Category: Uncategorized
Hi Everyone,
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 customerservice@huntershill.
You can review our previous comments on this topic at these links 
http://au.https://au.
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 https://au.
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 customerservice@huntershill.
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: https://www.
***
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).
Block plans – suggested points to include in response to Hunters Hill Council
Hi Everyone,
It is a bit like being asked whether you would prefer your house to be broken into or your car to be stolen. Obviously neither but when we nominate the least worst option they can say we asked for it. The same applies with these proposed concessions, just to get the public amenity benefit that Hunters Hill Council should have coded into the Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) site when it rezoned it in 2012 for windfall gains to the owner, allowing them to put 10 storeys and 180 flats on the site.
Lane Cove Council planned for their area and delivered ‘The Canopy’. Hunters Hill Council just rezoned to dump all the extra flats on the GSV site, failed to heritage list the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street, and disposed of it (without public consultation or tender) to the owner of GSV and carried on as if their job in ‘planning’ was done.
That said, the Master Plan, and these block plans, are an improvement in transparency and public participation from how Hunters Hill Council acted in 2012 and 2013. You can review our last comments on that history at this link http://au.gladesvillecommunity.com/2021/08/08/block-plans-on-exhibition/. We appreciate that the improvement commenced 3 & 1/2 years ago with the change of Council and the motion to develop a new Master Plan was moved by Councillors Zac Miles and Ross Williams.
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 customerservice@huntershill.
We also encourage you to register for a session to see what Council has to say about the process. You can do that at this link: https://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/events/gladesville-masterplan-community-meetings/. The sessions may be helpful or they may be too heavy on spin, having watched Hunters Hill Council try repeatedly since 2013 to tell us what we want.
Hunters Hill Council has not obtained or at least not shown to us any traffic or parking study, which should inform development. We anticipate that when GSV is redeveloped there will be 18 months to 2 years when parking on that site is lost and construction workers will take up most of the remaining parking in Gladesville. That will leave no parking for staff of businesses, shoppers, or other visitors. It is quite foreseeable but there is no plan to manage the problem! Pity the businesses who need trade, with 2 years of severe disruption.
Below are our suggestions of points that you might like to consider including in your submission to the block plans being exhibited. 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: https://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/gladesville/
***
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).
Block plans on exhibition
Hi Everyone,
On 5 August 2021 Hunters Hill Council (HHC) released two block studies that have been commissioned as part of the Masterplan process. These relate to Blocks 1-3, and Block 4, as they have defined sections of Gladesville, which will be incorporated into an overdue Masterplan.
Today we can share some relevant background information to help understand where we are at. We will send another email later, after we have time to review the detail that is included in the block plans.
Comments below are facts as best we recall and understand them, and some comments are our opinions. Our opinions can easily be differentiated from facts stated below. We do not ever represent that we make submissions on your behalf, or on behalf of the community. We have always tried to give the community the relevant facts in plain English, including the facts that others might prefer us not to know or remember. That is important for accountability. We encourage everyone to write their own submission, and we hope that our emails help people to do so.
Where have the block plans come from?
The new Masterplan for Gladesville is WELL OVERDUE. Below is a short summary of the relevant history.
HHC amended the permitted building heights and floor space ratio (FSR, a measure of ‘bulk’) that apply to buildings in Gladesville under HHC control when it adopted the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. That LEP allows 34m (10 storeys) in height, and FSR between 2.3 and 2.7 across the Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) site. In 2013 a Development Application (DA) was received from the owner of the GSV to redevelop the site with a 2-storey podium level and four 8-storey towers, which would permit 180 flats to be built as well as an increased commercial space. Earlier in 2013 Mayor (at that time) Richard Quinn and General Manager (at that time) Barry Smith had delegated authority from Hunters Hill Council and entered into Deed agreements (options) to allow the owner of the shopping centre to acquire public land, without tender and without public consultation. The land that was disposed of was: 10 Cowell Street with the timber cottage on it, the at-grade open car park at 4-6 Cowell Street, and a small parcel referred to as 1c Massey Street.
The timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street was included in Schedule 5 of the draft LEP 2012 which listed Heritage items to be protected, but when HHC submitted the LEP to the NSW Government it removed 10 Cowell Street from the list of Heritage items in Schedule 5. There was no reason given for why 10 Cowell Street would not deserve heritage listing. At the time HHC said it ran out of time to decide on that listing, despite including 10 Cowell Street in the draft LEP which was exhibited to the public, and despite the recommendation by Paul Davies Heritage Architect in his 2006 report to HHC that the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street should receive heritage protection. Then, instead of answering the outstanding question of the heritage listing of 10 Cowell Street, HHC entered into option deeds to dispose of it (without heritage listing), to the owner of the shopping centre, without public consultation or tender. Eventually, after disposing of 10 Cowell Street, HHC applied the weakest heritage listing in the council’s history, the only heritage listing to exclude the curtilage of the building, which means it could be relocated or even demolished and certain elements be preserved. HHC has literally shown greater respect for heritage listing sandstone gutters in Hunters Hill than for the actual timber cottage in situ at 10 Cowell Street in Gladesville, when it sought to heritage list those sandstone gutters at its meeting on 9 June 2020!
To be clear: we do not suggest that anything illegal was done. We just think the public expects to be informed about what Council is doing to our suburb at the time, instead of finding out when it’s too late. We also expect the sale of public land to be subject to tender, and that was recommended by NSW Government guidelines if the sale would be contentious.
The Masterplan is something that this current term of Council committed to on 12 March 2018, despite the HHC website referring to the motion from December 2018 dealing with the block plans specifically. It is worth noting that the Masterplan was committed to at one of the first meetings of the current term of Council (2017-2021), and that the disposal of public land was arranged under the previous Council (2012-2017). The removal of 10 Cowell Street from the list of heritage items in the 2012 LEP occurred under the council previous to that (2008-2012).
Importantly, the Masterplan goes beyond the GSV site and considers a broader area of Gladesville than just the GSV site. It includes the main commercial buildings that front Victoria Road. In 2009 HHC adopted two LEPs for the GSV site, referring to it as the ‘key site’, as it was trying to make it more attractive and profitable for development, informed by the ‘Newbold report’. This Masterplan is the first Masterplan since the 2005 Masterplan for Gladesville, which was so obviously out of date by the time the 2012 LEP was adopted, with increased heights and FSR on the ‘key site’ (GSV) as well as the buildings along Victoria Road.
We believe that Hunters Hill Council badly let down Gladesville in its actions in 2012-2013, when it rezoned the suburb to receive a lot of additional flats, and our public land was sold off to create the impression of financial sustainability of Hunters Hill Council, but Council did not do the hard work that should have occurred AT THAT TIME to consider the impact on the suburb and how to ensure that Gladesville remains functional. There has not even been an integrated traffic study for Gladesville informed by the massive re-zonings in 2012!
It is important to understand the starting position, which is that the heights and FSR adopted by HHC in the 2012 LEP are already law. The GSV site is already zoned to 34m, or 10 storeys and enough FSR to build 180 flats per the original DA in 2013. As much as we would like to see it, we do not see any likelihood of success in arguing for a reduction in those key controls.
What is good about these block plans?
1) They exist. The actions of Hunters Hill Council around 2012-2013 simply treated Gladesville as a dumping ground for new flats to be zoned and some public land to sell off, after not adopting the Heritage listing for 10 Cowell Street timber cottage that was publicly exhibited. It is a step forward that these block studies have been developed and released for the public to see. As unwelcome as the plans may be, it is an improvement in governance that such plans are developed and exhibited properly before decisions are made – if HHC has not already made decisions and this is just ‘being seen to do consultation’.
2) They consider Gladesville more broadly than just the GSV site. The GSV site received attention from HHC in 2012 and 2013, when putting in place the events that lead us to where we are now. There is still a mess to fix up in terms of what the GSV site should end up looking like, but it is also important to consider the buildings on Victoria Road and how the sites may integrate. It is a separate problem that Victoria Road splits Gladesville across Hunters Hill Council and City of Ryde Council.
What is not good about these block plans?
1) They seek to give more FSR to “Block 4”, the GSV site. It has already been zoned for height and FSR to allow 180 flats and more commercial space. More FSR means more flats means more congestion. Unless the community is assured that the vehicle movements including goods deliveries to the GSV site and the rear of the buildings facing Victoria Road, from all of this bulk can be handled, we could not possibly support any additional FSR on Block 4.
2) They intend to allow a new building where the at-grade open car park currently sits at 3A Cowell St. We do not see that the new building is nominated to be a public car park. Gladesville is facing increased demand for parking, for residents in the new flats (usually built with insufficient car parking), visitors to residents in the new flats, business operators and staff working in the increased commercial spaces both inside and outside the GSV, customers (hopefully) of the commercial businesses, and other users of Gladesville e.g. parents dropping their kids off or picking them up from school.
3) The briefing to the consultant was wrong. It should never have stipulated a minimum overall FSR of 3.0. The permitted FSR of 2.3 to 2.7 on the GSV site is already high enough for 180 flats on that site alone. We believe there should be no increase to FSR for Block 4, and we believe the public have expressed this to HHC on a number of occasions, including the ~295 submissions in response to the DA in 2013, and more recently in response to the Planning Proposal when the owner of the GSV site applied to the state government for more generous controls, which would make the site even more valuable to a developer but more likely to cripple the suburb with such overdevelopment. FSR for the buildings on Victoria Road are mainly 2.5 already, and they have 5-6 storey development permitted. It would take a very convincing argument that we will get a better result from redevelopment before any increase to Blocks 1-3 could be considered.
4) The increased heights are excessive when taken with an increase in FSR. There is an argument that slender development is preferable to ‘squat’ bulk, but objection to height is also common. When responding to the applicant’s Planning Proposal, we suggested that submissions should object to any increase in FSR but we suggest that amending height controls COULD deliver a better quality design and amenity benefits. We do not think that height and FSR should be increased, because that is just bulky overdevelopment and not slender development.
5) We think the pictures in the block plans are misleading, as they show sites that are generally much larger than the GSV site. Nice pictures of other places do not make the actual plans that are put forward more palatable.
6) There has still not been an integrated traffic study for Gladesville after Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils adopted their 2012 LEPs that permit much larger development than was possible prior, so we see no basis on which to believe the contemplated increases to FSR could be responsibly considered.
Where to from here?
* We will review the block plans in more detail and hope to offer suggestions that you might like to consider in your submissions. We will send that out as soon as we can.
* We encourage everyone to make a submission, and it can be as simple and blunt as you like (without swearing). Be heard!
* Our suggestion at this stage would be to state that no increase above the current FSR should be considered for Block 4. You may consider that the same should apply to Blocks 1-3. You might also object to increased height, or you might believe slender development is preferable, and we acknowledge both of those views do receive support.
* Council should be clear and open with the public. What are they planning to do with the car park site at 3A Cowell St? Sell off more public land? Reduce parking supply? We need MORE public parking, not less, to accompany the development that HHC is jambing down in the Gladesville corner of the municipality.
* Council election on 4 December 2021 will provide an opportunity for the community to show what it thinks of the various candidates and how they treated Gladesville in the past (for those who have already held office).
Resources/links
* HHC website links to the block plans.
https://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/gladesville/
* Height of building map from the 2012 LEP for current controls
https://eplanningdlprod.blob.core.windows.net/pdfmaps/4100_COM_HOB_002_010_20121218.pdf
* FSR map from the 2012 LEP for current controls
https://eplanningdlprod.blob.core.windows.net/pdfmaps/4100_COM_FSR_002_010_20121218.pdf
* Hunters Hill Trust website selected links
https://huntershilltrust.org.au/2015/11/why-does-the-heritage-listing-of-10-cowell-street-exclude-the-land-around-it/
https://huntershilltrust.org.au/2016/02/councils-sale-of-public-land/
* Selected links from our website with previous emails about the history and evolution of this situation
http://au.gladesvillecommunity.com/10-cowell/
http://au.gladesvillecommunity.com/2018/03/12/explanation-for-content-in-planning-proposal-submission/
http://au.gladesvillecommunity.com/2018/03/12/20180312-1/
From the Committee of the Gladesville Community Group (incorporated).
Gladesville Hospital Ceremony 10 December 2019
Hi Everyone,
Locals who walk around the hospital will be familiar with the graves and the cemetery site just off Victoria Road, and may have noticed works recently tending to the site.
Please see below for details received from the NSW Mental Health Commissioner of a memorial ceremony to be held at Gladesville Psychiatric Hospital on 10 December 2019.
Forwarded to you by the team at Gladesville Community Group (inc)
***
Gladesville Hospital Cemetery Memorial: in memory of former residents
The NSW Mental Health Commissioner, Catherine Lourey, cordially invites you to the Gladesville Hospital Cemetery Memorial ceremony to acknowledge and remember the lives of former residents of the Gladesville Psychiatric Hospital on Victoria Road, Gladesville.
This area is the final resting place of more than 1,200 former patients and several staff of the old hospital at Gladesville. The memorial ceremony will be the first time these people have been formally acknowledged.
Initially known as the Tarban Creek Lunatic Asylum (1838-1868), the hospital was renamed Gladesville Hospital for the Insane (1868-1914) and finally known as Gladesville Hospital (1915-1993).
Almost all the graves are unmarked — an indication of the high level of ignorance and shame that pervaded attitudes towards those who experienced mental health issues in the past.
The cemetery is a poignant reminder that we must never again allow vulnerable people to be abandoned, devalued, and hidden away. Instead we must focus on hope, recovery, support, and inclusion.
In holding this historic memorial ceremony, we offer respect to those whose remains are here in unmarked graves, as well as former residents buried elsewhere. We also pay respects to people buried at other hospitals and institutions. Our community acknowledges their journeys of suffering, distress and abandonment. This memorial is part of a journey to honour their memory.
The ceremony will include Aboriginal cultural elements, lived experience acknowledgements, speeches and shared stories.
Light refreshments will be available. Parking: on Crown Street or on the Hospital campus (access via Punt Road).
For any more information, please email events@mhc.nsw.gov.au or call (02) 9859 5200.
Date And Time: Tuesday 10 December 2019, 2:30 pm – 4:30 pm
Location: Gladesville Hospital, Carpark C (adjacent to cemetery), Victoria Road
Gladesville, NSW 2111
For any more information, please email events@mhc.nsw.gov.au or call 9859 5200.
Happy Hens Fundraiser and Christmas Puddings
Hi Everyone,
Today we have some really positive things to share with you.
The Happy Hens are a local community group started by three friends Helen, Emma, and Nicole (hence the name HEN). Their aim is: to make Gladesville, Hunters Hill, Ryde and beyond an engaging, enjoyable and sustainable place to live, especially in our beautiful public open spaces. So far they have created two community gardens, one at Bedlam Bay in the grounds of Gladesville Hospital, and one at Henley Green.
In October 2018 they also organised a mental health awareness event called Bedlam at the Bay, which was a great success.
Fundraising party – Happy Hens
They’re having a fundraising party on Saturday 30th November 2019. Tickets are only $33 and that includes 1) a Glass of Prosecco by The Fizz Fellas (alternative beer or wine), 2) Gourmet BBQ BURGER or PULLED-BEEF BUN or VEGETARIAN FRITTATA generously prepared by The Happy Hens and Friends, and 3) a Serving of Decadent Cake, Rich Pudding or Sweets.
They’re doing fantastic voluntary work and this is a great chance to show our support for local people building community.
Or you can find out more about the Happy Hens and the fundraiser at this link
http://www.happyhens.org.au/
You can buy tickets directly from this link
https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/the-happy-hens-fundraiser-party-tickets-73779744201
Christmas Puddings – Happy Hens
The Happy Hens are also raising funds by selling the popular Pudding Lane Christmas Puddings. All 500g puddings are $30 and all 1kg puddings are $45.
These prices are less than retail and delivery is free around Gladesville area.
You can download their order form from our website at this link
http://au.gladesvillecommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pudding_FundraisingOrderForm2019.docx
Or you can email the Hens directly to reqeust an order form at happyhensent@gmail.com
Please note: Orders received by Friday 22 November will be delivered by 15th December 2019.
Hunters Hill Council’s horrendous infrastructure backlog about 604% worse than they thought!
| Have you ever thought that Hunters Hill Council isn’t maintaining the footpaths and roads well enough? Have you ever thought it must be a Council of low aspirations if they think this IS good enough? Did you see the other Councillors vote against Councillors Ben Collins and Zac Miles Motion to Hunters Hill Council on 11th February 2019 to commit to addressing the backlog, and wondered whether they’re ever going to fix the roads and footpaths? Have you thought that Hunters Hill Council might have been in denial when they said they have the scale and capacity to continue without being amalgamated? Have you thought these roads and footpaths JUST AREN’T GOOD ENOUGH? Well it turns out YOU ARE CORRECT! In the Agenda for the Extraordinary General Meeting (4469) of Hunters Hill Council held on Monday 21st October 2019, draft financial statements were presented that are informed by a better review of assets than Council has performed in prior years. It turns out that prior years’ reporting of the condition of our assets and infrastructure backlog, and cost to bring them up to the level set by Council, has been GROSSLY under-reported. In the Schedule 7 to the Financial Statements for the year ending 30th June 2018 that figure was reported at $3,955,000. With the new General Manager (GM), and a new Asset Management Engineer, and actually looking at it properly, that value is estimated at $27,858,000! Assuming no significant movement between the 2018 and 2019 condition of assets, given that the main driver of this year’s increased value is Council’s NEW KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, the infrastructure backlog problem is bigger than was previously recognised – by approximately 604%! (in the absence of reliable information, we can only assume that the actual infrastructure backlog value last year should have been similar to the best estimate we currently have for this year) The report with the Agenda of that meeting on 21st October 2019, as well information given by staff at the meeting to explain the situation, confirm that the current number is a better informed estimate but they have only surveyed the roads at this stage and are yet to complete surveying of the footpaths and other assets (in progress or scheduled). The figure may rise further. Refer to PDF page numbers 96,97, and 169 (footnote page numbers 93, 94, and 166 respectively) at http://www.huntershill.nsw. gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/10/OC_20191021_AGN_1025_AT_EXTRA.pdf Similar to the Councillors, we do not blame the new GM Lisa Miscamble, or other current senior staff, for this legacy issue. To the contrary they should be (and were) thanked for their professionalism and diligence in bringing this horrendous issue of under-reporting of facts to light. We’re not saying it was deliberate lying in the past. It could have been incompetence, or maybe there is some other explanation for it. Councillor Ben Collins’ comments at the meeting, starting at 36:00 minutes (for 5 minutes) are worth watching even if you don’t have time to watch the whole meeting. https://youtu.be/Kzlby5yBm-8 Councillors fixing the problem? As referred by Councillor Ben Collins during the meeting on 21st October 2019, Councillors’ Ben Collins and Zac Miles requested the Motion which is copied below (in italics) in Hunters Hill Council Meeting 4454 on 11th February 2019, inviting Council to commit to fixing the roads and footpaths. EVERY OTHER COUNCILLOR VOTED AGAINST THAT MOTION. Notice of Motion 1. That Council adopts a policy of restoring sealed roads, footpaths, kerbs and guttering, and other road assets to the agreed level of service set by council; 2. That Council adopts a policy of budgeting for all required maintenance and restoration costs on infrastructure assets in the annual budget delivered each year; 3. That Council undertakes a review of all infrastructure assets and brings back a report to Council in March outlining the estimated costs to bring all infrastructure assets to a satisfactory standard. Do we just point out problems or do we try to help fix them? Of course we try to help. On 18th April 2018 (more than 18 months ago) the header image of this email, a person riding a quad-bike with mounted equipment, was posted on Facebook Group “In the Cove”. It was suggested that they may be surveying Lane Cove Council assets – roads and footpaths. A member of the Committee of Gladesville Community Group, Russell Young, posted below on “Captive Councillor” (a Facebook Group created by Hunters Hill Councillor Elizabeth Krassoi) in April 2018. That discussion is copied below, in italics. Even in April 2018 we could see the value in a high-quality review of our assets condition and the response from Hunters Hill Council was to accept reactive reporting focussing on micro-issues instead of proactively and systematically reviewing assets with best-practice as our neighbouring Council was doing at the macro level. RY: Hi Councillors, there’s suggestion this could be surveying Council assets – roads and footpaths around Lane Cove. If it’s true, could this be done in HHC also?Systemic monitoring and management of assets would be much better than relying on frustrated residents to report condition. I know there are raised footpath slabs that form trip hazards in Cowell St (and elsewhere no doubt) where the big fig tree roots get under them, and it would be good risk management to have periodic surveys and to ensure that high foot-traffic areas are attended to as appropriate. A risk-based approach. I’d be amazed if there was any survey going on of the footpaths around the Gladesville commercial precinct – which has higher foot traffic than other areas because of the high level of pedestrian activity. Some of those trip hazards in streets where a lot of retail staff and shoppers walk really need to be monitored and addressed more frequently. CC: Hi Russ Young I understand that Council does have a schedule of road and footpath works that is reviewed and approved ongoing on top of essential call outs. I know that a schedule of road upgrades was approved some months ago and is on the website. I’ll email steve and ask if there is more we can share and do. Meanwhile other councillors may recall more. Watch this space and thanks for the info. I wonder what that little buggy is?? RY: Thanks Elizabeth CC: Russ, Barry Smith our GM has replied. I’m attaching here the link to the community strategic plan where you can download the roads and related assets plan which outlines the priorities to 2030. Barry also suggested, as this is an operational question, that a call to himself or dhruba would be welcome if you have more questions. I’ll have another read too and happy to assist if you have further questions or suggestions on this. Our next community strategic plan is in final workings so a good time for comment coming very soon. Put In a call to Council if you want to ensure a particular street definitely makes it into the next stage. http://www.huntershill.nsw. gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=727 CC: Quoting: Roads and footpaths are inspected regularly and at least annually for a condition assessment to meet the AAS. Maintenance is undertaken in accordance with the adopted Asset Management Plans that form one part of the Resourcing Strategy that supports the Community Strategic Plan. The AMPs are reviewed annually as part of the budget process. RY: Thanks Elizabeth. It’s really the effectiveness of that review that I’m focusing on. These trip hazard slabs have been what I think is dangerous for quite a while, and even something as simple as the pepper tree branches blocking access to the pedestrian layback at the designated point of crossing has been a long persisting problem. CC: Russ Young hi. Would you email this photo and location once again to Council and, if you wouldn’t mind, a copy to me as well. What can we have – if we can’t have safe footpaths and decent roads? We can have Hunters Hill Day, for anti-amalgamation campaigners to gloat over the victory against the NSW Government on a legal technicality that prevented Hunters Hill Council from being amalgamated with neighbours. Did we really win something good? We can have fairy lights in the fig trees at the top of Cowell St, lights by which to trip on bad footpaths. We can have 10% per annum rates increases as we’ve had this year. We can have bad roads and footpaths until or unless Councillors vote to fix them, instead of leaving millions of dollars in the bank so we look strong on paper – against the next amalgamation initiative whenever a NSW Government gets around to it. Like children having dessert instead of dinner if they’re allowed, some of our Councillors seem more focussed on projects that deliver photo opportunities while people trip on our footpaths and smash their faces because asset maintenance doesn’t make for sexy politics. BUT IT IS THE JOB OF LOCAL COUNCIL AND UNTIL NOW HUNTERS HILL COUNCIL MISUNDERSTOOD THE COST OF THAT REQUIREMENT BY ABOUT 604%. Lets see what promises we get when aspiring Mayors start saying ‘the right thing’ ahead of the Local Council elections 2020. From the team at Gladesville Community Group |
GS’V’ update and Master Plan for Gladesville (draft coming)
Hi everyone,
It’s been a while since we’ve been in touch, but even though you haven’t heard from us we’ve been trying to keep an eye on things affecting Gladesville.
Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GS’V’) update – where is it up to?
Earlier in 2019 Hunters Hill Council submitted its response to the applicant’s request (by the GS’V’ land owner who also now owns the adjacent land that used to be public) to the NSW Department of Planning to relax the Height and “Floor space ratio” (FSR, basically ‘bulk’) controls applicable to the site. 180 flats and 10 storeys wasn’t enough, after our land was sold to them, so they sought a State Government amendment to our Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to allow even bigger development on the site.
Thanks to YOUR continued attention to this issue, and YOUR attendance at the public meeting and YOUR submissions, the response from Hunters Hill Council was not to support any increase to FSR (bulk), but concession on height may be allowable. There were also increased open space requirements, a “design excellence” (according to WHO?) requirement, and a site-specific Development Control Plan to be considered for the site.
Overall, this is as good an outcome that we could hope for, after having already sold the public land to the developer and Council really holding no cards to manage the site in a ‘deveoper-friendly’ state political environment. Well done everyone!
We are still waiting for hear what the NSW Department of Planning will decide for the site. We will update you when we know more.
Master Plan for Gladesville
One significant initiative that should be achieved soon is exhibition of a new draft Master Plan for Gladesville. This was announced in March 2018, and nearly 18 months later we believe there will be a result soon.
You can read the Motion at the link below to our previous communication when the Master Plan was announced, and we note that a public meeting of residents and stakeholders was to occur early in the process (Point 2 of the Motion). We’ll see what’s actually happened so far when the Master Plan goes to public exhibition for comment. Certainly we are hoping that it is not a case of a plan from Hunters Hill Council being developed behind closed doors and then shown to the public for ‘rubber-stamping’ with little or no room for input, to qualify as Public input. But we remain optimistic because this 2017-2020 Council has actually recognised that planning is a responsibilty of Hunters Hill Council.
The previous Council 2012-2017 sold off our heritage asset at 10 Cowell Street (with the only heritage listing in the history of Hunters Hill Council to exclude curtilage, making it easier for the property to be relocated or demolished) and sold other public land including a public car park in Gladesville (without tender), re-zoned Gladesville to take almost all of the increased density for the entire Hunters Hill Local Government Area (LGA) when the State Government pushed targets into each LGA, and invested little or no visible effort to plan for or to mitigate the adverse impacts of the significant additional development – of which we are now seeing the beginning.
What is a Master Plan?
Have a look at the last one – from 2006 – at the link below!
The 2006 Master Plan basically became redundant when the 2012 Local Environmental Plan (LEP) was adopted, because the “Heights of Buildings” and “Floor space ratio” (FSR, basically ‘bulk’) controls changed significantly. That 2012 LEP was the planning instrument that paved the way for all of this extra development – basically the 5 and 6 storey buildings to line most of Victoria Rd as well as the 10 storey development over the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (Coles site).
Before the 2012 LEP, the 2006 Master Plan was an excellent document to guide the planning and development for Gladesville, applicable to both Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils – which jointly developed it.
The Master Plan considers heritage, character, amenity, and how to best plan to retain or promote favourable elements of the suburb’s character. It considers relevant factors beyond our boundaries, such as Top Ryde shopping centre. It considers public transport and the promotion of its use.
Importantly, it considers the management of the suburb at the level of infrastructure that is within the control of the Council. Parking and traffic managment are given due consideration, with chapter 4.6 titled “Access Management and Parking”. “Parking” was mentioned 117 times in the 2006 Master Plan, and “Traffic” was mentioned 29 times. This attention to ‘what Council can do to help’ is what we think has been critically absent since the 2012 re-zoning of Gladesville for high density. Also absent has been sufficient collaboration between City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils, to develop such a Plan.
Since lodgement of the Development Application in 2013 for the 4 x 8 storey towers above the two storey podium proposed redevelopment of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’, the public has been asking (including as a theme in the 290+ submissions received in response to the DA, 99% of which opposed it) for an integrated parking and traffic management plan for Gladesville – which suffers from being split across the Local Government Areas of two different Councils.
Why do we keep talking about parking and traffic management?
Because it matters, because it won’t solve itself, and because Councils shouldn’t be waiting until it’s too late before trying to fix it after the fact.
Businesses rely on customers, and convenient access to enter, park, and leave the suburb is important to the choice of desination. Never have we heard a restauranteur say “I’ll be happy just to have as many diners as would like to ride their bikes here on a rainy Saturday night”, or “there should be enough people on the bus route” to fill a restaurant in a suburban precinct. Not everyone can walk their groceries home.
Commercial landlords rely on businesses success. Bad sites, or sites which are turned bad by lack of planning, don’t attract good rents or resale.
Residents’ ability to enjoy a suburb’s vibrancy requires businesses to succeed instead of closing down as we’ve seen through Gladesville in recent years, both in and out of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’. We don’t accept that just building 180+ extra flats above the Coles will somehow solve everything, or even that it won’t create a congestion problem if Councils don’t plan for success. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Public transport in Sydney is only as good (or bad) as it actually is, and Victoria Rd remains a bus corridor with few destinations to/from Gladesville other than the CBD-Parramatta route.
Indeed, the article from Inside Retail at the link below acknowledges the positive contribution to successful local shopping strips made by some councils focussing on convenient parking and lobbing for improved transport links, the latter not actually being under the control of councils.
https://www.insideretail.com.au/news/the-future-is-local-201802
We have not seen an articulated strategy from Hunters Hill Council (or City of Ryde) adopting a position against vehicular transport. Any such intention should be properly exihibited for public consultation before the future of our suburb is put at risk. We just haven’t seen any action that recognises that the increased residential and commercial load coming from the 2012 rezoning actually requires planning and increased capacity.
Even if businesses are prepared to pay for parking permits for staff, there are no car parks in Gladesville that have capacity – and this is before the coming wave of development is finished and before the public car park on the northern/easter side of Cowell Street is incorporated into the redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’. Even if residents with more cars are prepared to rent additional above the low parking space ratios required for approval of blocks of flats these days, there is no capacity to rent what does not exist.
We don’t even have capacity to supply business or residents with additional parking when it’s commercially viable or otherwise desirable to pay/rent/lease. We cannot manage and meet staff + resident + shopper/diner/customer demand for parking if we’re can’t plan to increase capacity. And that ignores the impact of commuter parking already saturating many of our residential streets.
Again, failing to plan is planning to fail.
The Master Plan – coming soon
We keenly await the public consultation for YOUR input into the Master Plan for Gladesville, and hope that by the end of the 2017-2020 Council term we will have a planning achievement to celebrate!
From the team at Gladesville Community Group (incorporated)
Amalgamate Hunters Hill Day?
Amalgamate Hunters Hill Day?
It was resolved at Hunters Hill Council meeting on 10th December 2018 to adopt 31 July each year as a day to celebrate defeating the NSW Government’s most recent attempt to amalgamate Hunters Hill into a municipality with scale and capacity – which was withdrawn on 31 July 2017.
We recall the public debate at that time as being unbalanced. The Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition (SHHMC) campaigned against amalgamation and Council decided to mount a fight for its own jobs and benefits, but there was no organisation campaigning for amalgamation. There was no counter-balance. As a result, the ‘debate’ was one-sided and there was no chance to stop and actually consider whether we would be better off being part of a larger council, or whether it woulde be better to have boundaries that do not divide Gladesville (or Boronia Park) into two different Local Government Areas (LGAs).
Since 31 July is now adopted as Hunters Hill’s official day of gloating over their anti-amalgamation victory, we are committing to not leaving rational residents of Gladesville (or any other supporters) feeling like their/our voices do not matter. Hunters Hill Council has voted to support the divisive initiative, celebrating 31 July each year – so we will use that same day to give a voice to open-minded, progressive people who are open to change and reform.
We acknowledge there are those who would like the NSW Government to come back and finish the job (legally), and amalgamate the smallest Council in NSW into a council with enough size to be effective – without 9.74% rates increases, as are being sought at the Hunters Hill Council meeting to be held 12 December 2018.
The most balanced argument we saw at the time was the “Rough guide to the impact of amalgamation” published by the Hunters Hill Trust. Apart from publishing the thought-provoking guide available at the links below, the Hunters Hill Trust generally stayed out of the 2017 amalgamation debate because it was divided.
https://huntershilltrust.org.
https://huntershilltrust.org.
http://au.
If Council’s size and shape is an important issue to you, or the opportunity to be a part of a constructive and balanced discussion about whether new boundaries might be better for the modern era – then this initiative is for you. If you have wondered whether a more-widely skilled staff could deliver better and more cost effective services than a micro-council, this is for you. If you have wondered whether economies of scale are more important than parochialism, this is for you. If you have wondered where it’s good for Gladesville to be targetted for almost all of the Hunter Hill municipality’s development, this is for you.
With the help of HHC, the anti-amalgamation group were very loudly heard in the 2017 process, but being loud does not necessarily mean their opinion is right, it doesn’t mean they’re the majority, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call for municipal improvement and reform. It is time to find out how many of us are actually open to amalgamation, without being shouted down.
To build the best future, we think the community needs to be master of its own destiny. If we wait for the next forced amalgamation, we might not have much of a say. Amalgamation does not need to be forced, not when the sensible discussion moves from insularity and emotional fear of change, and considers the benefits of scale with an open mind. It could be the best thing to happen to us!
We expect to form a sub-committee or working group to drive this forward. We will also look for street/neighbourhood coordinators to help with distributing printed leaflets. You do not have to live in Gladesville, this is an issue that affects residents throughout the area.
Also, please email this to like-minded friends who think that the Council size and shape and reform issue needs more attention. New subscribers can register for our emails by contacting us at mail@gladesvillecommunity.com.
9.74% rates increase in HHC and Anti-amalgamation Day
Hi Everyone,
Please note below urgent action on the Special Rates Variation seeking to increase your rates by 9.74% – bold item under “what you can do” in the second section of this email.
Anti-amalgamation day: 31st July each year
At the Hunters Hill Council meeting to be held on Monday 10th December (tomorrow), Council is looking to adopt 31st July each year to celebrate the NSW government’s decision not to pursue council amalgamations which were subject to legal challenge – on 27th July 2017.
The relevant section of the Council Meeting Agenda is available at the link below. Submissions are included, if you’d like to review them.
http://au.
We are disappointed that this divisive issue of amalgamation has been brought up again.
We respect that some people believe the boundaries should remain as they are. Unfortunately they do not respect that there are other opinions, which are valid and widely held – certainly in the north ward.
We are well aware that there is a lot of support for the ideas that:
1) the boundary on Victoria Road dividing Gladesville across two municipalities is problematic, and
2) amalgamation to a more suitable size – such as the combination of Hunters Hill Council and Lane Cove Council
– would create a better-sized municipality with economies of scale and the capacity to employ a wider range of specialist skills which are so important in the modern era, while retaining a suitable local focus.
It is very disappointing that a particular interest group has sought to insult and speak over other residents who feel differently, by seeking official recognition of their views as the adopted position of the Council – and of all of us rate-payers.
We already have Moocooboola which is a great festival for the Community, attracting 20,000 attendees (and we can’t even maintain a website for it – check the Moocooboola website link on the page below).
http://www.huntershill.nsw.
Our view is that Hunters Hill Council should be focussing on performance, focussing on delivering value to rate-payers. In this pause between NSW Government initiatives to amalgamate this micro-Council, we should be focussing on earning and building genuine support, rather than more of the same games we saw last time when Council tried to tell people what they think.
Such a blatant leading question as whether people want “a SUPERIOR alternative” as shown in the header image of this email (laughing face added) – extracted from the Fit For The Future propaganda downloadable at the link below, would not be tolerated by those who argued against amalgamation if it wasn’t convenient to their argument.
http://au.
It was not surprising that 70% of respondents wanted a “superior alternative”, what was surprising was that the other 30% either didn’t undertsand what the word Superior means, or they didn’t trust Council!
For those who hope to defend the smallest Council in NSW from amalgamation in the future, we thought uniting the community in support of a better performing Council was a better idea than insulting the members of the community with different views.
Our initial thoughts have been to petition the NSW Minister for Local Government and the Shadow Minister every year on that same day – to give a voice to those who aren’t committed to the existing boundaries. We don’t expect it to achive much for a while, but after 5-10 years with a few hundred signatures each year, it should provide political support to revisit the boundaries of this anomaly micro-council.
We didn’t pick this fight, but we’re certainly not going to be spoken over.
What you can do:
* Come to the HHC meeting on Monday night at 7:30 if you can make it
* Fill in a request to present and sent it to HHC before Midday on Monday if you’d like to speak – form available at the link below
http://www.huntershill.nsw.
* Watch it on the Facebook live-stream if you are able to – but can’t attend
* Email us back with your ideas about how to make sure reasonable opinions about reforming council and boundaries aren’t drowned out by the hijacking of our Council’s endorsement by those who think the smallest micro-council in NSW must remain forever so.
Do help us out when you have ideas: please reply back with your suggestions of how we should counter this disappointing insult which really was SO UNNECESSARY.
Special Rate Variation (SRV) – increase rates by 9.74% or 6.74% instead of the 2.7%
You can’t make this stuff up.
On the same week that Hunters Hill Council is looking to adopt a day to celebrate anti-amalgamation which was intended to give the scale and capacity required to cost-effectively serve rate-payers in the modern era, Council is looking to hike our rates dramatically.
http://www.huntershill.nsw.
You might notice from the header image (laughing face added) – extracted from the Fit For The Future propaganda – that Council was going to strengthen its financial sustainability with increased shared services delivering long term savings. There were a range of initiatives that HHC argued made amalgamation unnecessary, but we haven’t seen a roadmap to achieving them, nor any progress.
But we do see plans to celebrate anti-amalgamation day.
The scare-mongering is even worse on the page below. We certainly weren’t told that our assets were going to deteriorate, when they were telling the state government that we don’t need to be amalgamated because we have scale and capacity!
http://www.
You can’t have it both ways.
Our view is that HHC should make good on it’s claims made when campaigining against amalgamation, of delivering operating synergies and improved economic performance – before asking us to pay more in Council rates.
Otherwise we may just be throwing good money after bad, extending the demise of the micro-council, at cost to rate-payers – both financial and performance/amenity.
Other problems we see with the SRV are that:
1) The items are list without costings, and nor have we been given detail on the expenditure beyond a few words’ description,
2) Relocating 10 Cowell St – why are we rate-payers funding that after selling approximately 2,000 sqm of public land ADJACENT to the 10-storey+ development site for only $9.5m in 2016 (without tender)? And don’t forget Council’s handling of the heritage listing – remembering that HHC listed the timber cottage at 10 Cowell St in the draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 but pulled it out at the last minute because APPARENTLY they hadn’t had enough time to decide (scale and capacity to get the job done eh?) – and then instead of deciding whether to list it they signed Option Deeds for its DISPOSAL, eventually returning to the question of heritage listing years later after complicating the matter with the disposal Deeds, and then creating the ONLY listing in HHC for a heritage item EXCLUDING ITS CURTILAGE! We haven’t even agreed that the timber Cottage at 10 Cowell St should be moved! Hasn’t HHC DONE ENOUGH for the developer by now!?!?!?!?
3) Insurance is listed as requiring the Operational Special Variation – does this mean we will be under-insured without it, and if so how could it become the case and for how long has this been the situation?
4) The very significant Operational Special Variation (3% component) is described as being permanent, and also described as being for 4 years – on the same page. How can people even be properly expressing a view on that component when we can’t tell if we’re accepting at 3% increase to be compounded into our rates forever, or is it only for 4 years as listed?
Of course, as always, we’re happy for our subscribers to disagree with our comments, and say whatever you believe to be right. We don’t speak for you, we’re letting you know there is a chance to be heard – because you may not otherwise know.
What you can do:
* Send your submission to council@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
“markbennett@huntershill.nsw.
“bencollins@huntershill.nsw.
“elizabethkrassoi@huntershill.
“jimsanderson@huntershill.nsw.
“justinemclaughlin@
“zacmiles@huntershill.nsw.gov.
“rosswilliams@huntershill.nsw.
* Go to the HHC meeting on Wednesday 12th December – for those who can make it at 5pm.
* Fill in a request to present and sent it to HHC before Midday on Wenesday if you’d like to speak – form available at the link below.
http://www.huntershill.nsw.
– From the team at Gladesville Community Group (inc)