Understanding Griffin:

Much has been written and spoken about Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin over the last one hundred years or so. Unfortunately, much of this prose is selective, exaggerated or misconstrued. For the residents of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Zone within Castlecrag, it means an overly restrictive building code that in actual fact is the opposite to what the Griffins stood for. Walter and Marion fought for equality and fairness, they are turning in their graves now that residents in their namesake conservation zone are restricted from basic planning equality and processes that are afforded to the majority of residents in the Willoughby City Council area. 

Why can’t residents in the Griffin Conservation Zone put solar panels on roofs without a DA? What is the difference between these roofs and the roofs of any other house in the Willoughby City area? Is there an environmentally sensitive aspect to their roofs? Even if the panels are on the rear roof and not visible from the street? 

Similarly, why can’t these residents change windows or do minor alterations without a DA? Why can’t they put in swimming pools that abide by the State controls that the remainder of the state does and that are mimicked into the local DCP/LEP? Why should the cost of creating and submitting a DA be larger than the cost of the proposed works?

Why should someone needing to put air conditioning in, need a DA when it's rarely needed elsewhere in the State? In the context of the Griffin Conservation Zone, why should misunderstood Griffin ideals of 100 yrs ago prohibit an air conditioner being installed now when there were no air conditioners back then?

Again, if these stops against residents in the Griffin Conservation Zone are in the name of Griffin, it has been incorrect to do so because he would have not have stood for such discrimination against himself and the GSDA development estate. Understand that each day Griffin was in Australia and in Castlecrag it was a battle and struggle, especially against discrimination placed upon him and his plans. To now have residents held back as he was, then place such restrictions in Griffin’s name, is causing him to turn in his grave.

Understanding Griffin:

Much of what has been written and said about Griffin, and much of the heritage controls within the DCP for the Griffin Conservation Zone are misunderstood, incorrect and should not have been there. 100 years later, they should be removed now.

The irony here is that Griffin 100yrs ago faced bullying and being picked upon and fought tooth and nail for equality, fairness, democracy. Marion and Walter constantly battled with everyone when they arrived in Australia, from Canberra, then Melbourne and then Castlecrag including numerous run-ins with Willoughby Council about unfair controls placed upon them, even upon the virgin bush which hadn’t been touched yet and trying to be subdivided. And yet here we are 100yrs later, putting tight and restrictive controls in his name! They are surely turning in their graves. They are turning in their graves knowing that other homes can build more freely than those in his namesake zone. That other homes can use CDC but homes in his zone cannot. These disadvantages and discriminations are exactly what the Griffins were against, hated and fought against. Marion named the time in Castlecrag as their Municipal Battle in her memoirs and 100yrs later the residents in the Griffin Conservation Zone are still battling for equality and fairness, this time though inappropriately imposed upon them by fundamental misunderstandings of Griffin. 

The current and unchanged heritage controls within the code don’t understand Castlecrag. Its origins were a Bohemian mix of uniqueness and variedness. It was not a row of California bungalows. It was an eclectic mix of properties side by side, all varied in the size, bulk, scale etc, not uniform, nor consistent. The concept of streetscape didn’t really exist as Griffin planned to have homes either at the front or back of their blocks or face the street at 45-degree angles.

The range of architectural styles is so mixed, each so different. Their differences are what makes Castlecrag so special and part of Griffin’s original vision...not rows of uniform red roof tiles and white picket fences. So to a degree, the heritage controls aiming to create consistency, harmony, similarities, fitting in, common facades etc are all an antithesis and opposite to what Griffin wanted, said, did, strived, fought and hoped for in Castlecrag and why there is a zone in his name. He is turning in his grave that now there is a conservation zone in his name that limits and controls developments to bring homes into uniform consistency, but conversely other streets can use short form CDC and design and build varied styles of their choosing. 

The controls fail to understand this uniqueness of Castlecrag and are turning the suburb into the other parts of Willoughby city that he detested. It fails to fundamentally understand Griffin’s core ethos that he did not belong to a style or school of architecture and rather blended the perfect ethos of marrying the needs of the client with the specifics of the site and therefore designing a home that respected both of these. It did not add additional layers of looking like the others in the street which the heritage controls aim to do. It did not add additional layers of being within prescribed ratios; he aimed to always consider the uniqueness of the site and how a home could be designed to respect all surroundings, views, neighbours, etc. He understood organically that it was not unnecessary to have things like pitched roofs when there was no snow here, rather than be told how to build with set strict codes and conditions and building ratios etc. 

To walk the streets of Castlecrag and the Griffin Conservation Zone, there are a  number of houses that have the top level not set back, rather built directly upon the wall below from the ground floor. Ask yourselves how this is the streetscape and character and what will forcing all new work to be setback at the top level achieve? It will turn the area into other parts of Willoughby and Sydney that Griffin so desperately detested...uniform rows of cookie cutter bungalow homes now with the same cape-cod extensions, all with the same look and setbacks etc: again, he is turning in his grave.

The unfortunateness of the situation is that Griffin left behind few full detailed plans of homes. Many were sketches of future thoughts but naturally would not be complete until they were customised for the needs and wants of the prospective purchasers. The dozen or so actual Griffin homes were specific homes either as demonstration/exhibition homes or built as an arrangement with often interstate shareholders as rental properties in return for free land lots to get some work done in the suburb and continue to act as demonstrations to prospective purchases that building in the suburb was not impossible. Shareholders who took Griffin up on the offer of a free lot with a home built upon it also built small homes to keep costs down as there were no returns from the venture thus far and would have looked to have the homes demolished and rebuilt when they saw more dividends from the venture later on. Remember also that the banks at the time would not extend finance to people looking to build with Griffin or for a ‘Griffin home’. All these homes were though far from what Griffin truly believed in and can’t be considered true homes as they were built for the purpose of getting something done to lift overall sales. Most were never designed or built with or for prospective land buyers or future residents, often actually they were not thought to be lived in, rather used as a sales office. Griffin initially did not want to build spec or demonstration homes, he would have preferred to sell the lots with customised plans for the purchasers. He built the homes we see today as cheap rental properties because sales without them weren’t occurring. Again, understand that these homes would have been demolished and re-built if the GSDA venture had proved fruitful.

Understand that Griffin lost his court case against his covenants (which may have been more about personal feuds and principles rather than the actuality of a pitched/tiled roof or the covenants) and thereafter with Nicholls ceased to enforce them. Even whilst Griffin was here through the 1920s and 1930s until his fateful departure to India, he didn’t fully enforce the covenants, varied wording in the covenants as shown in the example attached, didn’t collect all the dues from residents for the upkeep of adjoining reserves and committed double standards by fencing and pitch roofing with tiles his own developments. 

Understand also that over time if Griffin was still here or had returned, he would continually evolve in his thinking and work. Electricity was still coming into the suburb and the world at that time and new things were being invented. As such he would have had more low pitched roofs to cover electric gravity hot water tanks which Griffin didn’t have to consider earlier or move his kitchens because refrigeration had arrived ending the need for ice deliveries. 

Note also the Willoughby City Library Fact Sheet has errors in it: ‘Griffin designed houses that blended with their local environment, its locally sourced, naturally hewn stone and neutral coloured materials. Each employed a reverse layout with living rooms at the rear addressing the nature reserves and interconnecting bushland tracks behind each. Services were also laid from the rear of each site and no house had boundary fences and all enjoyed unbroken water vistas by not having pitched roofs to obstruct the panoramas’. The primary evidence shows that the houses he built did have fences and amongst his earliest houses including his knitlock houses in Melbourne and houses on the Parapet did have pitched roofs and he did use white/painted render. Not all the homes had tracks behind them and not all the homes enjoyed unbroken water views, but again understand that naturally these first homes he built in the estate would have water views. Griffin had hoped thereafter that most of the homes built within the estate would keep their water views with good planning and oversight, but sadly this ideal has failed substantially. 

Much has been misconstrued about Griffin over the last century. He used sandstone because it was cheap. He was impressed by what Henry Willis (whom he befriended) had done to build the Innisfallen castle on a budget and mimicked it by employing stonemasons to re-use the stone that was coming out of the dynamited streets and building sites. Griffin though cut costs further by not having the stone masons hew or work the stone further and often left it rough and uneven, rather than sawn or squared off on six sides. The Innisfallen build on a difficult and inaccessible site influenced Griffin as well as Mr Willis’ wealth impressed him whom he wished to learn and emulate from. Remember also that Castlecrag was not well connected; Eastern Valley Way did not exist and cars let alone trucks were in their infancy. Ford established the model T plant in Australia in 1925. The model T was the automobile that transformed vehicle access to the masses and in Australia was used widely in agriculture and industry also, but its take off was not immediate and note that ten years later in the mid-1930s applications for horse stables to be built in Castlecrag were still being made. 

Griffin also carried much scepticism to his name at the time, his debts were known and his detractors many. It is not uncommon that think that the unionised brick yards with large government contracts were told by Griffin’s enemies not to supply him. If you think this is unrealistic, look at Boral’s difficulty to deliver cement into Melbourne one hundred years later. In either case, it was still cheaper to use the local stone than brick. Don’t though misunderstand that Griffin said to use only stone or not to use brick...he did not. Reading his covenants and looking at his homes in other areas and for clients who had more funds, bricks were widely used and in many cases, they were rendered over then painted, often in white which does not blend in with nature as well as other colours. Look at his commercial commissions also which weren’t limited by funds, rendered bricks were common. He used bricks and terracotta roof tiles in his knitlock homes in Melbourne, including the one he and Marion built themselves and lived in before coming to Sydney.

Similarly, knitlock was invented out of a need to save costs and build quickly, the seed originally planted for works on the Canberra project but thereafter because he could not afford to use bricks or be able to have them delivered. Hence air-dried cement pavers pressed on site rather than kiln fired clay bricks. Naturally though the density and brittleness of knitlock did not compare to brick and other masonry blocks and hence added to their poor quality and reputation. Paying foundries to build and then change knitlock presses, exhibition displays for knitlock, buying back faulty houses built out of knitlock, court cases, international trips and extra-marital affairs did not help Griffin’s finances or reputation either. Whether there was a silent contest about building blocks with Frank Lloyd Wright was secondary; financials dictated a large degree of what Griffin did. Remember that this was post WWI, materials, transport services and labour were short, then the depression hit, so re-using stone from the dynamited streets made sense. 

Griffin was moving to Castlecrag from Melbourne at this time, he did not permanently live in Sydney until the second half of the 1920s. The priority was to get the subdivision going and hired worker who would walk over from the tram or ferry and dynamite then work with the stone, this was the most feasible option for Griffin. So what we see today came out of necessity rather than anything else. It was clever marketing to promote it as building with nature.

Hence it comes back that the Griffin features of Castlecrag have been misconstrued and misunderstood, and the significant impact the poor financial position and difficulties faced by Griffin and the GSDA led to what they have left us. What we see was not their true design or intention, it was compromise to do something and get started.

The community must find a way to balance preserving the nostalgia of Griffin but accept that it is now 100yrs on and that society and needs have changed. Modern building codes designed to create a resilient future for the next generations cannot be shackled to restrictive codes derived falsely from the past and in either case not relevant or practical for today. 

In 2010, the ACT Government commenced a public planning review for its future with planning minister Andrew Barr noting that thinking needed to move beyond Griffin to truly accommodate the needs of the future, including to address climate change. This is Willoughby City’s same review now, yet it carves out and does not address a portion of its residents. 

Why must everything still be a battle here?

When Walter and Marion Griffin moved here some one hundred years ago, they continued to encounter opposition and difficulties. The same opposition and difficulties they experienced in Canberra and Melbourne were here also in Willoughby City LGA and Castlecrag. 

Residents today are held to the past where people lived modestly in small houses and in Griffin’s case, had no children. To do so is not good planning and not resilient to the future. Think why if a family needs an additional room they need to engage costly town planners for s.4.6 or go to the courts because they are slightly over restrictive FSR numbers when neighbouring houses can do the same and more under complying developments? 

Understand that much of what is known of Griffin was from a point int time. Comparing his former mentor and nemesis Frank Lloyd Wright, his best and most memorable work came much later in life. Unfortunately, Griffin did not live to the older age when he could have delivered his best works, for every architect evolves. The current and draft DCP and LEP hold things back without allowing any evolution of works or thoughts by architects today. 

As such, Council and community should ensure the codes do not strip architects of their imagination and magic by forcing them to comply with archaic planning rules that arguably should never have been there to begin with. The current controls have held the area back and will continue to do so until there is parity and harmony. 

Griffin in the codes:

Council has inserted the following description about the Griffins in the codes, it is the longest of descriptions for any of the Willoughby conservation zones, but some of it should be clarified and this opportunity taken with the draft codes to remove what is false and unworkable for a resilient future. Key though is to know the circumstances behind much of what we hear and see:

3.5.2 History Walter Burley Griffin and his architect wife Marion Mahony Griffin founded the Greater Sydney Development Association (GSDA) in 1920. 

Understand that Marion had ceased practicing architecture and that the Griffins founded the GSDA along with other shareholders. Marion refused to continue drafting after marriage, and even after her husband’s death it would have been a viable employment for her to do so together with Eric Nicholls in the existing partnership; but she chose not to. Also note that over time the other shareholders ended up mistrusting Griffin and there was much animosity and infighting between them all. Least to say, shareholders did not receive a good return on their investment being part of the GSDA during Griffin’s time. 

They set about establishing a residential development that was sympathetic with the natural environment and in sharp contrast to the red roofs and grid streets that characterised Sydney at the time. In 1921, the GSDA purchased 650 acres at Middle Harbour, including the southwest part of Castlecrag. Griffin designed the Castlecrag Estate, as it became known, in sympathy with the natural environment, creating bushland reserves that preserved the major landforms and rock outcrops; foreshore reserves; a delightful network of walkways; and roads that followed the contours and respected the landforms. In 1926 Walter and Marion Griffin bought, in their own names, two portions that adjoined the eastern boundary of the Castlecrag Estate. This they called the Haven Estate. Griffin extended the same principle of contoured road design and reserves to the subdivision of this land. 

The roads were cut in with nature because there were little alternatives. There is a significant change in elevation for example between The Parapet and The Rampart, so again necessity led to what is there today. The delightful network of walkways have not been maintained. The bushland reserves and rock outcrops are acting as waterfalls with limited drainage infrastructure to protect the homes built around them. Griffin originally planned for 50 foot/15 metre wide roads, not the narrow ones we have today, but again he ran out of money. 

Edinburgh Rd was set at 66 feet wide, i.e. wide for four cars/carriages. Griffin’s streets were set at 50 feet wide, i.e. for three cars/carriages. He did this initially for The Postern but thereafter Griffin pegged the streets himself and made them narrower to save money. He was saving money on both the surveying and the cut out of the rock from and for the road surfacing. As such subsequent streets are narrow, only able to accommodate two cars side by side. They are a full 3+ metres narrower than he had originally intended in his subdivision. McGregor notes in his book:’ due to the cost of road excavation, lot sizes were smaller than envisaged and road widths too’.

Even if people say that 15 metres was intended to include nature strips on each side, the numbers don’t stack up nor compare to what he did in The Postern. But the numbers rarely did for Griffin, many of his plans encountered building problems and his insistence to stick with imperial measurements and not test things through didn’t help. At the incinerators he designed 4-foot-deep toilet cubicles with doors that opened inwards, hitting the toilet bowl restricting access into the toilets. It was a young Eric Nicholls that helped calm and continue many of Griffin’s builds, yet he remains with almost no public recognition. This did not help improve Griffin’s reputation though nor was he the genius that some consider him to have been, he made mistakes and had many faults as all humans do. Harrison notes in his book that the admiration for Griffin’s architecture is now greater than what it was during his lifetime, adding further ‘Yet Griffin’s influence on architecture in Australia was negligible. Apart from the handful of his close associates, notably Edward Billson and Eric Nicholls, who found it necessary to move towards more popularly acceptable forms in order to survive in practice, there is scant evidence that his work and ideas had any effect’.

Willoughby Development Control Plan Part H: Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas – DRAFT 2021 42 The houses were designed to harmonise with the landscape and were built of sandstone quarried from the site and/or Knitlock, a concrete building block patented by Griffin that had a crushed sandstone finish. 

Many sites had a house plan attached and the houses were carefully located on the sites with stepped setbacks from the road to respect the views and privacy of other houses. 

Again, because the sandstone was cheaper than brick, not because it would be in harmony more than another building material. Knitlock failed miserably. It should be said the sites had sketches more than plans, they were concept designs to be sold with or without the land. These design concept sketches would naturally be evolved with the specific client needs. They were not very popular unfortunately and most land purchases designed and built other homes with other architects. The minimum front setbacks in the covenants were not that deep but know also that Griffin was not in favour of a unified streetscape, nor of uniform setbacks. Often, he planned for houses to have alternating positioning from front of lot to rear of lot and also for houses to orient the street at 45 degrees. Both of these approaches are abhorrent to the modern-day planning codes of Willoughby City Council.

Most houses had flat roofs to maximise the retention of views and covenants controlled all development. Fourteen houses designed by Griffin were built at Castlecrag but evidence of over forty house designs exists. 

Yes, as concept plans as noted above. Griffin did not have many commissions at the time so may have had time to create such designs for marketing purposes, especially when many prospective purchasers were hesitant to try to build in the difficult area, so he wanted to show what could be done. It was clever marketing. Note also that flat roofs were for practical use also for Griffin, not just to view sharing. He wanted people to live and entertain on them and tend to plants on the flat roofs. 

GSDA exercised control of design and siting of buildings through covenants affecting the construction materials used, number of buildings on the site, setbacks, design of fences, advertising signs, and required contribution to upkeep of public reserves, to safeguard the general high class residential character of the area. Eric Nicholls varied the covenants to allow pitched roofs and brick walls.

Not entirely true, Griffin was varying and not enforcing the covenants himself but whether at the time or thereafter they naturally fell away as they were often unrealistic. Under property and common law the seller of land cannot enforce design concepts on the purchasers of that land. It was and will remain a vain attempt often described about Griffin’s personality to control things, be argumentative and uncompromising. Again, qualities that did not help his reputation. 

Willoughby City Council is not bound to enforce these covenants but they may be enforced by owners of properties within the estate that comply with the covenants.

Why then does Council try to mimic them and copy them into the DCP 

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) recognised the importance of the area by classifying it as an urban conservation area in 1981.

Yes, as an area; but to extend deep into each future home design is taking it too far, especially in a time and age when new architectural designs need to flourish and other adjoining residents can use CDC for houses that fit modern needs. Griffin himself pioneered this thinking breaking away from Prairie and what his initial employers did. What he brought to Australia was forward thinking, not being held to the past, a better future for Canberra, Melbourne, regional Australia and Castlecrag and what he envisioned for the other promontories thereafter. Holding back residents now is the same as locking Griffin into the 1820s. Build for your times and places, not history or legacy: this was his theme about no pitched roofs laying into the fact that they were not needed here but were carried over as habit from England without stopping to think about it. So why then do we have codes locking us into a different time now? Furthermore, even in Griffin’s time and the hundred years thereafter, the suburb was borne out of many architects and architectural styles. Griffin accepted and worked with other architects, why therefore have strict codes limiting current architectural styles and thinking?

3.5.3 Description Within residential properties, the lack of front fences and separate garages retain the transition from street to reserve that Griffin intended by minimal building within the first 10m zone of the property. 

Not entirely/always true. In some cases, he proposed the house be brought right to the front boundary and in the covenants noted the distance to be only 15feet or 4.5m. Griffin varied setbacks considerably because above all it was case by case specific, not generic codes that worked best. Garages were rare and a luxury he couldn’t afford in his homes back then. These days garaging is a necessity. As noted above, the concept of uniform streetscape that we have today was not what he proposed back then. He proposed homes be at 45 degrees to the front boundary; a corner of the home facing the street. As noted above, he fenced his properties and afforded fencing in both marketing material and in specific contracts.

The intent was that the house was to exist in the bush landscape without the artificiality of property boundaries. 

Again, not entirely true, as shown above, Griffin had boundary fences and advertised them.

Griffin’s main aims in designing the estate were to get away from the traditional suburb with its rectangular grid street pattern, imposed upon the landscape without thought for topography, and to demonstrate that architecture could be subordinate to and harmonious with the landscape. To Griffin, architecture, the site planning, town planning and landscape design were inseparable. Any structure had to fit into the overall landscape of the area – being harmonious rather than obtrusive. 

Yes, but he is turning in his grave that this has never been followed through...look at towering St Leonards or North Sydney visible from Castlecrag and Northbridge or Chatswood visible from Castle Cove...the opposite of what he said...the approval of those towers and more to come in the LGA with no consideration on how they would be seen in other adjoining suburbs...he would be up in arms about the visual pollution occurring. Understand that Griffin was a ‘land’s scape’ architect. He didn’t design a property without thinking how it related to the street, how that street related to the suburb and how that suburb related to the city. Understand that even at scale, his plans for Canberra stretched out metres and metres, such was his foresight and forward vision of planning. His understanding of topography and ability to visualise it in his mind when he never visited a site is truly remarkable, a rare gift. The fact that we can’t get this right with modern aerial scanning is a shame.

He achieved this integration through his design philosophy – narrow winding roads 

This is not true, his design philosophy was for 50 feet wide streets. His vision was for wide sweeping roads. Perhaps when prospective purchasers came to inspect the suburb, they too felt mislead that the advertising said one thing but the reality was different. He saved money and time by narrowing the roads from what he originally envisaged, perhaps thinking he could come back and address this after the Estate prospered and finances were better. 

following contours, 

Yes but there was little other choice, it was smart subdivision based on his experiences in Mason City in the USA, maximum allotments from the subdivision in a suburb which others thought was too hard to do. His placement of the streets was dictated by nature rather than choice, intelligent but not unusual when dealing with drops of tens of metres. 

linked open space networks, 

Unfortunately which have not been maintained but what Griffin alluded to in his marketing would become semi-private to the owners adjoining them. 

lack of fences, 

a double standard that is not true as noted above

unobtrusive houses, 

This is not entirely true and largely personal opinion. His designs and houses built in Castlecrag carried many unnecessary enlarged and embellished features, eye catching and deliberately obtrusive. 

retention of bushland in the reserves, walkways, nature strips

The rock verges and nature strips were left as they were too expensive to remove. He was focussed on cost cutting and getting lot sales, preferably with his house designs but acceptable if not. All else originally envisioned was sacrificed to this end.

and road islands. Roads are unobtrusive because of the proliferation of natural vegetation, their winding nature, the grass and bushland verges, the sandstone kerbs and narrow widths.

Not at the time, vegetation has grown since but back then was barren and based on 50ft wide plans. Had there been more funds, he would have excavated and detonated more TNT but kept trying to keep costs down. 

Rockley Road was long existing in Castlecrag before Griffin had anything to do with the suburb. He took over the road which was made 15 feet wide by Council originally (as was the norm) and Griffin planned to have it as 50 feet wide, quite a difference. He was not interested in leaving the narrow winding road that was there as it was, his intention was to cut trees and dynamite it wider. 

Similarly with his plans to cut in The Palisade...a street hugging the creek bed for more allotments would have meant considerable desecration of the trees and topography or the scenic Marine Drive that would have desecrated 24 miles of local foreshore; but he was a developer and had finances been better and the estates sold more, the subdivision would have happened there, and that road would have been dynamited in. Original carriageways in the Willoughby City Area including Castlecrag were 15 feet wide and new access roads tendered by Council at the time for preparation were to 33 feet wide. As such Griffin’s planned 50 feet wide were bigger, open and clear, representing his future vision for more cars and wider streets.  

All these aspects, the natural landforms of rock outcrops, cliffs and gullies and the rock cuttings for the road and also the culverts are extremely important and of great significance in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. 

Yes, all these natural features that will remain forever, but there is no linkage to homes/houses in any of this. Again, we need to think of what is preserved in nature and what residents can do to improve their homes for the next one hundred years ahead. The Griffin Heritage Conservation Zone because of these natural attributes will not change and are separate to individual houses.

The form of houses proposed by Griffin was single storey, or in rare cases two storey buildings

No, two storey homes were not rare, he sketched and designed many two storey residences. Remember that he was just poor and it was a struggle to get anything built here. He designed and advertised for two storey homes so do not judge what you see left behind as Griffin; research more. Below are examples of even three level Griffin homes in the area.

based on a series of projecting wings radiating from the central area and fireplace

Yes but many of his ideals put modern day residents over the arbitrary FSR when they try to incorporate them in the Griffin Conservation Zone...this is a double standard. 

The elevational treatment tended towards strong horizontals because of a design intention to integrate with the landscape

Where did this come from? Look at his sketches, there is equal vertical components as there is horizontal. Not true at all. 

This is reinforced by the use of masonry blocks with strong horizontal window lintels and flat roofs

What are strong horizontal window lintels?. The designs above his windows were not strong horizontal lintels, they were keystones that had battle features above his windows. Today we might label them modern day fake eyelashes but at the time they were in the same spirit, exaggerated features not required for structural reasons, but deliberately large show pieces, akin to fashion. Note also that it was not always a flat roof, but then when modern day residents try to copy these ideals and put flat roofs in their DA, Council assessment offices tell residents they cannot incorporate them.

The finishes tended toward natural materials such as stone and the use of colours which reflect the bushland setting. 

Again, it was based upon costs and the colour of sandstone accidental that reflect the bushland setting. It wasn’t his design purpose. He used white paint and render, overseas and in the Pratten houses; he did not use it much in Castlecrag because of cost, not about blending in, but he did use painted render in Castlecrag. 

If Castlecrag was a disused brick press/kiln, with left over bricks, believe me, he would have used those bricks, no matter the colours. If the venture was more fruitful and clients came with more funds, he would have incorporated more render too. Griffin was selling a land estate at a time after WWI and the great depression. It was unfortunate. To a degree ironic, for if there was no WWI, Griffin would have had the funds and freedom to complete Canberra to his original vision and plans, he would never have left and come to Castlecrag. 

3.5.4 Statement of significance The Castlecrag and Haven Estates are outstanding early examples of subdivision which respected the landscape character of an area, created community environments and provided shared views. 

To re-emphasise, the conservation area exists mainly due to the subdivision, not the homes. Willoughby LGA can have a conservation zone based upon the subdivision, but should not, especially not in the name of Griffin extend 1920s planning into modern day homes. C4/E4 zoning, tight FSR, un-even setbacks and the lack of ability to use CDC all work to undermine everything Griffin said, did and fought until his departure and death for. The concept of shared views has failed miserably over the last 100yrs. Griffin knew this himself when he planned houses on Sortie Port that would block the views from his aptly named Lookout Reserve. 

Willoughby Development Control Plan Part H: Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas – DRAFT 2021 43 who were influential architects in the United States and Australia, 

No they were not influential in either the USA or Australia. That point needs to be removed; planning codes should have no personal subjective adjectives, else it could be added that he was an adulterous atheist also. Harrison notes that Griffin’s death did not even draw attention at the time. 

and were known for their appreciation of the opportunities provided by landscape which was embodied in their plan for Canberra. The significance of the estates is heightened by the extant works of the Griffins which are nationally and internationally recognised. The estates are a larger more complete demonstration of principles Griffins had developed in the United States and their first seven years in Australia. These innovative principles involved subdivision, contoured roads embedded in the sandstone topography and engineering processes that were aimed at conserving the sandstone terrain, 

No, he used dynamite and other rock cutting techniques and machines. 

stream systems, indigenous bushland and harbour foreshore, and provided extensive reserves and walkways through the estates that created an integrated open space network. 

Yes, it would be lovely and touching if Council had a floating walkway around Mowbray Point and Sugarloaf Bay connecting the Griffin Federation track to the Marion Mahony Griffin Track. It would be further touching if in one of the reserves Council could install an outdoor chess set.

The distinctive nomenclature the Griffins gave to the reserves and roads expresses the castle-like quality of the Castlecrag peninsula. The estates embody the sense of community and social connection from the Griffins, 

It is a stretch to say social connection is from the Griffins as people; perhaps from their subdivisions or walking tracks, but not them as individuals. Understand that Griffin saw Castlecrag as his virtual castle from his sales office in Edinburgh Rd looking out towards the ocean, not from Tower rock looking up the hill. He did not name the streets after parts of a castle, he named the estate as a castle. It is not accidental that parapets come above ramparts. It is most likely that the castle theme came from admiring Innisfallen as he often did, especially from Tower rock, for much of the land was clear around it, down to its boat jetty, therefore standing out as the proverbial ‘sore thumb’ over from Castlecrag.

the first investors and the Griffins’ friends to a continuing community with a strong sense of connection to the place. Long established community facilities include the Haven Amphitheatre, 

The amphitheatre has been derelict for decades, even after many restorations. Can Council once and for all build it out of the natural sandstone, touchingly fitting like Griffin did with his houses; then it would last for thousands of years like the Greek and Roman amphitheatres around the Mediterranean? Sydney City Council often collects sandstone quarried from works in its LGA for future community needs, often working with applicants on this point in the DAs. Perhaps Willoughby Council could do the same. The sandstone that was cut and removed from the recent Postern apartment basement excavation would have sufficed to re-do the whole amphitheatre stage and seating, as well as the kerbs, steps and footpaths of Castlecrag. 

Community Centre, Griffin shops, tennis courts, reserves and walkways. The estates are unique in their application of small lots 

Not small lots but more on the average to large size. 

3.5.6 Management policies a. Retain and where possible reinstate the original subdivision pattern and linked system of public reserves and pedestrian pathways. Retain road islands, rock cuttings, sandstone retaining walls, kerb and guttering, grass road verges and bushland nature strips. 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with homes. So why again is the conservation zone restricting homes? 

b. Maintain and where possible reinstate natural topography, landforms, the natural ecology/drainage ways and ponding areas, and vegetation types. 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with homes. So why again is the conservation zone restricting homes?

c. Buildings should be placed to respect natural features which historically has resulted in a variety of setbacks. This principle should be adhered to in new development. 

Yes, but there are no new lots, all homes now seeking alterations and additions or re-building are in the same/existing spot. Note that that variety of setbacks clashes with the broader Council perspective of uniform streetscape...something Griffin tried to get away with in his estates but then and now fought the municipal battle.

d. Permit new development which fits in with the original subdivision pattern, and which blends with and preserves as much as possible of the natural landscape, its remnant bushland and rocky terrain. 

Yes, again focussed on the subdivision which isn’t changing and not much to do with a home once the location of its ‘footprint’ in most cases is already known/built upon.

e. New development must carefully follow the contours of the land to minimise bulk, and cutting and infilling. 

Yes- again about the land, not the houses. There needs to be separation from the zoning and conservation plan, allow people to use CDC. Cutting and infilling controls clash with Griffin though.

f. The height, scale, bulk, massing and proportion, site cover, location and visibility of new development must be such that: • built forms are subordinate to the natural landscape • the spacing between buildings and rhythms of the streetscapes are retained, or opened up to create vistas of the natural landscape • primary views from nearby and adjoining dwellings and public reserves, roadways, pathways and drainage reserves are not obstructed

Understand that height and scale are within the domain of size controls. Bulk, massing and proportion etc need to be objective and not subjective. Don’t introduce things that aren’t there...as noted, Griffin didn’t design or build small or without bulk or scale or mass, he actually did plan and build with considerable bulk, scale and mass deliberately. Please look at his works to understand this.

Willoughby Development Control Plan Part H: Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas – DRAFT 2021 44 • undercroft areas are not visually intrusive in the landscape when viewed from the water or the land • buildings are highly articulated in plan and elevation • amenity of public reserves is maintained as public open space g. Materials and colours must blend inconspicuously with the predominant colours of the local bushland. h. Significant heritage items including landscape must not be encroached upon. i. Carparking, including garages are to be designed and sited to retain the unique character of the usually well vegetated narrow winding roadways and public open spaces.

j. No fences, screens or gates other than very low fencing (300mm in height) forward of the building line.

this should be changed

k. No fences or screens adjoining public reserves and pathways: • indigenous vegetation to be used to achieve privacy • where special security requirements can be demonstrated, fencing to a maximum of 1200mm may be permitted to be constructed of timber posts or metal frame posts with light weight open mesh infill. Acceptable styles include arris rail or piped rail and diagonal mesh, horse wire or childproof weldmesh in unpainted galvanised finish. Where bushfire prone land is identified non – combustible materials must be used

this should be changed

l. Locally indigenous vegetation is to be used for landscaped areas, including private open space adjoining Griffin walkways, reserves and public open space. 

As mentioned, how can you have private open space adjoining a walkway, why are they labelled Griffin walkways?

Note there was no indigenous vegetation, it was quite barren. Let homeowners choose what plants are best, Griffin would not be told what to plant. Why do we dictate this to homeowners now? Based on their location, terrain, aspect, drainage, any variety of plants may be better suited...is there a large difference between an imported plant or a domestic one? Should Council remove every jacaranda tree from the Willoughby LGA because they are not natives? Again, this would be best as a suggested guideline. The community don’t want homeowners fighting over it in the DA or worse still being told their DA will no proceed. In Visionaries in Suburbia: Griffin Houses in the Sydney Landscape, Meredith Walker and Michael Thompson note how mixed planting went side by side in Griffin’s time by writing of the Griffin Duncan house: ‘Anice Duncan was particularly proud of her garden, which mixed indigenous plants with colourful exotics as azaleas and annuals’. 

Windows and doors Horizontal emphasis to groups of windows. 

Do not judge his fashion at the time and apply it to all homes now, this is grossly unfair. This point applies to heritage work on Griffin heritage homes, not to all homes. Again, not fair for a DA not progressing by an officer’s opinion because of it. 

Materials/ details: Joinery and decoration: Horizontal emphasis

Again, is this aimed at turning every house into a Griffin home? These were his personal features at the time...how and why do they relate to all architecture and architects? Naturally they apply to his homes, but do they relate to new homes or homes of other architects? Griffin changed his styles over the years and for each client...he was a progressive and flexible architect...this needs to be removed, it is not a control applicable to a whole conservation zone.

Storeys: Generally 1 – 1.5, maximum 2.

This control has failed, walk the streets and count the levels, many are 3 level homes. Ironically many 3 level homes are on the high side of their streets. Their physical bulk and scale is massive, often appearing even more than 3 levels. With a max building height rule, what difference does the number of levels make anyway? Better off to understand and be firm on the natural ground floor level to stop houses going up as 3+ levels, but unfortunately in many cases it is too late. The fabric of the suburb has been re-sewn. 

Griffin though often planned two to three level homes in Castlecrag. He was not against them and actually designed a two-storey home for themselves at Toorak, ironically, they were not able to obtain a building permit for it. Similarly, the home they designed for themselves at Parsley Bay, Vaucluse was three levels. 

Look at lot 86 The Rampart, his sketch there is for a 3 level home/flats.

Again look at the commissions from clients separate to what he built with limited funds.

Look at how Nicholls continued Griffin with the W. E. Roberts home on Edinburgh Rd, a grand two storey residence.

Preservation of views from public places Retain public views of waterways and other significant outlooks.

Again this has failed, look out from the majority of the reserves and note the loss of view, Casement reserve (originally named Sentry/Casemate, now Casement) and even Tower rock have all had their views significantly reduced. 

Roof: Simple flat roofs or low pitched hipped roof forms in recessive neutral colours.

Again, failed and misunderstood. Look at the conditions and covenants that Griffin wrote and what he built, he never said no roof tiles or flat roofs only. Further, look at the pitch of the roofs of houses in Castlecrag and core streets such as The Parapet and The Rampart over the last fifty years, they are steeper than a rollercoaster! Key is though, are they withing height and size controls? If so, what degree of difference does the pitch make?

3m side setback

Griffin would have fought against this. There is symmetry and balance to his designs and thought. He would never have accepted a lop-sided home, one side set back more than the other. He was smarter than this and wouldn’t be told how to design as he originally put thought into the allotment subdivisions and thereafter where best to place and orient the home upon that allotment. He would then have put thought into how to make the home work for the site, for the owners, for the neighbours etc. Modern day architects can do this also for all homes within the Willoughby LGA. This requirement needs to be removed. 

Rather than impose a 3m view corridor, Griffin would orient the whole home better, both setbacks, height, shape and size so that it best fits, this naturally will then sit the home so that other homes higher up will also share a view. Note that this thought ideal worked best when as Griffins thought most/all the homes would have flat roofs. Unfortunately, Griffin was pitching roofs and losing the Rivett case added to this. Shortly thereafter Nicholas ever the mediator and problem solver compromised this by factoring shallow low pitched tiled roofs with proportions large enough to accommodate gravity fed hot water tanks but small enough to be almost invisible behind a parapet from the street, making the home appear flat roofed, all the while not obstructing neighbour views. Over the years thereafter the roof sizes and pitches grew becoming quite excessive, considering Griffins initial observations that there is no snow here and so another reason not to need such styled roofs that dominate the landscape, necessitate tree limb clearings and interfere with neighbours. The end result of all of this is that from the early days of the subdivision through to the post war building of the 1950-60s view loss began to occur and only ever continued to the present where most of the Griffin Conservation Zone does not have a view compared to the initial subdivision when almost all allotments did. 

As such the pre-occupation for 3m view corridors for views that aren't there and haven't been there for the better part of a century is non sequential, null and void.

Backyard reserves, whilst public on title were marketed by the GSDA and Griffin as eventually being only for the local residences. Especially Lookout Reserve, house alterations here are often objected to because of loss of view from the reserve. To reaffirm this note, many of these reserves were not considered parks with playground equipment, water drinking fountain or toilets. They were never intended to act as one for mass public use necessitating these things. Most of the reserves are rock ravines that could not be built into so keeping them vacant as reserves was a good fit for purpose for them. 

Furthermore, Griffin and the GSDA knew that not only would the rear reserves become semi-private land for the owners, they knew their own plans for houses, even modest single level houses along Sortie Port for example, would remove views the bulk of views from reserves down to the water. Houses were positioned and angled best for their views, not for people picnicking behind them. So again, why are the codes damning future generations trying to hold onto something from the past that the current evidence tells us isn't there now? This is not resilience, it's restrictive contradictions.

There are plenty of more objective and structured approaches to what is a view and how to approach and share it, for example as developed and used by the courts rather than the arbitrary DCP 3m rule. As such this control should be moved to give houses back their symmetry and balance and let architects design with the greater body of knowledge and court directions.

The concept that Council is moving towards, for second level home extensions to be set back from the ground floor footprint needs to be considered. Walking the suburbs, especially the Griffin Conservation Zone in Castlecrag, a vast majority of homes have a second level wall built on-top of a ground floor wall. It adds to character to have differences, to have different architectural styles. We can’t turn the whole LGA into bungalows with cape-cod extensions. Griffin did draw and build 2 storey, but he did not set back the top level, so where does this rule come from and why enforce it on other home owners in the conservation zone when their properties have nothing to do with Griffin?

Most of the loved, revered and mentioned homes in Castlecrag from acclaimed (yet sometimes un-respected architects at the time) could not be built under today's codes and restricted controls. Griffin was accepting of other architects and styles yet here in the whole zone the code imposes controls to make everything a Griffin-esque home even though those controls were selectively chosen and twisted from Griffin’s ideals. Look at the homes Griffin did at Cremorne, Killara, Avalon, Telopea etc and his sketches, not just what he barely managed to build in Castlecrag.

Griffin said himself that his individual allotments would provide an endless variety in designs of homes and further that his early homes cannot be compared to more ambitious dwellings to come later on. 

Massing/scale

Understand and separate what Griffin said about building within nature, being subservient to it. Respect the nature, choose the best spot for the home: but once identified he never said the house, or its features must be small. Look at his features for example, massive over window elaborations. Each home imposing and castle like, nay castles are defensive, he often had protruding corniches, more offensive than defensive. He did not say top levels always had to be set back, he didn’t do that. He never said articulation or anything else Council imposes now in his name. He was a proponent of new building materials and methods. Experimental in reinforced concrete, his spans were ever growing wider and bigger. He never built a home around a tree, if it was in the home footprint, it went. Yes, he conserved those trees around, but don’t confuse the two. 

His designs were the outrageous fashion of his time, like bell bottom flares and lambchop sideburns were of the 1970s. A combination of the Art Deco era, his love of the crystalline structure and a physical outward rebuttal and attack to his detractors. There was no need to have exaggerated massing and details such as his designs above windows, roofs and corners, but he did. Look at the burial plots he designed, grand, imposing and deliberately bold. He did not design subtly, small or inconspicuously. Yes, he fitted a home well within its surroundings, atop rock outcrops, alternating squares and curves to suit a site best, but the homes thereafter were nothing short of grand. 

Note the distinction between fitting in with suburb and architectural elements to his homes. In fact, he morphed his designs in Castlecrag and they carried with them here features that were deliberately exaggerated and acted as offensive elements, often acting as mechanism pointed towards his detractors. Note the Pratten’s rejected Griffins initial plans as looking too much like a castle. 

In ‘Visionaries in Suburbia: Griffin Houses in the Sydney Landscape’ Anne Watson notes that the Moon house was ‘bold’ and had ‘geometric detailing and dramatic crystalline forms’. Often Griffin homes have been described as bold. Most of his homes when viewed objectively would be found to be of large bulk and scale. 

Of the Duncan house, State Heritage Inventory and Weir Philips notes: ‘The knitlock wall section have curved ribbing similar to vertical fins, which are accented by ribbed concave crenelations. The crenelated parapet elements rise gracefully and monumentally above the roofline, bringing a castle or church-like suggestion to the exterior through gothic style elements’. 

Non bulky homes and homes within scale should be Council wide, not just in a conservation zone. We should always and everywhere build sympathetically to our environment and neighbours. But it can be done with rules such as FSR equal to all. Please remove any specific subjective reference to bulk and scale from the Griffin Conservation Zone codes for as mentioned, all houses should be within their approved size controls and Griffin incorporated exaggerated bulk, mass and scaling to the majority of his designs.

Look at the incinerators Griffin designed and built, his personal fashion on them was grand and extra. Continue this through to the number of 1960s red tiled roofs with significant pitches and unnecessary size, scale, mass and bulk. The proliferation of 3 level homes adds to the bulk of many of the homes of the area and totally contradicts the code. Even today, new developments are made of rusted steel with second levels that forward protrude with cantilever overhangs in dominating styles representing significant bulk, mass and over scale. In short, nothing has worked out. But then again, maybe it was accidental difference which Griffin ultimately wanted, he didn’t want rows of conformity and same styles which ironically the code is now trying to deliver...homes all in the same style, size.

Avoid use of vertical elements/columns/fenestrations:

Where did this come from...has anyone who wrote this seen any Griffin homes, sketches, works?? Very often he incorporated columns and vertical features. Look at the photos below or the wider research, columns were in his houses, often used as bold features for his awnings and roofs as he did for amphitheatre productions invoking the classics. He emphasised the vertical by making these features not flush to the wall but protruding them, by extending them high beyond the parapet, by accentuating them by contrasting their colour and materials. 

Griffin often put columns and towers in, look at his houses, there are square towers, castle-like towers in them. It is said that Nicholls designed the Martello tower for Baracchi at Panglos based off a Griffin design. Griffin’s remembrance statue fountain is vertical...do you think it would be designed like that if he was against the upright?

Look at the houses he designed all over the world, the Mason City houses he designed, he extruded the vertical components as stand out columns, rather he could have built flat walls. In many of those homes note also the second level is built upon the ground floor, there is no set back all around. 

He would deliberately break up the rows of horizontal windows with large protruding vertical elements. Often not flush with the wall/windows nor stopping at the ceiling height but reaching further into the sky...both deliberate massing and bulk, invoking a deliberate larger scale than the house actually was. What has been written and adopted by Council about Griffin is totally wrong. Had Griffin had more commissions through the 1930s or been here afterwards as trucks, concrete, steel spans all increased, his homes would have been even bigger and bigger. 

Griffin’s Paris Theatre in Sydney had tall cylindrical corner elements. Look at the incinerators and university work he did. Fishwick house notes specifically mention the vertical components between fenestrations and the internal columns. 

Philip Goad notes that ‘another difference in the Sydney designs was the Griffins’ use of Knitlock columns that rose above the parapet line as picturesque crenelations.’

But more so, adding such restrictions eats away at the soul of Griffin and the personal magic and imagination of architects. He would have fought tooth and nail if someone were to tell him what he can and can’t design; actually he did, almost every day in Australia, it wasn’t till he was in India did he feel at ease with design that would not be challenged, truly designing with nature as he saw it and not being challenged, to create the perfect harmony the design philosophy of an architect when drafting to the needs of a client and the suitability of a site. 

Again, a complete double standard between what is written and whom Griffin was and more so, something that ads no value, only confusion. Take it out and leave subjectivity out of it. Griffin was here 100yrs ago, even he evolved over time and his mindset in the 1930s was markedly different to the 1910s and 20s. Yet we retain these old-fashioned statements in our code...it is not adding to a resilient future community, it is leading to more court cases and animosity between those that have the means and resources and those that don’t. 

Holding residents today to the ideals of the 1920s is akin to holding Griffin to the ideals of the 1820s. He was a progressive and fought his municipal battle to shake those old shackles off.

There has evolved some preconception that Griffin means small. That building with and around nature means small. Look at the evidence and dispel that notion. Be considerate and harmonious with nature yes, but Griffin dreamed big, he planned big, he built big. His personal situation with no children and poor finances held him back in Castlecrag.

At the time, Griffin was just another developer trying to do more than what Council would allow. What if we look through modern eyes and say that any developer can have their way and it will be set for generations to come thereafter? Applying strict old codes and then placing the name Griffin on them is the opposite to what good planning is...it takes away both the creativity of the architect to work with the needs of the client and the site of the block and to liaise with Council based on the current times that we live in. 

It is a double standard that many Griffin heritage homes breach many of the DCP conservation zone controls themselves. Peter Harrison notes of Griffin in Castlecrag: ‘The local council wouldn’t approve his subdivision design, the electricity authority and the P.M.G. wouldn’t underground their wires even though Griffin was willing to pay for this. There was no sewer and the health authorities wouldn’t allow him to use septic tanks. His building applications broke all the regulations about ceiling heights and many of his ideas of construction were just not covered by the regulations at all’. As such can Council please make the Griffin Conservation Zone R2, both are compatible and will ensure the next one hundred years isn’t about litigation but resilience and harmony.

Most of what is quoted about Griffin is from his own advertising material and advertorials published by him for promotional purposes. He wrote and spoke to clear his name and reputation and strive to get land sales in his estate. Understand this and discount it when using objective historical research and methods. Refer to other evidence and cross reference the perspectives. Do not believe the sketches where houses are shown behind and smaller than trees. These perspectives often from the bay were imaginative, the Griffins didn’t have drones to help draw these pictures and the trees were smaller or non-existent then, but more so visions. 

The Griffin Conservation Zone is in Griffin’s name due to his subdivision plan; but the GSDA and Griffin sold many lots of land to purchasers who would and did not choose them as architects or builders and they knew this. Hence it is a double standard to impose Griffin style designs and concepts in the DCP onto homes and lots that even back then would have nothing to do with Griffin. 

There is much misunderstanding about what is the current and historical fabric of the Griffin Conservation Zone was and is, and much of this debate is personal opinion. What we do know as facts is that the suburb was sparsely populated at Griffin’s time. He only left a dozen or so homes, mostly built to spur interest in the suburb for sales. The zone was populated over the following half century after his death and Marion’s permanent departure from Australia in a varied range of architecture that not only has nothing to do with him but contradicts his words and philosophies. Development codes over this time have also been varied and contradictory and to this day selectively and often mistakenly take influence from him. 

Castlecrag is a unique subdivision, so planning- both its approach and approvals, should be more site specific. For example, if there is nothing to a side or above or beneath why do the houses have to follow pre-defined measurement setbacks? The best position for a home is based on its site; aim to keep the code and planning as short as possible and so thereafter would deliver a resilient and flexible approach, quick turnarounds and favourable outcomes to all. Often the codes paint everyone into a corner...life is too varied and uncertain to try to codify everything firmly. 

The Griffin Conservation Zone codes need to be altered to be considered guidelines for building for those people that wish to design like Griffin. They should be codes for the Griffin homes which are heritage listed but why should they be hard rules for the hundreds of other homes that have no link whatsoever to Griffin, except that they were blank lots in a broader development estate that he majority owned and managed in a rather dictatorial fashion against his fellow shareholders?

Griffin would not appreciate being told that he could only design in a suburb based on conventions from one hundred years earlier? He would fight tooth and nail against such absurdity, such as being told he could only design in alignment with Sullivan or Frank Lloyd Wright before him? What if he were told what he could and could not put on each lot ahead of the owners’ needs and requirements? He would fight back. He did in fact fight back, numerously against many councils, including Willoughby; it was the municipal battle which they never understood, the restrictive planning controls Council continually imposed upon them and their still virgin bush!

Then again this illustrates another point...the Castlecrag they left and Griffin legacy whether in Canberra, Melbourne, Castlecrag or other places around Australia: they designed was not and never what they truly wanted it to be, because they continually had to watch their back from their detractors and continually had to compromise just to get things done, to earn a living and try and prove people wrong to shake off the rumours and bad reputation. 

It is always important to come back to basics and continually ask why is it called a conservation zone and what are the community trying to conserve? In the case of the Griffin Conservation Zone, it is the original subdivision which will never change, his street names again which don’t need to change, his original remaining houses, again yes, they are heritage listed. So thereafter why is there a need for further encroachment and enforcement of misunderstood ideals on plots and current houses that have little to no link to Griffin? We have to draw the line somewhere else we might as well make every home heritage listed.

Please do not misunderstand the perspective of writing here. It is not against the Griffins or what they did and had further dreams of. It is important to preserve and respect what they did. We cannot romance the past though and use it selectively and subjectively. As a community looking to build resilience for the future, we must look at things objectively, both the past, current and future. We cannot have codes that are incorrect, misconstrued or inflexible for the future. 

We see things through the eyes of today, if The Palisade had been cut, dynamited and poured in, we would be using it. Once the trees on each side had re-grown, we would probably say how cleverly it blends in, winds through, covers that old creek etc. It was always going to desecrate the environment.

Resilience is adaptability and flexibility. Darwin tells us this about animals surviving, all the daunting and unlikely military battles were won by quick local decisions. Being shackled by code in policy is not resilience. Codes and policy cannot handle the unknown that comes at us again, especially natural disasters including pandemics. Half decade reviews for DCP/LEP is not going to work going forward...whether it’s Uber or Airbnb, change will come faster than is what is imagined. The most resilient companies, armies, counties are those that have less rules and are flexible, nimble, adaptable and quick to change tack. Aim to always have less red tape and have more lower lever design making authority. 

It is unfair to paint the picture of Griffin and set development control codes for an area by looking at a small selection of work. To be fair, it must either be a holistic review of Griffin, his thoughts and designs or a respect for his subdivision and ideals but with accommodation of modern-day needs. To lock the streets in Castlecrag within the Griffin Conservation Zone to what he built there is unfair for as described his buildings were of a specific nature and reason, not symbolic of his greater plans and ethos. 

Jeffrey Turbbull notes of Griffin that the dream of equity, ideals of equity were paramount to Griffin. 

McGregor in his book notes: 

‘Griffin was the sort of designer who was always striving to re-invent the proverbial architectural wheel’. 

‘After a two-year fight with Melbourne City Council, he defied the bureaucracy noting building belongs to our time, not old-fashioned codes of the past’. 

‘He was perennially short of money with no standing before the banks’. 

‘Every house was a battle, banks were reluctant to lend to unconventional houses and griffin’s personality did not afford sufficient scope to individual tastes’. 

‘His economic woes were significant, including debts to Willoughby Council. He was saved from bankruptcy by a CBA overdraft vouched for by King O’Malley’.

‘There was no intention to occupy the first homes built, used as examples of Griffin’s architectural intentions, display homes/suites of a later era. 

Philip Goad noted that university students studying Griffin could achieve increased population density, without sacrificing the Griffins’ utopian ideals of building with nature. 

Peter Harrison noted: 

‘None of these buildings conformed to a ‘style’ of architectural design and Griffin himself never adopted a style. Even with his houses, each was considered as a distinct problem and while he had lots of unusual gimmicks, he rarely used the same gimmick twice. The result is that while his buildings all had a distinctive and recognisable character built into them, they were not usually identifiable by superficial stylism.

His building applications broke all the regulations about ceiling heights and many of his ideas of construction were just not covered by the regulations at all. The controls he imposed on buildings were also unprecedented. All buildings had to have his approval which meant, in effect, that he had to design them.

He was also incorrigibly stubborn, as hard as nails and absolutely solid rock immovable when he had made up his mind about anything’

Donald Leslie Johnson notes in ‘The Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin’ that Griffin homes in Australia were trending larger and often pretentious.

The irony is that if there is true belief in Griffin and naming the conservation zone after him, then the zone should have most of its development controls removed. Griffin hated fighting Council and being told by staff who lacked the same level of architectural training and experience on how to build. He understood how to design a home that wouldn’t impede on a neighbour’s sunlight or privacy without the rigidity of a development code, especially when the land and subdivision were still virgin, and his foresight was miles and miles, years and years ahead. It is hard to imagine receiving any of Griffins original designs into Council today and trying to argue with him about uniformity with the street and the code? Most of what is written in the code as it relates to Griffin is the actual opposite of who he was, what he said and how he designed, both the homes and his greater intent for the subdivisions; all his subdivisions across all promontories and if time and money had permitted across the bays also.

Please do not take this submission as a complaint, this is a plea for families now and ahead and avoid the physical, mental and financials struggles that are endured currently. 

He wasn’t a pure environmentalist; he was a developer foremost using environmental methods. He planned for tennis courts, football ovals and golf courses...deliberately choosing not to leave these as bush land or replant into dense forests. Rather cut and flatten. 

Basements:

Why is there a hesitant and protective approach to excavation and basements with the Griffin Conservation Zone? 

Basements are a feature of Castlecrag and embody Griffin’s ideals of working with nature (it’s slopes and topography) and help thereafter to reduce the unnecessary bulk of an above ground garage by totally removing and hiding it. 

Understand that Griffin was from Chicago and had basements in his homes there and came to Castlecrag and dynamited the streets and quarried his sites flat to build upon. He was not against excavation but rather employed it regularly. 

Why then does Council seek to minimise it in his name? This is a double standard. Understand that it is a double standard to allow swimming pools and deny basements. It is a double standard to deny basements due to excavation but prefer concrete slabs be poured and set over the same ground for above ground garages to be built. Is it not a double standard to allow The Postern apartments and future quadrangle apartments deep basement excavation but nearby homeowners not? 

Understand that the sandstone bedrock was not precious to Griffin. The sandstone was to be used and he even offered it to prospective new purchasers, acting as an enticement to buy his lots with ‘the building materials thrown in’, because new purchasers were rightfully worried about the extra costs to build there, including the basic extra costs to obtain and have bricks delivered. The slopes were not precious, neither the contours, the streets etc. and were levelled where required for the development subdivision. Griffin protected reserves, but where development was required such as the roads, allotments, ovals, golf courses and shops, he was happy to use dynamite and explode out the rock. Leaving rock outcrops behind in places suited Griffin for two reasons, firstly it meant he was building with nature but secondly it saved funds of which he was perennially short of. Fishwick House and others were excavated to be made adaptable for human use; Griffin was utilitarian to a degree, even before he became involved in Anthroposophy from Marion. 

Whoever said Griffin was against excavations? If he had lived to see technology such as diamond coated rock saws, dexpan, jet blasting, hyrdra splitting etc. he probably would endorse it, as he was a progressive and always looking at new building techniques and materials and was interested in new technologies. Castlecrag has become known for its basements and innovative solutions to hiding cars and giving more windows to a home than blocking a corner of the house with unsightly garages that block ventilation and light. It is a double standard that the bulk of the streets and foreshore properties excavate considerable amounts to achieve better outcomes for all, but the Griffin Conservation Zone is against this for no known reason. 

Look at Griffin’s plans for lots 292 and 293 The Bastion, they had garaged basements under the house and flat roofs thereafter on top. He said that architecture must be adaptable, climatically and topographically. Similarly, lot 249 The Bulwark had excavations and concrete columns. He knew it then, but it seems this has not carried forward to today in his namesake zone.

Know also that under common law, the crown land grants since 1891 extend to homeowners some c.15m below the surface. That is landowners own the land underneath their lots, so Council needs to be clear when they say a landowner cannot excavate 2-3m for a basement, when in fact they can, and similarly do for swimming pools. 

In the planning controls it is noted:

16.1 Continue to integrate resilience across Council to ensure climate change risks and impacts are considered in strategic planning.

16.5 Continue to ensure that new residential development is targeted away from parts of the Council at risk from natural hazards including bushfire and flooding.

These two points can be done with basements and all plant and equipment such as air conditioners and solar batteries can be located inside rather than heating the atmosphere etc. Griffin had foresight one hundred years ago to plead with Council to put electricity cables underground when he saw it coming as a new technology. He wasn't against excavations especially when there was a greater longer benefit and vision. We need to harness his foresight of then for us now to have better planning ahead.

Fences:

There are misunderstanding and issues with fences and Willoughby City Council needs to adopt some flexibility to create future resilience within the Griffin Conservation Zone. 

Society and times have changed from 100 years ago. There are problems with kids being solicited and abducted. This occurred just last term in the Willoughby LGA! 

There are issues with children wandering off into bush reserves and tracks, this area has steep cliffs and ravines. 

Fences play a part in protecting and safeguarding our communities. It is an absolute double standard that we fence and gate playgrounds for children in local parks, but we don’t allow families to do the same within their own homes!

Griffin may have said the ideal is to have no fences, but in actual fact he put fences around the even the earliest homes he designed and built in Castlecrag. To repeat, he fenced the homes he built in Castlecrag himself. He had problems with animals and safety then, stray animals or wandering strangers still occur today. Why do we perpetuate double standards and codify them into the DCP telling residents that they cannot have fences around their properties? 

As noted in the timeline of Castlecrag: ‘At a meeting with officers and staff at Willoughby Council to discuss the Castlecrag estates, Griffin detailed his design principles for the conservation of “our greatest asset, the pristine beauty of the landscape. It included the following statement on fences: “The ideal objective of the fences at Castlecrag is invisibility, and iron pipe posts with wire net laced to them or spiral rod posts threted (sic) with fence wire to keep out straying animals and protect the growing hedges or thickets with least obtrusiveness. Only stonewalling would be more acceptable than such hedges for enclosures adjacent to the house or street’. (https://castlecrag.org.au/wp-content/uploads/History-1920-to-1939.pdf). 

So whilst Griffin may have thought that no fences were best, he understood there were times they would be necessary and gave instructions for the type of fence. Yet this appears to have been omitted from the history of Castlecrag, Griffin’s history and what has been captured into the DCP. The DCP must be made flexible. 

Why does Council end up in in the courts wasting rate payer money and antagonising residents with petty issues about fences? Surely there can be some understanding here, especially as much of what is in the Griffin Conservation Zone controls is not fully accurate as shown here. 

Why do we have the double standard that says you can have gates but no fences? That you need private space but not have it fenced? Is it then private? That where a fence is most needed adjoining a reserve or path there should be no or low or open fencing? Council must understand that a home and the safety of its residents is most vulnerable from a rear or side boundary adjoining a walkway or reserve. Please understand that Griffin’s words are great guidelines but that’s all they should be, guidelines. A better suggestion would be changing the Griffin Conservation Zone Heritage controls to be general guidelines for those interested and mandatory for Griffin heritage items, but not mandatory for all. They simply don’t work as hard rules. 

Council must have tolerance and understanding to work with homeowners to understand risks and make things like fences work. For example, how can a rear fence be 1.2 m or non-solid when there are swimming pools in backyards and a boundary fence for a swimming pool be required at 1.8m in height and non-climbable? 

What is the difference by having a mesh fence covered with a hedge and a paling fence covered with a hedge? Again, we can’t build a resilient community with double standards or things that don’t work. 

Both Ian Arnott and Norma Shankie-Williams noted that the DCP are viewed as guidelines by the courts in their two respective webinars on the draft DCP/LEP. As such it would not be hard for Council to note the ideals for the Griffin Conservation Zone are guidelines. 

The character of Castlecrag is in the streets; their names and shapes, in the reserves and the interconnecting paths (which unfortunately have not been maintained by Council) not in whether or not there is a fence along a property or not. The Griffin Conservation Zone will not be diminished nor change if some common sense is used and things are removed from the DCP which should never have been there in the first place such as unworkable controls on fences. The irony is that in the most common reserve, Cortile Reserve, there are more solid fences than not, actually in all the reserves over all of Castlecrag, there would be more properties with fences not meeting the code than those that do. Some Griffin heritage homes have fences that do not meet these same requirements of the DCP. So why then have the notation about fences in the code and enforce this upon new homes that have no linkage to Griffin? It is not working, never was and never will. 

Walk the streets, talk to the residents, understand from the owners why they have built solid fences. When walking around Middle Cove and Castle Cove there are mixture of fences even though they had the same philosophy of no fences, but seem to make it work now without having to go to court. Council should also work with home owners that have leaning fences that are dangerous to pedestrians.

No private fencing leads to crime, remember this. Read the old police reports from the old local newsletter and know that most major criminals started off as petty criminals.

If a home owner back then asked Griffin for a fence back then would he have designed a sympathetic one for the client? Yes he would have, because he put this into the covenant conditions on his lot transfers (extract provided below). Would he have used fancy wrought iron or solid sandstone blocks if the client could afford it over wire or mesh? Most likely yes. Understand that Griffin used wire and mesh fencing because it was cheap and he and the GSDA were constantly financially struggling. Griffin was under constant heavy debt, both publicly and privately; keep this in mind when reviewing everything about Griffin. 

It is funny that Griffin’s ideals for no front fences has been adopted into code but Council did not adopt into code other ideals he had such as terraces and usable flat roofs but are considering them now in the draft DCP/LEP.

Trees:

Council is pushing for the planting of more trees and this is a great initiative. Understand though that with increased trees comes increased maintenance by Council to them, the surrounds and ongoing thereafter. The rains and storms of late have shown the chronic under maintenance of our roads and drains, that footpaths need repairs etc. Willoughby Council needs to ask the State Government for more funds and help with the current maintenance let alone the need for more upkeep ahead. Furthermore, there needs to be a transparent and open policy on maintaining trees for all residents. Currently there is often a double standard that some trees are protected but others similar are easily removed. Council will also need to have a public policy for dealing with damage, injury and death caused from a falling limb/tree.

Residents have trouble and cannot remove a tree from or near to their property even though there are numerous issues with it, but the Northern Beaches link can desecrate untouched bushland without issue. This is unfair and residents need to know that Council is objective when looking at trees, notwithstanding that Willoughby prides itself on its green canopy. 

As such understand that a balanced approach is needed for our future resilience, hard lines and attitudes are not helpful. Nobody ‘knows’ more about the health of a tree than another. In August 2019, Melbourne Uni Associate Professor and mother of two Allison Milner was killed when a tree fell on her when walking on a footpath...it had been professionally inspected one month earlier as fine. As such there are different perspectives from residents living under large trees that swing violently in storms against their children’s bedroom windows than are inspected on sunny calm days. Residents are not against trees, nor want them all removed, often this is a reason in choosing to live in this LGA. Residents are often more than happy to have replacement trees where the current tree is no longer suitable. Trees turn over and they don’t live forever. Trees have a life-cycle like humans, they raise up, live then start to decline and die. Young trees actually remove more carbon from the atmosphere than old trees. 

Look at the past 3 years in this LGA, Eastern Valley has been closed from uprooted and fallen trees, Part of a tree came down last month Forsyth Street trapping a mother in her car, infants and toddlers have been trapped in nurseries and day cares from trees, Willoughby park lost large healthy trees that now have made way for the flying fox, the large tree that was a feature at the art centre on Laurel St. fell over. Understand that trees don’t live forever, and ironically in the leafy north shore of Willoughby we don’t have the deep soil to sustain them. I wonder how many residents would know that Sugarloaf Creek which ran through Willoughby and Castlecrag is encased in concrete and built over.

As such tree branches snapping and whole trees falling over is one of the reasons there is a reduced tree canopy of late as measured/reported by Council and newspapers. Another reason is greater density, especially around Chatswood. It is unfair to push more trees onto homeowners when apartments and commercial buildings have increased significantly taking away many trees and not being replaced there. 

Understand that when a tree is replaced, it is replaced with a tree that is more suitable for the location. One hundred years ago, trees were planted after having been recently discovered or imported into Australia. Not much was known about them. Hence trees that were susceptible to sudden branch drops were planted along footpaths and have since needed to be removed as society learnt more about them. Similarly, trees were planted incorrectly for their type and location to service connections, roots tapping into fresh water and night soil. They have grown unnaturally large due to fertilisation. 

Many trees are Australian natives, but not endemic to the LGA, many have been brought in and planted, they are not ‘originals’ dating back hundreds and thousands of years. We have altered the native pattern of our land here. 

Understand the difference between native and endemic species. Whilst many trees are native to Australia, they can be from different parts of Australia. Many of the species that we have in Willoughby City are native but not necessarily from the area. As such they often don’t do well, and especially not forever. Large gums in Castlecrag are not endemic, there is no deep soil and many fall over. Castlecrag was barren and inspected by the earliest settlers and Governor Philip as being unfertile. Even the 1920s aerial photography shows this. Please have flexibility in dealing with trees, be objective, be reasonable, listen to residents. A tree cannot be off limits because it is native, it cannot be off limits because it was planted by someone like Griffin 100yrs ago. It can still be dangerous, outgrown its spot, not a suitable variety because not much was known about that imported variety 100yrs ago. Similarly, permission to remove a tree that is not native should be objective. Both a native or imported trees can be safe or dangerous. 

There needs to be a fair scientific and objective perspective about reviewing trees, their suitability, health and safety. Risk weight many factors and considerations, especially when there are many local residents in unison troubled by a tree and together ask for it to be replaced. Many trees have outgrown their lives and need to be recycled. View each tree and its suitability without bias. As noted, just because someone like Griffin planted a tree one hundred years ago doesn’t mean that as a tree it must be protected in any special way. Most of all the trees that are in Castlecrag and the Willoughby LGA were planted by someone, remembering it was originally barren or farmland. Key is that each tree is assessed objectively and even if it was planted by someone like Griffin it can be considered on its suitability, health, safety etc. Walter and Marion Griffin now long past would still not want a tree limb falling on a child because it could not be objectively assessed just because it was originally supposedly planted by them.

As such to build a resilient community for the future neighbours and residents shouldn’t be afraid of trees or dealing with Council about them. Often the conversation starts with a fear that a tree may come down upon them. Therefore, my suggestion would be to have a transparent risk weighted objective checklist that can be used and reviewed by all. If all the facts are known, if all the considerations are noted, then there can be a resilient community. 

Also understand that over the past few years and quite significantly a few years ago after court rulings against for bushfires being caused from electricity transmission lines, electricity companies and their contractors have aggressively pruned trees back, there was backlash across all of Sydney for this, often trees were savaged. This is another reason canopy cover has reduced. Griffin asked Willoughby Council 100years ago to plan to put power lines underground and was willing to help with the cost. Had this been done the tree canopy across Castlecrag and the Willoughby LGA would be a completely different perspective. The best thing Council can do for trees, heat etc. is to work with the community and corporations to bury power lines, have shorter renewable powered and sustainable streetlights and plant suitable shrubs where the power poles were. 

Trees and planting around pools: For many years and currently, Council had in DCP Part D 1.10 the need for residents to plant and landscape around a swimming pool. With increased State based regulations about swimming pools often from the Australian Standards, hedges, palm trees and generally any shrubs around a pool are not allowed. This has forced many homes with pools to cut and remove trees from around their pool. This is another reason for the loss of canopy cover in the Willoughby LGA. However, the need to cut and remove trees from around a swimming pool, especially inside of the safety fence is not understood nor explained. Can Council please liaise with the State Government and Australian Standards and provide a reason why this rule exists please? Hedges and other planting around a pool (naturally clear of the gate mechanism from the outside) often grow higher than the fence they are planted against and hence act as an additional higher barrier to entry from the neighbouring fence. They are totally inside the pool area and past the entry gate. They do not act as a climbable structure once a person or child is already within the swimming pool enclosure. If the removal of vegetation from within the pool enclosure is to stop children climbing down into the swimming pool area from adjoining properties, it is a mute and silly perspective because per the requirements shown below, the other side of the fence may be climbable to begin with and as noted above the planting often grows even higher than the fence acting as an additional barrier. Whether a child climbs up the fence from the neighbouring property and slides down the fence, onto a short shrub or navigates through a thick hedge is irrelevant, the pool was protected. Similarly, what is the difference allowing shrubs up to 900mm in height around a pool and not allowing shrubs higher than this around the pool? It would be safer having a high hedge than a child falling onto paving.

The community needs to draw a line and note that society cannot eliminate all risks: if we are to continually consider ‘what if’ scenarios, now stretched to children legally climbing up then illegally climbing down, then next suggestion would be to ban pools. It might seem a stretch to think this but look at the way society is going, for e.g., when kids caused issues with graffiti, spray cans were locked up behind cages at hardware stores; when parents left their kids unattended and drownings happened in pools, fencing requirements came in. Unfortunately, though it has not helped eliminate such drownings and many other countries without pool fence requirements still have lower drowning rates. If it is a borderline issue, let homeowners decide the landscaping around their pools. It can lead to increased tree cover for our LGA, actually make pools even safer and reduce glare heat from the surface off the pool. Wouldn’t it be nice for homeowners to cover their fences with hedges or evoke the tropical theme with palm trees or bamboo around their pools? Like the misunderstandings and false notations about Griffin, the Australian Standards are not always correct, nor set in stone forever. 

Public open space and walkable neighbourhoods with local services and amenities:

This objective of the draft codes requires a commitment that every walking path be maintained adequately. Can Council obtain the support and funding of the State Government to do this? Currently there are many shortcomings on walkable neighbourhoods and local services and amenities. 

In Castlecrag and Castle Cove there are extensions of the footpath interconnecting two blocks, but these have not been maintained by Council. In the case of the path connecting Deepwater and Kendall Roads in Castle Cove the path is effectively non-existent now and cannot be utilised. 

These paths need attention, they need to be made safe. Adjoining residents need privacy screening either of suitable planting or of fixed screens. Lighting that helps walkers at 6pm winter evening darkness but is unobtrusive to adjoining residents such as step based or knee-high bollard lights needs to be installed. It unfortunately reads as a double standard to seek to create a walkable LGA when the subdivision plans over one hundred years ago had this in mind, but basic upkeep has not occurred. The consideration that a walkable suburb will mean less car use was already envisaged by the forefathers when they created these subdivisions before car use was even mainstream, yet for local residents of Castlecrag or Castle Cove who wish to walk around to their local shops or between public transport they cannot because the interconnecting pathways are not there anymore or have not been maintained to a minimum safe standard. It is further unfortunate to see that Council has worked to upgrade bush walk tracks and laid sandstone steps in such places ahead of the interconnecting paths which are in essence extensions of the footpaths.

The path between The Rampart and The Parapet in Castlecrag is mud, rocks and a negligence case waiting to happen at the best of times, let alone after a bit of rain. The recent tennis court re-surfacing at Cortile Reserve Castlecrag had the paths crushed by the contractors...a family doing a residential development needs to lodge a bond against footpaths and would be held to account for such damage, but it seems the tennis court contractor does not. I hope at least Council can hold the re-surfacing to account to remain level, unlike the recent re-surfacing of the multi-use sports courts at the Willis recreation facility, the futsal/hockey courts there have become dangerously uneven after a very short period of time since being re-surfaced. 

The south side of Edinburgh Road in Castlecrag has been worn to the bedrock since the 1800s by walking, now exposing dangerous trip hazards such as stones and roots, but no footpath is laid there, not even a layer of mulch, yet across the road a rubber footpath has been laid in Rutland Avenue and new root protected grass nature strip has been laid outside the Glenaeon Steiner School by Council. These unfortunately are examples of double standards not, a sustainable and resilient future. Further, just because Griffin and the GSDA could not afford footpaths at the time, does not mean that Castlecrag and its residents now should not have them. It does not mean that Griffin would not install footpaths in the future if funds and needs warranted it. Walk the streets and understand how dangerous it is for our children and the elderly to navigate with the cars on the narrow roads and then look to the nature strips where footpaths should be. Unfortunately, again Griffin never got to realise his true vision for the suburbs and what he left was a financial compromise. He planned that the roads be 50 foot/15 metre wide, not narrow as they are and with no footpaths. 

Understand that he was a progressive and had great foresight into what would come and how to plan for it, for example he could see the benefit of having power lines underground and similarly could see cars coming and growing and planned for large wide streets accordingly. Why does it also always take an injury to occur by a pedestrian for action to be taken on fixing our footpaths and infrastructure? Regular reviews, forward planning and maintenance is required, again Council needs to work with the State Government for more funds to establish a stricter observation and action regime. 

The 45 degreed building plane/envelope

This part of the DCP is mainly for rectangular allotment subdivisions. In irregular subdivisions as what Griffin did around Castlecrag and never lived to see through to what following architects and developers did around Middle Cove and Castle Cove, the 45-degree building plane/envelope is often hard to fit in. The reason it is hard is because these lots don’t have to fit in; the irregular subdivision plan and pattern mean that properties would organically be separated and orientated away from each other, therefore there’s no need to have the added 45-degree control. Hence many homes and applications fail the 45-degree test, often on corners of their homes because of the many wedged and triangular allotments they sit upon. Please be understanding in assessing development applications where they cannot meet the letter of the codes but don’t have to because they meet the same objectives in other ways.

Heritage Griffin homes themselves within the Griffin Conservation Zone don’t all meet this requirement, so consideration need to be given to not enforce it upon all others.

Development Applications and the Griffin Conservation Zone

Why must local residents endure a full DA with additional costly burdens of additional plans, a statement of environmental effects and heritage impact statement etc. for minor works that other residents often literally across the same road or next door, do not have to endure? Is this disparity truly working towards a sustainable and resilient future? This creates unevenness, animosity, a divide between those that have the means to get their DA’s through and those that cannot. 

Do the residents of the Griffin Conservation Zone not also suffer from the ongoing COVID pandemic, from the needs of home schooling or working from home? Do these residents not need to improve old houses and make them better suited to living today? Do these residents not have multi-generations living under the same roof? Do they not have young families and need extra bathrooms to live? So why do they not have access to planning protocols like other residents do?

The draft DCP and LEDP from Council deliver increases in height and FSR for apartments and commercial centres, and for R2 zoned homes, but what about other houses and residences? Following on from the pandemic, schooling and working from home, the needs of residents has changed. In many cases parents and kids were forced to all be at home yet many found they did not have the desk space to do such work. Small bedrooms without room for desks and small houses without office rooms, many people are needing to expand their homes. This is particularly the case for old homes in old areas such as within the Griffin Conservation Zone. Why then do we not take this opportunity to allow increases in FSR in such zones? I’m not referring to extravagant increases in FSR, but within the Griffin Conservation Zone the FSR is exceptionally restrictive and well below comparative R2 zoned plots and below other conservation zones. Whilst the state average is 50-60% FSR, in the Griffin Conservation Cone it averages 30-35%. A large difference for the same type of residential home dwelling. Does council expect people living within the Griffin Conservation Zone to live differently than other residents of Willoughby city, perhaps metaphorically as the Griffins did 100yrs ago in 1-2 bedroom houses as they had no kids, no car, no refrigerator even? Is there even a valid reason why the FSR is so low to begin with?

The current Willoughby Council DA model is not working well: 

For example, the DA process asks for information about the build of the plans when the applicants haven’t even gotten to the stage of choosing a builder yet: this is unfair and unequitable. To be asked about which rubbish tip the builder will use when they haven’t selected a builder is unequitable. It’s not required in CDC and shouldn’t be in the DA. Please remove this, it is a nice attempt at inserting sustainability into the DA at Council level but it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Such requirements only add to the costs for homeowners with sustainability already covered in the BASIX. Again though, Council needs to work with the State Government to move the BASIX to the CC stage, it is unfair to consider building and materials in the DA stage, especially when Council can request the applicant to withdraw the DA submission. 

To be questioned about the cost of the building (for fee determination) is unfair as the residents haven’t turned their minds to how or with what they will build with: will it be single or double brick, will it even be of brick or light weight cladding, will it be concrete or yellow tongue or power panel and floor, will it use hebel, dincel or besser blocks etc. Know that Council has an existing and profitable fee model for DA based upon the cost of works but ethically, this is not fair, for as mentioned the owners don’t know how they will build yet and in the DA this is not asked of them either. The DA is about the design and suitability not about how it will be built, a homecoming that hits hard when the plans are rejected or requested to be withdrawn. So, the DA lodgement fee should be a set/fixed application fee. Note also there is a murmur that some architects and developers put the estimated cost to construct unusually high, so that their application fee is higher, in that it acts as an open bribe to Council. By having set fixed application fees, this would be removed completely. 

That a DA submission fee is withheld in full or part for a DA that was requested to be withdrawn is unconscionable, especially after applicants waited months for it to be reviewed and to be offered no consultation or discussion during this time. That the amount that Council officers choose to withhold of the DA fee never be advised to applicants, especially in writing is unconscionable also, bordering on fraud and malpractice. 

Fees for pre-lodgement meetings are also exorbitant and a double standard that other meetings are free. So many architects advise against pre-DA meetings and perhaps the costs associated are one of the reasons for this. It is unknown if Council has ever done post reviews of the DAs submitted by various architects and whether they had pre-DA meetings, and if not, why not asked back to the architects? Has Council ever conducted surveys of DAs applied for and asked residents why they did not proceed or if they did, how did they find the process? Is Council moving towards a fee for service model, if so, reduce rates, but until then, don’t double dip, it’s unfair especially when there is not enough basic maintenance going on and other councils don’t behave this way. The fees charged for pre-DA meetings are astronomically high when compared to other services in life, they are more than doctors charge for delivering babies...these fees need to be reviewed in such perspective. This does not build a resilient and sustainable community, only adds to animosity between the have and have nots. When an applicant pays their fees, it carries a duty of care that they will be treated with respect and due process, at the minimum a hearing and timely review: Council should have a policy for standard service levels with the community. Similarly, if members/staff of Council took a call about a DA from the community, that and notes of that discussion should be released to at least the applicant and their architects especially when they did not give right of courtesy and due good practice to discuss the DA with the applicant or their architects before rejecting or requesting the submission be withdrawn. This is in the same spirit as releasing objection letters. 

Council should also have an open and transparent policy that no DA may be rejected for pushed for withdrawal without firstly having on-site inspection with applicants and architects to see the current house and land and talk through the DA. Similarly, a peer review within Council should be done for DAs that are to be rejected for pushed for withdrawal. 

It appears there are more requirements for residents going forward in submitting a DA, but these are not necessarily also required in a complying development applications. Overall, this will mean more costs for residents looking to do works on their homes. Requirements for DAs should be made easy for residents, drafts people and architects to understand and comply with. A future resilient community cannot have more hoops of red tape to jump through for DAs. 

It is not a joke when Ian Arnott opens his introduction to the sustainable home webinar in September 2020 Planning in Willoughby, stating that NSW has one of the most complicated planning systems in the world. This is the chance to clean, unify and simplify the process. Willoughby City Council could be a leader in the State in this regard rather than being labelled as difficult, lengthy and costly to deal with. Whilst the draft DCP looks to make it easier to read, it doesn’t make it easier to apply for a DA. A nimble and flexible approach is the most resilient...remember Darwin when he says it is not the smartest or strongest animal that survives, but the one most adaptable to change. I see little in all that has been proposed that brings back such adaptability. 

Council should to try and create a middle ground between DCP and LEP, between DA and CDC. If the State based CDC rules cannot be used, maybe Council can create a similar hybrid approach for homes submitting a DA, that combine elements of a CC and together become a building works permit, rather than two separate steps and applications for works on a home. The current process is not healthy, takes a long time and money consuming and overall, not creating a sustainable and resilient future. 

Australia and Sydney has high living costs. As such many families in an attempt to stay in the area but work with their small old houses, is to attempt a renovation.  Living in our suburbs can be a bit of a double-edged sword, perceived as a wealthy suburb but have so many families struggling with both parents at full time work to cope. As such we need to regularly keep in check as a community that families looking to renovate do so often to stay in the area. They cannot afford new homes. The process for development applications should always be fair and minimal where possible and all work together for a sense of connection to the area. Council needs to create ways for DA submissions to not be burdensome, onerous or overly complicated or expensive, especially where a neighbouring property could use CDC and do it much faster, cheaper and easier...Think how to make the community sustainable and resilient for the future. Another example would be with the building development contribution levy, it should not be applicable to residential homeowners, they pay rates and DA lodgement fees. Developers should pay this levy as they do not pay rates. Over the years this has been a point of contention when talking with residents and a shame that the funds are not directed to the street/suburb that the DA was related to.

In Council’s DA process review of January 2016 the following figures were noted:

Residential Alterations and Additions Average determination times by decision type Jan – June 2016 

Approved by Council – Number Determined: 3 Applications – Average Processing Time: 206 Days 

Approved by Ward – Number Determined: 12 Applications – Average Processing Time: 162 Days 

Approved by Staff under Delegation – Number Determined: 137 Applications – Average Processing Time: 85 Days

These numbers need to be continually reviewed and enhanced...they strike against the community being sustainable and resilient for the future. Note that sustainability as a word has been often used as green or recyclable. The true definition of the word is much broader. A community or person can be sustainable by their actions and what they go through, for example, a DA that can be done without a family moving out of the home and putting pressure on the rental market is more sustainable than one that requires the family to move out; separately to the materials or type of construction used. We are not a sustainable community if DAs cause fights for months. Further, these numbers and current numbers don’t include homes that Council had requested be withdrawn rather than a formal determination made. Forcing residents in such instances to withdraw their DA without discussions for alternative options is unethical. Even Griffin was given a Royal Commission after Canberra and a right to explain his position, that an applicant and architect are not afforded the same now with a DA now is unethical. 

In the same DA process review finding it was noted that: 

Lengthy times for additional information requests to be sent to applicant: Average number of days before requests are sent out is 49. 3 of top 5 reasons for additional information are engineering related. 

Why not move more of the technical and engineering related questions and requirements to the CC stage? Especially when the DA stage is more about design, it is extremely unfair and costly to be asked to engage an engineer for specific requirements about stormwater etc. when Council then rejects or requests a DA be withdrawn and not discussed or progressed any further. Such money spent on engineering is just money down the drain when it happens, pun intended. Understand that when a DA is approved, registered engineers will provide plans that are adequate for storm water treatment etc. in alignment with the codes and acceptable to either Council or a certified assessor. 

Council should also work with the community to create a common understanding of percentage variations as presented in the codes. To a lay homeowner, being a few percent out of the code requirements is a few percent. From Council perspectives, the variation is divided by the control amount, so the variation can seem extreme. For example, having an FSR of 40% when the code requires 30% is to most people being 10% over. In the eyes of Council assessment officers, it is being 33% over and too great. Such perspectives are frustrating when itemised and picked upon, as other adjoining homes have much higher ratios and variations. 

Floor Space Ratio/FSR:

The Floor Space Ratio controls within the development codes do not achieve much and are often misunderstood. 

Many councils have or are doing away with it. The primary control over a dwelling’s size are its size controls, such as setbacks and height. The FSR plays a secondary role to the size of a home, as its main objective is to control density. 

But thinking through this, what difference does the amount of liveable vs non liveable space within a home make once the home’s size has been determined through the other controls such as setbacks, height, landscape ratios? It is not adding to the future sustainability and resilience, it adds to the angst and anger of neighbours who have disparity; hence many councils have or are moving away from this control. 

Once the building footprint and envelope are controlled, the added layer of FSR density controls does little more. Whether a home has for e.g. internal voids or garage, does little to control the size. To repeat, setback and other controls limit the size of the building, not the FSR. To make Willoughby resilient for the future, FSR controls should be suspended or removed. The whole DA process needs to be made easier, cheaper, simpler for homeowners that are often struggling...remove layers of code rather than have home owners engage town planners and lawyers for numerical percentages that make no difference to houses’ sizes. 

Specifically, why does the Griffin Conservation Zone have such restrictive FSR? Arguably very restrictive ratios for a standard residential area compared to anywhere else in the State?

Why are these FSR controls in the name of Griffin and where did they come from and what do they aim to achieve?

Griffin never said to build small, have tight FSR or height controls. He always said build fairly but understood the client’s needs and what the site could handle. 

"I am what may be termed a naturalist in architecture. I do not believe in any school of architecture. I believe in architecture that is the logical outgrowth of the environment in which the building in mind is to be located". ... From the New York Times, Sunday June 2, 1912

He would not today understand why larger blocks have a lower FSR in the Griffin Conservation Zone, and why this is in his name. Look at The Griffin houses all over the world and all over Australia (yes he built outside of Castlecrag too) and look at his sketches and unfished plans for projects including for Castlecrag, Covecrag and Castle Cove...he never said have a restrictive FSR or build small. Never. 

He dreamt big and when he got the odd, good commission such as in Chicago, Mason City, Cabarisha and the Prattens in Pymble, he built so too. 

Please do not misjudge the Griffins’ own house ‘Pholiota’ in Melbourne as it was designed by them in a humble manner without children. Marion and Walter did consider that if children ever came along, they could easily ‘bolt-on’ added wings to the home corners and expand it exponentially as required. 

Similarly, the houses he built in Castlecrag were not ‘truly his’, or examples of him or his ‘style’. These houses in Castlecrag were a sales tool for him and a middle ground with the GSDA Shareholders (whom unfortunately later would have issues with Griffin) to getting the development of the estate going. They were built small as demonstration houses, i.e., exhibition homes, think even model/scale homes to a degree, not considered to be lived in even but rather used as the estate sales office. If the venture had fully realised its dreams and profits, these homes would have been demolished and re-built. Remember that the Griffins had constant financial struggles, Walter was indebted privately and publicly and when he died, Marion could not afford a headstone for him on his burial plot. It is unknown if he was buried in a coffin or not. Similarly, Marion died poor and was initially buried without a headstone also. Ironically half a century later, it was not the Walter Burley Griffin Society Inc or its members around the world that provided the tombstone for Griffin; it was the people of Canberra that did; even though he never lived there and the only building in Canberra to bear his name was the incinerator from Nicholls, but had carried the Griffin-Nicholls partnership name. 

In ‘The Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin’ Donald Leslie Johnson notes ‘the bitter years of Canberra’ for the decline he sees in the quality of Griffins domestic architecture designs, suggesting that/reinforcing that the sketches and few houses in Castlecrag were inferior to Griffin’s other/USA work. 

Remember also that zoning determines density in the case for e.g. land deemed for a houses vs apartments. Therefore, whether a house has a particular FSR vs another cannot actually control the density; as you might have bunk beds in a room or a void: it is still a single house. So again, the point about FSR is mute when the land is zoned and deemed only for a single house. Similarly, the FSR is meaningless when voids, garages or internal courtyards cut out of the numerical calculation but are not visible from the street. Whether or not they actually inflate the dimensions of the house is again mute if overall the house is still within the size and setback controls. Do not forget also that dual occupancy and granny flats are not generally permitted in the Griffin Conservation Zone, why then are there the added restrictive FSRs?

Therefore, why should a family be told to remove bathtubs from its planned bathrooms to make them smaller to fit within a numerical FSR control that means nothing to the size of the home? Much of the FSR controls within the Griffin Conservation Zone look to lock residents into a time when homes had only one bathroom, often outside of the house.

Also understand that Griffin was constantly moving with the times and hated being held back or labelled a traditionalist, he was progressive. Had he lived a little longer to gain financial security and observed the evolution of building techniques and materials such as spanned truck-delivered premixed concrete pumped high onto site, his homes would have been materially bigger. You can see this initially in his design and build of Fishwick house, considerably bigger than his demonstration houses, but still smaller than the Pratten houses; for there will always be a difference between a client with a mortgage albeit with a good job and a client with no mortgage and old money which afforded no problems for the perfect home. Ironically neither Griffin nor Nicholls worked on the subsequent alterations to the Pratten homes. 

The current FSR regime in the Griffin Conservation Zone is contradicting itself. The floor space as a ratio is about proportionality; diminishing ratios to the larger the land is means smaller lot sizes have homes in greater proportion to their land size. This defeats the control objective of bulk and scale. It is misunderstood and misdirected. As mentioned FSR does not equal or have direct primary bearing on building size. Secondly if a smaller lot size has a greater FSR, it can lend itself to having a house with a bigger bulk and scale compared to a larger lot which can handle a larger home in proportion; not in the square metres which the current controls allude to. A larger lot can also have more planting to cover a home and reduce the impact of the house on the site, so a two-storey home on a small block with the same numerical setbacks and height controls will seem larger than a two-story home on a larger block.

Society is becoming more multi-generational and as aged care is more expensive, so we see the trend that grandparents are living at home. Coupled with next generations unable to afford homes and the Aged Care Royal Commission, the trend of different generations of a family living together will continue ahead. But as the area cannot have duplexes or granny flats even on large blocks of land, why further restrict residents when they need to add an extra room or so as needed because of an irrelevant FSR number? With the ageing population, Council should have all homes provide for elevators and this space should not count in FSR. 

Working with a tight FSR also means more destruction and changes need to be done to a home rather than just being able to add extensions on. Existing rooms and walls and spaces must be redesigned to accommodate the new things needed within the overall tight FSR. Therefore, a small renovation can become a big one just to accommodate the FSR, making it counterproductive and resulting in a family moving out of the home rather than staying in it. For example, families can often live in a home whilst adding an extension or second level, but they cannot when altering their only level. This adds to the rental pressures in our community and making it not as sustainable as it should have been. 

The misunderstanding of FSR also sees homes built with a small FSR but taking up a bigger footprint of their land. That is, they have used more of the natural land and built closer to neighbours/boundaries. Compare this to building a smaller footprint home over two levels into the empty airspace but results in a breach of FSR?

Using a numerical example:

Under the proposed harmonised R2 GFA an 850sqm lot of land can build a home of 363sqm (excl garage).

Under C4/E4 in the Griffin Conservation Zone the same 850sqm lot of land can build a home of 255sqm. 

There is over 100sqm of difference; is this truly fair, sustainable and leading to a future resilient community?

In both cases, there is ample room leftover for landscaping.

Considering this example further:

What if the R2 zoned property had 183 sqm downstairs and 180sqm upstairs compared to the Griffin Conservation Zoned property had all 255sqm downstairs as a single level home? Therefore, the Griffin Conservation Zone property and as a C4/E4, actually used more of its land, was closer to its neighbours and had a bigger footprint than the house with a larger FSR...counterintuitive but true. 

Therefore, it could be argued that a greater FSR is actually better for the environment by using/touching less land, leaving more land for planting and being smarter by using dead and empty airspace. 

Alternating the example above further, what if the C4/E4 Griffin Conservation Zone home had a house of 150sqm ground and 150sqm second floor? It would have an FSR of 35% which is in breach of its 30% requirement but actually build 100sqm less on its land, a far better outcome for the environment and planting more trees etc. The variation of FSR to requirement is calculated by Council as almost 17% and considered quite excessive, when in reality it is not really.

Does a family in the C4/E4 Griffin Conservation Zone magically live in a home that is 100sqm smaller than a neighbouring house outside the Zone? Should a family in the Zone not be allowed to cater for its needs for bathrooms, studies, bedrooms, rumpus space etc. compared to other families within the Willoughby LGA, when both are within their building envelope and setbacks etc? Remembering that in both cases it is a single-family dwelling.

Remember FSR does not necessarily mean bigger homes, it means more living space within a footprint over each level. So why not have more living space if within approved size dimensions? The size and set back controls between R2 and the Griffin Conservation Zone are not materially that different, why then are the FSRs so materially different? The concept of counting attic space within an FSR is ludicrous also.

Is it not the greatest double standard that heritage homes have no FSR requirement under s.4.42b, in theory they could build what they need but then throw daggers at others in the community needing to update their homes and breach FSR because it is unnaturally restrictive? 

How many s.96/s.4.6 have been received by Council over the years in Castlecrag alone and how many could be avoided by more normalised ratios? 

Castlecrag, its charm or the attributes of the Griffin Conservation Zone will not be diminished because a family plans an extra room or will not take away from the history of the area or of what Griffin did and tried more to do. It will not take away the reserves and connected walking paths or alter street names or the subdivision pattern. The legacy of Griffin will outlive us all but we don't need to restrict the needs of future generations with strict controls to try and hang onto misguided things from the past. The Griffins were happy to shake off the shackles before them and carve out their own destiny and they would not want any future, its architects, suburbs, or residents be restricted from doing the same ahead. 

Walter and Marion loved children and worked with Tresillian and infants homes; they would have designed a home with a nursery or a rumpus or extra bedrooms and bathrooms if a family client needed these. They would not have declined the needs because they themselves lived in small houses or because of an FSR code said they cannot have these living spaces.

Remember in those times bathrooms and toilets were not even part of the house! The Griffins designed kitchens out the front for ice deliveries, they did not have refrigerators then. Times and needs change, the current codes are not working let alone are wasting this chance to fix it and make them workable for future generations, a truly resilient city!

‘Subordinate to landscape’ does not mean limiting people's needs with a restrictive FSR....it's working with nature...in effect, building up and down within a smaller footprint is in line with these sentiments of Griffin, so he would actually be supporting a larger FSR as shown in the example above. A larger FSR would in most cases help reduce the building’s footprint of the plot of land it's on, so more land was available for planting or not being touched upon. With advances in today’s building materials and engineering, he would have supported going lower and higher without needing to build out more on the land.

So once we understand that Griffin was alluding to the footprint of the home upon the land and how much land it was to use we can continue the understanding that empty airspace/basements and the construct of FSR were not his primary concerns. Therefore, where a building is within its setbacks, within its height controls, within its imaginary building envelope, what difference does a numerical FSR number make? 

What is the difference if one home has cut out voids inside and under its FSR and another house has rooms inside over is over its FSR when both houses are exactly the same size? The idea of a FSR in this scenario is quite silly and mute and unfair amongst neighbouring homeowners that one is approved but one is declined. Converting a garage into a room can put a homeowner in the Griffin Conservation Zone over the FSR but again doesn’t change the size of the home. Now, Council may exercise discretion to allow it because it does not increase bulk scale or size; but in another case a new DA seeking the same FSR with the room there from the onset in the plans and no garage, would be knocked back because it is over the FSR. Both have the same FSR; but the multi-DA approach got there, but asking for it upfront in the other approach did not; and both are the same footprint and size ratios. The second applicant was actually being more transparent with neighbours and community. Either way it's a double standard that exists that causes differences in our community and restricts our resilience for the future mainly because FSR is not understood and has been applied into the codes incorrectly.

Further then, if a home is within its size controls such as setbacks and heights, do Council assessment officers and the DCP/LEP dictate the style of the home? Georgian, classical, provincial, functionalist, mid-century or modern etc. ...they may have eaves they may not, they may have second levels set back behind the bottom building line or they may not. Castlecrag is home to a myriad of styles currently and this is what makes it great...to impose a certain style and restrict others is to force homeowners into a commonality that will erode the suburb’s fabric of individuality, eliminating various architectural styles and turn everything to bungalows with cap-cod extensions.

Look at what Griffin and Nicholls did for Dr Rivett at Cabarisha hospital, he listened and designed what was needed: more rooms, not being restricted by the FSR or preferred style of setting the top level back, let alone reducing its bulk and scale. Look at what Nicholls did to Griffin homes with alterations.

Griffin was all for progress, constantly learning as he said of himself in Marion's memoirs, moving forward. He would hate to know now that restrictive shackles of the past are in his name holding back his model suburb.

Therefore, the casting vote on architectural style must rest with the homeowner where location, size and setback controls are met. FSR is not a size control and comments about bulk can only be made by Council where an application is over its size or setback controls. Once within its building envelope a homeowner should be able to choose the style of the home they want.

Having a higher FSR doesn't mean that you will build to that number, not all DAs now do, but it will stop unnecessary s4.6 or other means that others do when they need more space.

Heritage Impact Statements/HIS:

These are costly burdens on home owners and should no-longer be required for homes within a Conservation Zone that are not heritage listed. 

Council has undertaken many heritage reviews over the last century and there are numerous channels for residents and community groups to nominate houses for heritage listing. As such all the items that should be heritage listed have been considered at some point. 

There is no value or need for residents to undertake costly and unnecessary HIS reports that shed no new light on any property nor uncover or discover any home for possible heritage listing review. There has been no benefit to the community or any of the homes built or renovated because of a HIS being done on them. 

Further, it’s quite silly to impose this on homes that are new or have been erected after the period of significance to which the Conservation Zone related to. 

Why is a HIS required at all for minor works? Why does a swimming pool or pergola need a heritage statement? What relevance is it does it add? Why not request a house trace from each property/DA instead?

Overall, the treatment of all homes within a heritage conservation zone is excessive, especially when many of those homes are unrelated to the heritage conservation zone itself. As such the code requirements of a DA, especially for minor works on such homes is unfair.

One of the outcomes of the sustainability and resilience review was reducing the costs of development and living...why then don't we remove HIS and other unnecessary needs for DAs, which in other streets are not required, let alone under CDC.

The quality of HIS done under the current code for homes in Castlecrag has been quite varied over the years, many HIS for significant alterations and additions don’t do any research and are very short in nature. It seems unfair that there is such a varying nature of HIS done. Often these short HIS offer no heritage or historical value.

The Griffin Conservation Zone:

The Griffin Conservation Zone is C4/E4 and why it cannot be low density residential housing R2 like other conservation zones can be in Willoughby and other council areas needs to be debated.

Looking at the Griffin Conservation Zone, it meets none of the criteria of C4/E4 and always was and is still a residential subdivision in line with all other R2 in the Willoughby LGA.

Specifically, C4/E4 looks at land, allotments and areas with ‘special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values’. The Griffin Conservation Zone does not have these above or below any other residential street in Castlecrag or the broader LGA. In fact, there are properties within the Willoughby LGA that are closer to escarpments and bushland reserves and harbour foreshores zoned as R2 compared to standard residential allotments closer to Eastern Valley way zoned as C4/E4. This is dubious and appears as a double standard. The differences and borders of zoning here make no sense whatsoever. Look at the apartments at the Postern being built now and the ones that will be built at the quadrangle, how does that land differ to other land adjoining blocks or land across the road? Similarly, how is one side of Edinburgh Rd in Castlecrag R2 and the other side of the land C4/E4? Is there a difference in that land? Griffin designed and built with knitlock as far down as 375 Edinburgh Rd, yet that area is outside of the conservation zone, let alone his plans for other promontories and peninsulas. 

Why are there houses zoned R2 and on the other side of the road they are C4/E4 just because they are in the Conservation Zone. There is no difference to their soil, bedrock, vegetation etc. there is no difference at all. The zoning of land C4/E4 should not be used or hijacked for purposes other than environmental significance. 

If the land is not environmentally sensitive and objectively assessed across the LGA, then the Griffin Conservation Zone would fall into R2. Conservation purposes of a historical nature such as Griffin’s time in Castlecrag can still co-exist with an R2 zoning as they do in other conservation zones in the LGA and as do other Griffin homes around Australia. It is unethical to confuse land zoning or environmental attributes with conservation values of historical built forms/subdivision.

Ian Arnott noted in his webinar on these drafts that one objective was to create equality and harmony and remove ludicrous differences with adjoining properties having different standards and controls. It seems nothing is done to scientifically and objectively review the Castlecrag peninsular. The contrast with Castle Cove could not be starker: there it seems that science and objectiveness has come into it to assess land that is environmentally sensitive compared to the centre of the suburb, but in Castlecrag the whole area is just universally zoned even though there is nothing environmentally unique or special about the blocks there. 

The LEP notes other considerations about C4/E4:

To maintain the scale, character and streetscape of individual localities.

To retain and enhance residential amenity, including views, solar access, aural and visual privacy, foreshore setting, landscape quality and heritage value.

Both of these are the same spirit in all codes for all zones across all LGA. There is no difference between these two points for low density R2 as compared to C4/E4.

To ensure that development preserves and enhances the natural features and bushland within the immediate locality (including natural vegetation, geological features, drainage patterns, the water table and the relationship of development to the natural topography) and does not increase bush fire hazard potential.

Understand that there are only a small number of original Griffin homes in a much larger number of homes within the Griffin Conservation Zone that have nothing to do with Griffin. A conservation zone/its fabric of is often defined by the majority of the original homes in that area; in the Griffin Conservation Zone a few homes are dominating against hundreds of others. Remember therefore that the Griffin Conservation Zone exists in name for his original subdivision, not in his widespread architectural style. 

In all cases though, the land subdivision has occurred, and the homes built upon all the lots. So in DAs now, the proposed works for alterations or re-builds are being undertaken on a known and existing footprint so this point above is mute to a large degree.

Has Griffin and his words of living with nature been misconstrued to mean or become the environmental significance of the blocks of land within the current zone? The Griffin Conservation Zone and the Environmental Zoning of the land as C4/E4 are two separate things. One applies to the virgin land and the other to the built form of the houses and streets upon it. 

Living with nature, blending in with nature etc. has been done in the streets and contours, in the subdivision plans. Making the zoning C4/E4 adds no more safeguards than R2. Griffin’s ideals of preserving nature apply to all of Willoughby and are often embedded in organic controls about setbacks and privacy. Large mature trees are not being removed from the centre of land lots to accommodate new buildings. Trees on nature strips are preserved and protected across all of the LGA. Side trees, front trees, back trees are all protected in DAs across all the LGA. Why then does this area stay C4/E4 and what extra difference does it afford a land lot compared to making it R2 when considering these points?

Remember that the blocks of land were originally barren, Governor Phillip led an expedition through Middle Harbour in 1788 in search of arable land and water, but the rugged barren terrain of the Castlecrag area meant that it was ignored until 1856 when the area was offered for public auction, it then sat relatively undeveloped for another hundred years. Much of the greenery was imported and is a mix of varieties, often mis-planted, including out of control weeds and bamboo that took off. 

Please consider changing the zoning so that families can live here, before it is challenged in court and costs rate payers and therefore take Council funds away from other services. Families need to be able to do repairs and alterations to their homes without the costs and hoops of a C4/E4 DA. They should be afforded the right to use CDC, if not in all, at least in some instances. Please work with the State Government to enable this to happen. 

Look at the other conservation zones in Willoughby and NSW, they can be zoned R2 and be a conservation zone at the same time. Further, they allow homes much larger FSRs than what is allowed in the Griffin Conservation Zone as noted:

‘This figure represents an upper limit to floor space ratio (FSR). It accounts for the existing pattern of development and provides for some additional floor area without compromising the significance of the heritage conservation area’. Why can these words not be applicable to the homes within the Griffin Conservation Area? 

Have a look at Castlecrag and especially the Griffin Conservation Zone, over the years the inconsistent approaches of applicants and approvals now sees the area dominated by 3 level homes of significant mass, bulk and scale, most well over the 30-35% average FSR that the control code notes. Let alone the variations to fences, roof pitches, styles and colours that the code now notes. To some respects, the differences what we see now are the true spirit of Griffin and the Bohemian origins of the suburb...differences rather than rows of uniformity. So, to codify uniformity is the antithesis of its heritage. Consider having minimal codes about setbacks etc. but stop there; to go further into detail of telling people how to design is against everything Griffin stood for and fought against then. Imagine if he arrived today and was told what style to build in or what FSR is to apply. In fact, ironically the majority of Griffin’s original plans would fail the current codes today but that they also were often rejected back then.

Why do other conservation zones get 0.4-0.65 FSR and why is the Griffin Conservation Zone tiered downwards with a lowering scale for the larger the block size is? If Griffin were alive today to read this, he would have fought it tooth and nail, naturally a larger block size can handle a larger home; but that is the magic of working with ratios and percentages: it accounts for it organically. Hence you can have flat 40-65% in other conservation zones/council codes irrespective of block sizes. In Griffin’s words and continued spirit, if the architect has laid out the home on the optimal site of the block, accounted for all neighbours, including the ones across the road and streets behind, addressed solar and privacy issues, adequate setbacks etc what difference does the FSR make then, especially if the numbers are in the air space above for a second level?

Conversely questioned, why are other heritage conservation zones not C4/E4 also? Additionally, why are other C4/E4 environment zones given higher FSR, aren’t they both about the environmental sensitivity of the land? 

Perhaps the residents of the Griffin Conservation Zone if they would like to be re-zoned, be able to use CDC, would like their restrictive controls harmonised with other streets as Griffin fought for then and would have now if he were around to witness the differences in this conservation zone to other areas of the LGA. 

If there is no difference to the environmental aspects of the land within the conservation zone and outside of the conservation zone in Castlecrag, why has it been imposed? Why can these residents not have an R2 zoning and be/have the Griffin Conservation Zone also? This is the best outcome and what Griffin would have wanted...protective guidelines akin to his covenants but the equality of building codes across for all...the same FSR, setbacks, heights etc. to be used fairly and equally by architects when balancing the needs of the clients and the site they have. Residents need this equality. The pandemic has made them need more bathrooms or study areas. Kids and grandparents are living all under the same roof in more and more instances...why then do they get discriminated against and penalised with low and restrictive FSR and other controls but others in Willoughby LGA can build tens and tens of percent more? Griffin was all about solutions and would have worked to find both harmony with nature and what the owners need within the footprint of the home and the building envelope of the codes.

Griffin himself never saw himself residing in Castlecrag. He never reserved a lot for himself or drew plans for his home in Castlecrag, he rented homes in Castlecrag rather than build his own; instead he had intended and drew plans for his home at Parsley Bay in Vaucluse. The Griffins never gained Australian citizenship and McGregor in his book goes further to note that Griffin intended to return to the USA, regretting coming to Australia. Further in arriving in Lucknow India, McGregor shows that Griffin noted ‘I already feel more at home with these people than I was for many years in Australia’. 

What is the background to the restrictive codes applicable to the Griffin Conservation Zone and their origins, for they are the direct opposite of what Griffin thought, said, did or wished. 

All that has been produced here is openly available to all. 

There is no copyright and any part of it may be re-produced and mailed to Council. 

Contact: info@understandinggriffin.org