the developer have been shams. I attended both. At the first meeting they merely put plans on a noticeboard for people to look at. At the second meeting it was conceded that they were merely "ticking a box" because it was required by the Planning Department. There was no "consultation". The project consultants at the meeting were all clearly embarrassed by the magnitude of the proposal and were unable to defend it. The heritage consultant was almost in tears.

150 dwellings, including 54 3-bedroom dwellings, would equate to about 400 people living on the site instead of the approved plan for 38 dwellings (perhaps 100 people). This location is not a transport hub that can cope with such an enormous increase. Do not be fooled that the buses that pass along Eastern Valley Way all stop at Edinburgh Rd, they don't!

I have faith that the Planning Department will not approve this project which is too tall and too massive. Too greedy.
I hope I am not disappointed.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing as a local Castlecrag family to object to the proposed State Significant Development at 100 Edinburgh Road.

We care deeply about this area – not only as residents, but as people who genuinely value architecture and the cultural significance of place. We see enormous value in preserving Castlecrag as it was originally intended: a rare and cohesive planning vision where built form, landscape and community are carefully balanced.

From our perspective, this proposal represents a clear departure from that intent.

Castlecrag is not simply a suburb where standard planning controls can be applied in isolation. Its identity is grounded in a specific design philosophy – one that prioritises low-scale development, integration with the natural landscape, and a consistent, restrained architectural language. That framework is still legible today, and it is what gives the area its enduring cultural and environmental value.

The scale of the proposed development feels fundamentally out of step with its surroundings. Its height and overall mass introduce a level of visual dominance that is difficult to reconcile with the more recessive, landscape-led character of the area. Rather than sitting within the site, the building appears to assert itself over it.

There is also a broader concern around how the proposal engages with the existing natural environment. Castlecrag’s identity is closely tied to its vegetation and topography, and any substantial removal of trees or reshaping of the site risks weakening that relationship in a lasting way.

In addition, the intensity of the development raises questions about its impact on neighbouring properties and the wider precinct. The likely effects on light, outlook and general amenity, combined with an increase in activity and traffic, do not sit comfortably with the quieter, village-like quality that defines the area.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposal does not appear to respond in a meaningful way to the heritage context in which it sits. Even where technical compliance may be argued, the overall outcome seems misaligned with the intent of the conservation framework that underpins Castlecrag’s planning approach.

More broadly, we are concerned about the precedent this sets. Incremental changes of this nature can gradually erode the defining qualities of the suburb, and once that character is diminished, it cannot be easily restored.

We want to be clear that we are not opposed to thoughtful development or to contemporary architecture. We strongly support well-considered design that responds to place. However, that requires a level of restraint and sensitivity that does not appear evident here.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the application be refused in its current form.

Sincerely,
Monique Easton