Addendum from Hunters Hill Trust – and last call for Submissions

Hi Everyone,

Please find attached to an addendum to the submission made by The Hunters Hill Trust, identifying additional non-compliance.
Tomorrow is the last day for public submissions, so please take a few minutes before tomorrow night to send yours, if you haven’t already.
If it’s quicker and easier for you, feel free to copy and personalise the sample, which is also attached.

You can email your submission to:,

The list of Councillors, in case you’d like to copy them on your submission, is;

The Hunters Hill Trust has made its submission regarding GSV – a great read!

Hi everyone,

The Hunters Hill Trust has made its submission on the GSV Development.


It is an excellent submission which applies a professional standard of evaluation of the design, its impact on the community, and the performance of the Council. Please take a few minutes to read it. The Summary and selected extracts are shown below.

Remember to make your own submission, the more – the better. A short submission with a bullet-point list of your specific concerns is perfectly valid. We can’t all write submissions like attached, but we all have a right to be heard and to have our views taken into consideration – make a submission before the window closes on 15 November.

More info at


The Hunters Hill Trust is opposed to the proposal from Gladesville Shopping Village Developments Pty Ltd for the redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) for the following reasons:


1.It is an overdevelopment of the site.

2.The revised DCP, which sets the planning controls, is flawed and misleading.

3.It will have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential and commercial areas.

4.It will exacerbate existing parking and traffic problems.

5.It creates a poorly designed gated community physically separated from the rest of the area and fails to provide a safe and healthy environment for its occupants.

6.It involves the demolition of a building of considerable heritage significance, which was on land previously owned by Council.

7.The proposed GSVD redevelopment is a cheap and very ordinary proposition that is driven by commercial profit and pragmatism.

8.The Council, as a stakeholder in the proposal, has failed to properly represent the community by taking a leadership role in its development.


[From Section 7 – A cheap and very ordinary proposal]

The proposed GSV redevelopment is at base a cheap and very ordinary proposition that is driven by commercial profit and pragmatism rather than the aim of creating a fine public place with well-designed and properly integrated private housing, car parking and retail facilities. It does not aspire to excellence.


[From Section 8 – Council has failed to properly represent the community’s interest]

As a result of Council’s ineptitude the community has lost out. Profit and pragmatism have prevailed over the community interest.

Open letter to HHC 8th November 2013

8 November 2013

To: Mayor Richard Quinn, Clr and Deputy Mayor Meredith Sheil,Clr Justine McLaughin, Clr Zac Miles, Clr Peter Astridge, Clr Mark Bennett, Clr Gary Bird

Re: DCP for Gladesville Village Centre

We believe there is a clear call from the Community for our Council to protect the long-term interests of the residents and others with interest in this municipality.

The expectation that our Council should safeguard against poor quality development goes beyond the treatment of DA 2013-1036 for the redevelopment of Gladesville Shoppping Village (lodged in June 2013), and extends to the planning instruments under the control of Council. Specifically, we believe Council can do more to safeguard the quality of design that could be approved for this site, by improving the Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Gladesville Village Centre.

Amongst other impacts, the 2013 DCP removed the requirement for setbacks to Cowell and Flagstaff Streets, previously required under the 2010 DCP to be 5 metres with landscaping requirements, and reduced the parking requirement expressed as spaces per sqm of retail floor area. The writing of option instruments that subject our Council to the will of a developer, enabling the developer to acquire and demolish 10 Cowell St, is highly controversial. Given Council’s financial interest being linked to the commercial viability of this development, such actions must be viewed with concern, as the actions are contrary to the Objectives of the DCP and LEP, and the commitment to Heritage, which is often expressed. Actions are what count, and the adoption of any given DCP is an action of significant consequence in the planning and approval process.

Accordingly, we ask that Concillors i) take immediate action to urgently adopt a DCP for the Gladesville Village Centre which restores the superior requirements of the 2010 DCP, removing any validity that the 2013 DCP (adopted AFTER the lodgement of this DA) may have in assessment for DA 2013-1036.

Further, we call for Councillors to ii) task Architectus with improving the DCP, as was undertaken in respect of Hunters Hill Village. Ensuring quality of design and satisfaction of the Objectives of the DCP and the LEP should not be left to the subjective judgement of the Consent Authority of the day, but should be enshrined in planning instruments that codify and explicitly require that the quality of design that this site should attract, are achieved. The preservation of Number 10 Cowell St is clearly an issue which receives great public support, and must be addressed adequately by Council given the previous failure to accept recommendation for Heritage Listing, or to formally refuse.

It is imperative that, at this time when the State Government is seeking to reduce the power of Local Governments in Planning, Hunters Hill Council demonstrates its relevance and value to the local Community.


Russell Young (                   Richard Li (GSV Action Group)

Reminder about tonight’s GSV meeting, 10 Cowell St ‘Timber cottage’, and Councillor Gary Bird

Hi Everyone,

Architectus Meeting
We hope to see you tonight at Council Chambers from 7pm for the meeting with Architectus.
This should be a useful meeting, to evaluate whether Council staff have done enough in preceding years to manage the Conflict of Interest that the Council has in the GSV development.
Even though the Relevant Consent Authority for this DA will be the State Government appointed Joint Regional Planning Panel, the Development Control Plans against which the DA will be evaluated were written by Hunters Hill Council over preceding years. It’s important for us to understand exactly what role Architectus are playing in this process, to see whether Council’s conflict of interest has been managed EFFECTIVELY.
The details of tonight’s meeting are available at the bottom of this page.
10 Cowell Street – the Timber Cottage
It has surprised many people that the cottage was not Heritage Listed. A local resident who has researched this issue extensively has provided with the timeline posted on this page, which makes for interesting reading.
Councillor Gary Bird
Councillor Bird provided this formal declaration of his Conflict of Interest, and the consequences.
I have formally declared a Conflict of Interest in the DA2013-1036 Gladesville Shopping Centre.
I will continue to attend information evenings, formal and informal council briefings. However I will not be taking part in any debate or decision making forum regarding this development application. I will remove myself from such interactions with councillors and council staff, and I will make all reasonable efforts to refrain from using my position as a councillor to influence community opinion in relation to this matter.
I do not agree with this situation.  I was elected by the community to represent them in such matters and have been advised that I can no longer fulfil this duty.  I cannot describe my anger and disappointment.