Block plan submissions close 10 September 2021 – suggested points to include in response to Hunters Hill Council

Hi Everyone,

Submissions about the block plans for Gladesville close on Friday 10 September, so if you have a few minutes to send your thoughts to please do so before Friday.

You can review our previous comments on this topic at these links and

We have not seen an integrated traffic and parking study that shows how Gladesville is supposed to function when the sites in Gladesville are redeveloped to the heights and bulk that are already permitted under both City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils’ Local Environmental Plans.

We think the Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) site owner has been given more than enough financial benefit, without Hunters Hill Council demanding any public amenity benefit, when Council re-zoned it to permit 10 storeys and 180+ flats to be built. There was no minimum requirement for public open space, which is disappointing from Hunters Hill Council when giving away so much financial benefit to the land-owner.

The GSV site owner also got a bargain in 2016 when they were able to buy 2,344 square metres (4-5 house blocks) of public land at 4-6 Cowell Street and 10 Cowell Street (without a Heritage Listing) and 1c Massy Street for only $9.5m, because when Hunters Hill Council did that deal with the GSV site owner in 2013 there was no public tender! You can read more about that at

Our view is that the GSV site owner has been given plenty. It’s time for them to give something back to the Community, and we should not be letting them build any additional flats on that massive block just to get some open space back. Public open space should have been written into the the 2012 Local Environmental Plan by Hunters Hill Council, and we should not have to invite worse overdevelopment just to fix the current lack of public amenity provided in Hunters Hill Council’s planning instruments.

Submissions are due by 10 September 2021. We encourage you to make your own submission to Council regarding the Block Plans. You can do that by sending an email to Our suggestions are below and you are welcome to use any of our points if you agree with them.

You are welcome to copy any or all that you agree with, or modify the points, or put our own points forward. As always, we are not trying to tell you what to think. We are just trying to help focus on some points that we think are important and encouraging you to BE HEARD!


Below, FSR refers to Floor Space Ratio, the measure for bulk. More FSR means more flats (and/or commercial space, but most of this development is about building more flats).

Below, LEP refers to a Local Environmental Plan which contains the 1) Height and 2) FSR controls that apply to each parcel of land in the municipality.

Links to block plans on HHC website:


Block 4 Gladesville Shopping Village

1) There should be absolutely no increase in FSR contemplated on Block 4, the GSV site. The site has already been re-zoned generously to the owner by Hunters Hill Council in the 2012 Local Environmental Plan (LEP). It is a profitable site as it is, and the rezoning should have included minimum open space requirements for public amenity.

2) With NO increase to FSR, an increase to height may be tolerable to permit better design through rearrangement of height on the site and the creation of open public space. Any increase in height must accompany significant public amenity benefit, and it should only permit rearrangement of height and NOT bulk increase. FSR must not be increased.

3) The requirement for open space for public amenity (such as 4,000 square metres) should be written into the planning controls. It should have been done in the 2012 LEP. It should be written into the planning controls now, as exhibited in the block plans.

4) The Height control could be increased for the nominated properties on Victoria Road, but only as a bonus if they are consolidated into the GSV site. If they are not consolidated into the GSV site then no increase should be considered. Similarly, properties on Victoria Road, located north and south of the properties that have been nominated to be consolidated into Block 4 could also receive additional Height if they are consolidated into an integrated development, but only if they are consolidated.

5) Gladesville is not served well by public transport and it is expected that cars will continue to be important for arrival and departure. The additional traffic load associated with hundreds more flats in this small space, as well as additional commercial area, must be expected to create traffic problems without a main-road vehicle entry or exit for the GSV site.

6) Public amenity requirements for the GSV site should have been written into the LEP in 2012. The existing controls are already generous to the site owner and minimal concessions should be considered in order to secure public open space for community benefit. It is a shame that we have to try to fit this into the planning controls afterwards instead of Hunters Hill Council doing the job properly in developing the 2012 LEP, and including the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street for proper heritage listing in the 2012 LEP as it exhibited it in the Draft 2012 LEP, before disposing of 10 Cowell Street and other public land without public consultation or tender.

7) Nominate your preferred layout, from options 1 to 3 or a mix of them, if you have a preference.

Blocks 1-3

1) The public car park at 3A Cowell Street must remain a public car park. The capacity of the car park should be increased to facilitate the growth and development that has already been written into the planning controls for Gladesville. There should be no rezoning of that site to permit height and FSR just so Hunters Hill Council can sell it off in another cash-grab. The rezoning should only occur in a process to construct a larger public car-park.

2) Overall, paying attention to Gladesville in an integrated planning process is a step forward from the apathy shown to Gladesville when the 2012 LEP was developed.


From the Committee of the Gladesville Community Group (incorporated).