The 13-14 storey SSDA’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and annexures including its Statement of Heritage Impact (SoHI) went on public exhibition on the NSW Planning Portal webpage for SSD-90134958 in late April with comments closing two weeks later on 7 May.

Total number of objections is over 1052 with the total number of all submissions for the SSDA being more than 1298.

The Walter Burley Griffin Society Inc. (WBGS) engaged Desim Pty Ltd to prepare its Submission to OBJECT to the SSD-90134958 (Castlecrag Mixed use development), submitted by Edinburgh Development Group Pty Ltd (the applicant), for a shop top housing at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag (Lot 11/DP 611594). Below is the Executive Summary from the 146 page submission made to the NSW Department of Planning on 5 May 2026:

Castlecrag was planned and partly developed by the distinguished American architects Walter Burley Griffin and his wife, Marion Mahony Griffin – the creators of our national Capital. Besides plans for Canberra, the creation of Castlecrag was their major achievement in Australia.

The planning history and architectural values of the existing subdivision pattern, urban morphology and individual houses in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) at Castlecrag is of national and international significance. Castlecrag is an example of town planning and urban design that is like no other in Australia of any time.

The detailed analysis of the SSD application package has revealed that the applicant’s proposal for two 13-14 storey high residential towers to replace the current DA 2024/13 (5 storey high) is unacceptable. The scale, massing, and architectural design of the SSD proposal will completely ruin the existing physical structure of the historical Castlecrag Estate. A unique, innovative suburb such as Castlecrag should be preserved for the future generations.
NSW Transport Oriented Development Program and the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy do not apply to the project site. The site is not identified as planned residential growth land in the Draft Sydney Plan 2025.

The review of the submitted SSD architectural plans and accompanying reports reveals significant numbers of errors, misleading statements and invalid conclusions. The SSD proposal does not comply with the Apartment Design Guidelines.

The community of Castlecrag and the WBGS members support the redevelopment of the subject site. They strongly endorsed the approved design, scale and building massing proposed in the existing DA 2024/13 which was approved on 3 December 2024.

Any redevelopment of this land must speak to the same type of inspired architectural vision as the rest of Castlecrag built on the Griffins’ urban design principles. To preserve the Griffin HCA, the local centre urban morphology must be congruent with the rest of the heritage area.

It is evident that the purpose of the proposed SSD is to maximise profits for the developer and investors. It is not to meet the need for affordable housing and achieve social outcomes in support of Sydney residents. While profit is a fundamental driver for any business, it cannot be the sole motive and must be balanced with other social, cultural and heritage values that must be sustained.

The blanket supply of residential development in the wrong places, enabled by the new SSD pathway, will have unprecedented consequences to the public sense of community, social cohesion and wellbeing.

In addition to its Submission, the Society is pleased to have met with the Minister for Planning’s Chief of Staff and the DPHI staff last week.

26 May 2026

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.

30 January 2026 – The Walter Burley Griffin Society has called on the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Paul Scully to withdraw the granted SSD 90134958 for an 11 storey proposal at 100 Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag.

This SSD has so many red flags that the Society believes it must have been granted in error.

The WBGS Pre-Application Submission with 19 petitions prepared on behalf of the Walter Burley Griffin Society by planning consultants Desim Pty Ltd has been sent to the Minister’s office on 30 January 2026. It identifies a long list of issues:
• The NSW Government’s Draft Sydney Plan does not identify Castlecrag as a planned housing growth area.
• The site is far away from the train and metro lines and is thus not in the NSW Transport-Oriented Development Program.
• The site is not affected the NSW’s Low Mid-Rise Housing Policy.
• If proceeded with it would create a precedent to build in any remote suburban set of shops.
• The granting of the SSD did not factor in that the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area (Griffin HCA) is like no other in Sydney and is of international renown.
• Willoughby City Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement emphasizes the importance of preserving Griffin’s design philosophy.
• If this 11 storey were to proceed, it would cause irreversible harm to the unique planning and heritage of the Griffin HCA.
• The preliminary design, scale and massing of the SSD does not implement any of the NSW Government Architect’s policies (e.g. Better Placed policy, Design Guide for Heritage, Implementing Good Design or Connecting with Country).
• The site already has an approved DA (DA-2024/13), a mixed-use plan of shops and 38 apartments approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel in December 2024, which demonstrates that housing delivery can be achieved without compromising heritage values.

Many eminent professionals from Australia and overseas have signed a petition Statement supporting the submission by the Walter Burley Griffin Society objecting to this SSD-90134958 for two 11 storey high towers at the gateway to Griffin’s planned suburb at Castlecrag that would ruin the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. They support the site being redeveloped according to the already approved application (DA-2024/13) which has true design excellence and provides 3 storey shop-top housing with 38 apartments

One of the signatories is Professor Anthony Burke, the presenter of the popular ABC TV series, “Grand Designs Australia” and “Restoration Australia”, who states “The Griffin Heritage Conservation Area is of truly of international significance, not only for its direct connection to the planning of our own capital Canberra, but as a leading sub-urban design precedent integrating nature and community in a way that continues to inspire designers and planners from all over the world.
“The possibilities of living elegantly with the Australian bush that were imagined by the Griffins here is something we continue to strive to emulate today and should be protected and respected for its enormous culture value.”

The Society’s President Michael Thomson respectfully calls on the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to reduce the dwelling yield, bulk and scale of development to that of the already approved development application (DA-2024/13). This would be the only way to avoid causing irreversible harm to the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area of NSW and its national significance”.

If you would like further information please contact secretary@griffinsociety.org

It is not too late to object to this proposal. Please lodge your objection with the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Paul Scully and ask (in your own words) for a reduction in the dwelling yield, bulk and scale of development to that of the already approved development. https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces

A proposal for an 11-storey development at the gateway to Castlecrag has sparked deep concern among residents, heritage and community advocates, who say it poses a direct threat to the internationally recognised Griffin Conservation Area.

Castlecrag was designed over a century ago by renowned American architects Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin. Their visionary plan created a “garden suburb” where buildings were carefully integrated into the bushland setting, respecting the natural landscape and views to Middle Harbour.

Now, that vision is under threat.

Developer Conquest purchased a key corner site at Eastern Valley Way and Edinburgh Road in May 2025 and has lodged an Expression of Interest with the Housing Development Authority under the State Significant Development (SSD) process. On 23 July, the Minister declared the proposed 11-storey development eligible for SSD fast-tracking—despite the site sitting directly adjacent to the Griffin Conservation Area (GCA).

“This is an area of national and international heritage significance. The proposal to construct an 11-storey tower at its entrance is not just inappropriate—it’s alarming,” said Akky van Ogtrop, President of the Walter Burley Griffin Society. “The Griffin Conservation Area is not merely a suburb—it is a legacy. The Griffins’ vision was clear: buildings should defer to nature, not compete with it.”

The site had previously been owned by Greencliff, a development company founded by Dr Stanley Quek. In recognition of the area’s sensitivity, Greencliff commissioned a design excellence competition among four of Sydney’s leading architectural firms. The winning design, by FJMT Studio, proposed a carefully articulated three-storey development split into two structures to minimise bulk and visual impact. Almost all existing trees, including a prominent Spotted Gum at the corner, were retained in the FJMT design. This thoughtful and context-sensitive proposal was approved in November 2024, by the Sydney North Planning Panel.

However, the new owners have since applied to Willoughby City Council for the removal of the healthy mature Spotted Gum and appear to be abandoning the approved plan in favour of a high-rise that critics say would dominate and visually overwhelm the Griffin Conservation Area.

“The Griffin Conservation Area is unique in Australia”, Ms van Ogtrop said. “It is critical that any adjoining development respects this heritage. The Griffins’ philosophy placed the landscape and trees above built form. The FJMT design honoured that vision. Replacing it with an 11-storey tower would be a devastating loss.”

Community members and heritage advocates are now calling on the NSW Government to uphold the integrity of the Griffin legacy and reject any development that threatens the conservation area’s character and values. Additionally, Willoughby City Council is requested to reject the application for tree removal.

WBGS Media Release 070825_for web
7 August 2025

 

While the New South Wales Government introduced heritage protection with the Heritage Act 1977, now in 2025 the draft of the first ever NSW Heritage Strategy has been released. The Draft Strategy is currently on public exhibition until 13 July.

The Society has submitted feedback on the draft document. You can view the draft submission WBGS submission_Draft NSW Heritage Strategy FINAL 250626

In brief, the Society has called for the Draft Strategy to be further developed and refined with clear tools to achieve the aim of protecting NSW heritage. The Draft Strategy as exhibited now identifies that “The NSW Government has committed to a 5-year target of delivering 377,000 new dwellings across the state by 2029 as part of its commitment to the National Housing Accord.” The way on how to balance heritage protection with the need for extensive urban renewal to provide more housing has not been clearly expressed in the document.

The Draft Strategy assures that state and local heritage items will continue to be protected. However as the Society points out in its submission, to create appropriate protection the neighbouring properties of the heritage items need to be zoned to prevent medium and high rise development, so that there is an appropriate and sympathetic buffer around the heritage items.

For example the single storey Griffin-designed Cameron House at 33 Marian Street, Killara designed by Walter Burley Griffin1 would be unacceptably impacted if a development of three stories or more was allowed to be built on any of its boundaries.

Also it is of great concern that Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA) are not mentioned in the Draft NSW Heritage Strategy. HCAs have been created in previous decades with significant council resources, extensive independent and professional expertise and thorough community engagement. They are a very important tool to conserving NSW heritage.

A heritage strategy for NSW needs to inform the urban renewal policy to ensure that new housing will be located in “the right places”. The right places should under no circumstances disregard the existing conservation areas, as may be interpreted by omitting HCAs from the Draft Strategy.

In addition, resources in the last decade have slowed to such an extent that now just a handful of buildings are assessed for heritage listing per year. This puts at risk the hundreds of heritage properties not yet listed due to the huge backlog in the assessment processing at the NSW Heritage Office.

The Government must deliver a more strategic approach and protection for our heritage with practical, feasible and well-funded actions.
The NSW government needs to invest in this. It needs to budget for a best practice approach that does justice to heritage, the state and its people. Given that $14 billion is spent by cultural and heritage visitors in NSW (as stated on page 3 of Draft Strategy) this should not be difficult to achieve.

It is of great concern that the draft strategy lacks tools for implementation of its vision and is a long way short of best practice. It is incomplete. It compromises all heritage items by not requiring a buffer zone around them, and it threatens all conservation areas by opening them up to unsympathetic development.
The Society objects to the Draft NSW Heritage Strategy in its current form, as its simplistic approach poses a threat to NSW’s heritage.
_____________________________________
The NSW Government is seeking feedback on this draft heritage strategy.

The public exhibition period is open until 13 July via the Have your say website at
https://www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/nsw-heritage-strategy

Everyone is invited to provide feedback via the website, by filling out the survey, contributing an idea or making a written submission.
Following public exhibition, the strategy will be revised to incorporate feedback provided.

 

2025 is the centenary of the gazettal of the Griffin street plan layout for Canberra. The Society thanks Brett Odgers for the article and its extensive research with this title that was published in the Canberra Historical Journal, new series no 69, September 2012.
To commemorate this significant centenary, below is an edited version of that article updated by Brett Odgers in May 2025.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The year 1925 was particularly busy for the administrators of Canberra and significant for Griffin’s plan. The Federal Capital Commission (FCC), headed by John Butters, took over from John Sulman’s Federal Capital Advisory Committee (FCAC). As Minister for Works and Railways from 1918 to 1921, Littleton Groom had established the FCAC and removed Walter Burley Griffin in order to resolve ‘the battle of the plans’ and facilitate the speedy and efficient development of Canberra as the Seat of Government and a viable city. Groom had been Minister for Home Affairs 1905-1906 during ‘the battle of the sites’.
Stanley Melbourne Bruce was Prime Minister of Australia from 1923 to 1929 and a constant supporter of the development of Canberra as a national cultural centre and exemplar of Australia’s aspirations, achievements and nationhood.
In 1921 Minister Groom had given clear directions to the FCAC to work ‘on the basis of acceptance of the plan of the layout of the Federal Capital by Mr W.B. Griffin’. Yet even before their first formal meeting the FCAC members ‘departed from the Government’s direction’ by determining that aspects of Griffin’s Plan were too expensive and variations would be necessary. (1) They worked instead for the restoration of the infamous Board Plan of 1913, made significant changes to Griffin’s design, abandoned his Market Centre, downgraded Constitution Avenue (Capital Terrace), continued to focus development in the ‘Initial City’ at Manuka/Kingston and initiated Garden City ‘Australian cottages’ suburban development – Sulman’s ‘picnics’ rather than urban life – at odds with Griffin. (2)
According to CS Daley, Groom really wanted a unified system of control, accountable to the Minister and Parliament, and was an advocate of forcing the transfer of Parliament and the Public Service away from Melbourne to Canberra. Groom was also determined that Griffin’s Plan for the National Capital should be reaffirmed and safeguarded. (3) Groom was supported by Prime Minister Bruce and, presumably, the Minister for Home and Territories, Senator George Foster Pearce, although the latter is not on record as carrying any brief for Griffin personally or his Plan. (4)

As Attorney General 1921-25 Groom pressed for a Washington model for the planning of Canberra, in two basic respects: firstly an independent, well resourced and powerful commission, …; secondly ,… he wanted statutory and procedural protection for the Griffin design for the National Capital. (5)

Thus the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924 established the FCC, which started operation on 1 January 1925, without any further reference to the FCAC, and enshrined the Griffin Plan by gazettal of 19 November 1925. Amendments to the Plan required submissions to the Minister and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

Walter Burley Griffin’s era as Director of Planning and Construction had been terminated by the Government in 1920 when he returned full time to his practices in Melbourne and Sydney. He only involved himself with Canberra subsequently to give evidence to the federal Parliamentary Works Committee, arguing against the planned temporary Parliament House in 1924 and endorsing the Australian War Memorial in 1928.

What did the Griffin Plan comprise? During 1913-1920 he had subjected his winning Plan of 1912 to numerous explanatory accounts, overlays, changes and supplementary detailed designs. Marion’s 1911 presentation drawings incorporated perspectives, sectional elevations, architecture and location of major public buildings, infrastructure and vistas. Walter produced successive plans for staging of development (the 1913 Preliminary Plan), the Government Group 1914, Plan for Road, Rail and Waterway levels 1915, City Railway 1916, detailed Northern Subdivisions 1916 and the influential Plan of Main Axial Lines 1917 ‘matching the city framework to the topography’. (6)

The Griffin Legacy project of the National Capital Authority 2002-2004 aimed to describe thoroughly, review in detail and enlarge appreciation of the Griffin Plan. The NCA’s 2004 publication The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the Nation’s Capital in the 21st Century assessed the sources of Griffin’s Plan, its enduring elements and unrealised potential. The project discovered a wealth of additional, detailed plans and material prepared by Griffin covering particular subdivisions of varying densities and locations (including Civic Centre and ranging from grid pattern to informal, contour conforming streets across many neighbourhoods), street hierarchies, Causeway Dam and East Basin, specific infrastructure, landscape design, suburban railway and tram network, diagram of land use functions, cross sections of boulevards, banks and promenades around ornamental waters, vistas and topographical landmarks, afforestation of parks and inner hill and the 1915 design of a Continental Arboretum and Botanical Reserves. (7)

In understanding Griffin’s Plan or plans, there is also the matter of the Blacket Royal Commission 1917, appointed by the Hughes Government to investigate the conflicts between Griffin, Minister William O. Archibald and departmental officers, particularly over infrastructure and failure of communication and cooperation. The Commissioner found in Griffin’s favour. Notably, Griffin’s plea for investigation into a decentralised wastewater reuse and pollution control scheme, together with Lakes water storage and flood control, was upheld over the Department’s planned metropolitan wide main sewer with a distant Molonglo River outfall. No positive changes ensued. Griffin’s proposed wastewater management and pollution control scheme looks especially advanced today. (8)

Griffin had consistently and clearly, in his explanatory accounts, his correspondence with Minister O’Malley in particular and his sustained advocacy, emphasised the three themes of vision, democracy and art as fundamental to his Plan. The vision presumed a strong national sentiment in the new democratic Federation of Australia and in favour of the new national capital. The Griffins’ Canberra was, moreover, envisaged as an ‘ideal city’ exemplifying their command of organic architecture, a concept derived from progressive architects in Chicago, described aptly by Paul Reid as ‘based on careful observation of nature, buildings should appear to grow easily from their site, but each part should conform to the pattern of the whole of a design’. (9)

Australia’s nationhood, democracy and federal constitution were to be portrayed by the great National Triangle, the Capitol, the location of Parliament House on Camp Hill, the grouping of Government Departments within the Triangle and the juxtaposition of the municipal centre and civic institutions across the Lake. The base of the Triangle was designated a commercial terrace, bounded by high density residential areas on one side and by cultural, recreational and sporting facilities on ample parklands adjacent to formal lake basins (smaller than the present flood basin). Other specified land uses included residences of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, the High Court, hospital and university.

Griffin consistently expounded additional principles and criteria, especially the landscape architecture represented by his geometry, spatial land use plans and conformity to the hills, terrain and surveyed topography. He insisted on horizontal building masses in the light especially of the adverse social and environmental impacts of the high rise buildings of Chicago. His planned Causeway dam and elevated East Lake were designed for flood control, ecological and municipal landscape purposes, as well as being linked with his proposed decentralised wastewater management scheme.

Griffin developed a unique synthesis of City Beautiful and Garden City elements. He provided a host of grand boulevards, from the central city to the periphery and terminal landscape features. The axial lines, principal avenues, urban densities and mixed land uses were designed to facilitate communication, accessibility, transport and connectedness. The civic aspects of his ‘ideal city’ extended to community cohesion and development. His suburban plans provided for safe spaces for children and housing affordability, illustrated by the cheap and attractive ‘artisans’ cottages’ he designed whilst Director of Planning and Construction for the Federal Capital.

In 1918 Griffin produced his last comprehensive design. It covered all the ‘city and environs’ but some compromises and pragmatic adaptations, presumably measured under Griffin’s control, sacrificed a good deal of the coherence and organic order of the 1912 competition winning plan and ‘beautiful geometry of the outlying areas’. A second version of his 1918 Plan emphasised the urban densities along the main avenues.
The finally gazetted Plan was authorised by Senator Pearce on 19 November 1925. It has of course the great merit of preserving the sustainable core framework of National Triangle, the Land and Water Axes and central avenues or boulevards, while allowing future flexibility. …

The 1925 gazetted plan has been amended, through the statutory procedures, 98 times over the years – Draft Amendments 99 (Molonglo New Town Centre) and 100 (Knowles Place/University Avenue/Courts Precinct) issued in 2024 are extant.

The Walter Burley Griffin Society has consulted and contested many of the Draft Amendments that have challenged the Griffin principles for Canberra, especially the NCA’s Griffin Legacy Amendments 56-61 (2004-2007) and also subsequent Development Proposals and Projects.
The submissions have always been written out of concern to get the best outcomes for the broad community, and have been in response to the rapid development of Canberra and the increasing power of private sector developers.

How did Griffin react to the gazettal of his Plan in 1925? Walter and Marion, with their extremely busy practice and lively circle of friends, moved to Sydney in 1924. There appears to be no direct communication with relevant ministers and officers although Walter visited Canberra in March 1926. Interviewed by The Canberra Times, he ‘had nothing but constructive thoughts to offer’, whilst deploring the loss of the railway to the north side, paucity of native flora and social segregation with housing. (10)

Walter and Marion were invited to the opening of the provisional Parliament House on 9 May 1927. (11) They stayed at the Hotel Ainslie and are recorded as observing proceedings from the President’s Gallery in the Senate Chamber.

The Canberra Times celebrated the occasion with a 27-page broadsheet issued on 8 and 9 May 1927, containing copious articles about every aspect of the evolution of the National Capital, its statesmen, planners and builders, together with visiting VIPs and celebrities. Incredibly, neither Griffin nor his Plan is mentioned at all. …

Walter and Marion’s writings reveal that he was embittered by the Canberra experience. They would not have accorded much importance to the 1925 gazettal of his Plan as they were more focussed on the intrinsic merits of the Plan and the democratic instincts of the Australian people. They despaired of the bureaucrats and administering authorities who had already violated ‘the aesthetic, social and economical principles’ of the Plan. (12)

Griffin’s last published comment on Canberra was the article ‘Canberra in Occupation’ published in Thomas Shakespeare’s Canberra Annual. (11) The tone of the article is not bitter, but is optimistic. As summarised by Dustin Griffin, grandnephew of Griffin and editor of The Writings of Walter Burley Griffin, the article addresses ‘Recapitulation and Projection in the hopes that his plan may still serve as a guide to future development’. … (13)

The FCC was decidedly un-democratic and paid scant attention to Griffin’s plans, gazetted or otherwise. However, the FCC managed from 1925-1930 to achieve remarkable development of public buildings, housing and community amenities, including fine architecture, in the National Capital.

The 1925 gazetted National Capital Plan was a far cry from the 1912 Plan but Griffin remained the most prescient of his contemporary Canberra believers in seeing the potential for ultimate realisation of his vision and design framework. In spite of enormous changes during the Griffins’ twenty years in Australia, it became apparent in due course that fundamental elements of their vision and Plan would survive the vicissitudes of 1925 and endure, in fact or in prospect, in part due to that modest inscription on the statute book. Similarly, it is well understood and increasingly manifesting, that there remains significant and unrealised potential in Griffin’s winning Plan.
Brett Odgers
May 2025

Endnotes

1. Peter Harrison, Walter Burley Griffin, Landscape Architect, Canberra, National Library of Australia, 1995.
2. Paul Reid, Canberra Following Griffin: a Design History of Australia’s National Capital. National Archives of Australia, 2002, chapters 7 and 8.
3. David Carment, ‘Sir Littleton Groom – Forgotten Founder’, Canberra Historical Journal, new series no.1, March 1978.
4. Jim Gibbney, Canberra 1913-1953, Canberra, AGPS 1988, p.74.
5. Charles Daley, As I Recall, Canberra, CDHS, 1994, p.52; C.S. Daley in Canberra – A Nation’s Capital, H.L. White (ed.), Sydney, Angus & Robertson, 1954; Alasdair McGregor, Grand Obsessions: the Life and Work of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, Camberwell, Vic., Penguin Lantern, 2009, p. 343.
6. Reid, pp. 143-146.
7. National Capital Authority, The Griffin Legacy – Canberra, the Nation’s Capital in the 21st Century, Canberra, NCA, 2004.
8. J. Weirick, ‘100th Anniversary of Walter Burley Griffin: Griffin and Canberra’ Utzon Lecture, University of NSW, 23 May 2012.
9. Reid, p.43.
10. McGregor, p.344; Gibbney, p.126.
11. Gibbney. pp.42-3.
12. Federal Capital of Australia Press, vol.1. 1934, pp.44-6 (only three volumes of the Canberra Annual appeared, in 1934. 1936 and 1940).
13. Dustin Griffin (ed.), The Writings of Walter Burley Griffin, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.107-114.

We are thrilled to announce that the wonderful sculpture celebrating Marion Mahony Griffin — architect, environmentalist, and visionary — is now completed! The Society extends its heartfelt gratitude and congratulations to artist Sandra Pitkin for her incredible and meticulous work in creating this stunning work, titled “Marion’s Nature.”

Standing at nearly 2.5 meters tall, the sculpture features an organic inner form crafted from intricate copper work, silver-brazed into a pod-like shape. In Sandra’s words “the complexity of the inner form draws inspiration from the landscape, waters, and flora of Castlecrag, reflecting Marion’s profound reverence for nature”.

The pod form is enclosed within a triangulated outer framework made of brushed stainless steel, symbolizing Marion’s architectural legacy and strength of character. Sandra explains that the “sculpture is guided by Marion’s enthusiasm for simplicity of form, presenting a balance of the natural world, in the intricate movement of copper line work, within an angular, stainless steel structure”.

Originally, in accordance with a unanimous Willoughby City Council resolution of November 2022, the sculpture was planned to be installed in a small parklet, complete with beautiful landscaping, seating, and a Sydney Red Gum to replace two car spots. Unfortunately, just as the landscaping work was set to commence in early July, with the sculpture being ready on time for installation as planned in early August, the installation work was postponed by Council’s Mayor Tanya Taylor, due to an outcry raised on social media by a small group belatedly opposed to losing the two car spots. This decision at such a late stage was extremely disappointing.

Following this, the Society met on-site with the Mayor and Council officers to explore alternative locations. We are pleased to report that a suitable new location has been identified, which both the sculptor and the Society believe will be appropriate. We hope that the Council will prioritise the new landscape design and its construction at this new site near the Griffin Centre in Castlecrag, allowing for the sculpture’s installation early next year.

The Society expresses its sincere appreciation for the many generous donations, which played a vital role in making the sculpture a reality.

As the landscape design and construction is progressed by Council, the Society will provide an update report on this news webpage.

15 September 2024

Of his eventual competition-winning plan, Walter Burley Griffin told the New York Times on 2 June 1912: I have planned an ideal city – a city that meets my ideals of the city of the future. …

As Federal Capital Director of Construction and Design , Griffin directed and oversaw all the early development of the fledgling capital until 1920. His revised 1918 Plan was gazetted in 1925 and remains today the core of the National Capital Plan, as amended 97 times by the federal Parliament over the past 100 years.

In 1934, in his article titled Canberra Founded on National Sentiment, published in the Canberra Annual (Federal Capital Press), Griffin pointed out that great capitals are centres of national sentiment:
It is not so important that [these forces] have been strong enough to delay the Federal Capital for a quarter century and belittle its growth. But it is significant that an unorganised, incoherent, unvoiced Australian sentiment [has] sufficed to impose on all these special interests the compromise that is Canberra after a third of its first century. Though not yet victorious, that sentiment is intact as yet and is ever less liable to dislodgement as time goes on.

In a recent talk, Brett Odgers stated that “The creation of Canberra has been the achievement of many individuals and organisations, but it is still ascribed to Walter Burley Griffin, popularly and by special pleading, positive or negative, of planners and developers, public and private. Read Brett Odgers full paper Canberra_100 years of Griffin plan_Brett Odgers Sept 2024

In 2002 the National Capital Authority undertook their Griffin Legacy project. After extensive research, consultations with stakeholders and the community, the Griffin Legacy Report was published in 2004. Four major amendments to the National Capital Plan under the Seat of Government Act, Amendment Numbers 56, 59, 60 and 61, were expedited through Parliament and gazetted together in 2007.

The Amendments were manifestly developer-driven, excessive in scale and neo-liberal ‘new urbanism’, short on detail and impact assessment, with significant departures from the Griffin Plan.

The statutory Amendment process breached convention by failing to refer the Amendments to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital (PJSCNCET). Responding to widespread public outcry, the latter held a Public Inquiry, inviting submissions and broad expert and stakeholder attendance at a Roundtable public hearing in Parliament House on 23 February 2007. The Committee’s report Review of the Griffin Legacy Amendments issued in March 2007 recommended to Parliament that all four Amendments be disallowed and returned to the NCA for further work. Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown’s formal motion for disallowance was defeated in the Senate on 10 May 2007, so the Government ignored the Committee’s report and Roundtable deliberations.

The inadequacies and issues with the Griffin Legacy Amendments have since regularly caused conflicts, controversies and distractions regarding the National Capital Plan. Case studies of problems are well documented: the opposed alienation of the Albert Hall precinct, the failed Immigration Bridge, the rejected high density towers development at Barton and massive war memorials on the Rond Terraces beside the Lake, the dubious location of the ASIO building, the Nishi building at Acton, the opposed Stirling Ridge embassies estate, the sales of West and East Blocks, the submersion of City Hill and conversion of West Basin.
Recalling Walter’s and Marion’s markers of the Australian national ‘soul’ and a unified ‘sentiment’ warranting and underwriting a worthy National Capital, such attributes, achievements and aspirations have waxed and waned over the decades.

As a consequence, Canberra has lost some momentum as the National Capital. Canberra – a city designed for the future, placed in a beautiful natural environment, firmly rooted in democratic spirit and high aspirations. Its status as a worthy National Capital is in the balance under present ACT and federal governance, declining heritage, prevailing national values, policies, democracy and prospects.

Griffin had detractors and opponents all the way from his time as National Capital Director of Planning and Construction, but we can see in Canberra today the enduring basic purpose, structure, principles and values of the Plan, still.

An inventory of enduring elements of Griffin’s Plan can draw on around 40 such objects and concepts including the National Triangle, constitutional and democratic layout, the Land and Water Axes, grand avenues, landscape vistas, the Lake, hilltop lookouts and forests. As Griffin stated ‘it is a city like no other’.
The Canberra Chapter of the Walter Burley Griffin Society has produced a handy brochure Griffin Trail Booklet-Interactive as a guide around Canberra. It is also available in printed form from the National Capital Exhibition at Regatta Point, Canberra – https://www.nca.gov.au/attractions/national-capital-exhibition#

The full paper: Canberra_100 years of Griffin plan_Brett Odgers Sept 2024

The Society is indebted to Brett Odgers, former Chair of the Society’s Canberra Chapter for this Paper.