30 April 2026

1. The Walter Burley Griffin Society (WBGS) objects strongly to Conquest’s development proposal for 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, which contains potentially misleading statements that downplay the devastating impact the proposed 13-14 storey apartment towers would have on the internationally renowned Griffin Heritage Conservation Area.

2. Despite Conquest claiming in its recently submitted Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that it has considered the WBGS guidelines that informed the previous proposal for the site (that was approved in 2024), they are not reflected in the design of its proposed high-rise development.

3. The applicant, Edinburgh Group Investments Pty Ltd (a subsidiary company of Conquest), claims that its State Significant Development proposal (SSD-90134958) “builds upon” the existing approved development consent granted to the Luxcon Group (DA 2024/13) in November 2024. However, Conquest’s proposed apartment towers bear little resemblance to the DA-approved design (DA 2024/13) for 100 Edinburgh Road.

4. The Griffin Society would like to point out that there is NO similarity between the approved mid-rise mixed-use development (height of up to 15 metres with 38 apartments), and Conquest’s proposal for two high rise towers of 49 metres height with 150 apartments.

5. This outcome would be more than three times the height of the DA approved in 2024. The proposal will result in two towers towering more than eight storeys above the tree tops, looming over the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, which was designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin in sympathy with the natural environment.

6. The applicant makes a misleading claim (EIS page 118) that they have “taken into consideration” the WBGS guidelines for the ‘Quadrangle Architectural Design Brief’ issued in 2019 when the previous developer Greencliff started working on their planning proposal and development application DA 2024/13 (consequently approved by the North Sydney Panel). This could not be further from the truth. The WBGS design guidelines 2019 clearly state that:
• Any new development to be visually lower than the existing mature Scribbly Gums in Edinburgh Road (ie must look no more than 3 storeys).
• Must look like a small shopping village and not a block of apartments.
• Relationship to residential development at rear to be integrated through appropriate landscape, and care should be taken to minimise any additional overshadowing.

7. The WBGS strongly opposes the proposed SSD, which is not compatible with the surrounding urban fabric of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed SSD at the landmark site and main entry into the Griffin-designed suburb will detrimentally affect the preserved urban structure (morphology) of the Griffins’ vision for the exemplary urban settlement of the early 20th century, an ideal suburb unlike any other.

8. Despite the applicant acknowledging in its submission the importance of WBGS’s role as the “keepers of the Griffin legacy”, it has not engaged with the Society and not accepted our invitations to show them the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area.

9. Despite saying it has considered the “aims and objectives” of the WBGS, this is clearly not reflected in its proposed development, and at no time did they consult with the WBGS.
10. Conquest claims its proposal “builds upon” (EIS page 16) the approved DA. The only thing Conquest is seeking to build upon is to add another 10 storeys to the approved DA, whose design bears little resemblance to the high-rise towers being proposed.

11. Unlike the approved design for the site, there has been absolutely no attempt by Conquest to illustrate how its design is sympathetic to the Griffins’ masterplan and vision for Castlecrag and the area’s natural landscape.

12. The WBGS would like to express its strong opposition to the applicant’s poorly prepared SSD application, which is full of inconsistencies, and false and misleading assertions. The SSD application reveals many flaws in reasoning, where the final claims are not supported by the starting premises as they relate to both heritage and the role of the WBGS recommendations. The false conclusions are also evident in other areas related to the site suitability, consistency with NSW strategic planning, justification for the project, future overshadowing and solar access, visual impact, and traffic impact.

13. The applicant’s claim “the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the Griffin Conservation Area” and “is integrated into its setting by maintaining the height of the buildings at/ below the treetops” (Statement of Heritage Impact page 50) is thoroughly false and misleading.