Boarding houses (a big deal) + our new website

Hi Everyone,

You might recall that there have been 2 x DA’s for boarding houses lodged in recent months. One at 126 Victoria Rd, Gladesville (in Ryde municipality) and one at 2 Flagstaff St, Gladesville (in Hunters Hill Municipality).

Residents and commentators have expressed a number of valid concerns about these new boarding house DA’s, and one of the most obvious is that of parking. The current parking requirements are very low, and this is now the subject of public consultation by NSW Planning.

You can read more about that consultation at the link below, and we encourage you to HAVE YOUR SAY. A quick, simple submission is better than nothing.

Helpful information on boarding houses

You can read more from the Hunters Hill Trust, and a Sydney Morning Herald article, at the links below:

2 Flagstaff St, Gladesville boarding house DA

HHT submission re 2 Flagstaff St, Gladesville boarding house DA

The resurgence of Boarding Houses

SMH article

Gladesville Community Group updated website

Out of date for a few years, the website has now been revised and turned into a blog-style site. We hope you find it useful.

From the team at Gladesville Community Group (Inc).

Bedlam bay community garden event 30/3 + Coulter St upgrade + Chamber of Commerce survey + Heritage Walking Trail booklets!

Hi everyone,

Thank you and well done to everyone who was able to find time to make any submissions on the Planning Proposal to Hunters Hill Council’s Local Environmental Plan which would dramatically increase the number of flats over the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (from 180 to 280), as well as the Flagstaff Street boarding house DA, and the three DA’s on Victoria Road. They all came in so quickly after each other!

It’s nice to be able to share some GOOD news and events with you, in this update!

Bedlam Bay Community Garden – Planting day and social event (drinks) Friday 30th March 2018

There is a community garden which has been established at Bedlam Bay in the grounds of Gladesville hospital, by a group of volunteers known as the Happy Hens (clever acronym by/for Helen, Emma and Nicole) who have established the garden. They welcome everyone to join them on Friday 30th (Good Friday afternoon) from 2pm – 4pm to do some gardening stuff (get your hands dirty) if you’d like, with drinks starting at about 4pm. It’s pretty casual, turn up and say hi to Helen, Emma, and Nicole and meet other interested people. Gardening isn’t mandatory. The social side seems to be the focus – at least for the Friday event!

If you’re on Facebook you can find out more about the garden, and their event “Planting Day and Chickie Egg Surprise” at

If you’re not on facebook, please refer to the image header of this email for the location, red box marks the spot, down below the cricket field / soccer training ovals – the terraced area of the hospital.

If you’d like more info on their easter egg hunt, or Friday’s get together, or the garden – you can message them through their facebook page or email them at

Well done to the Hens!

Coulter Street Upgrade and Public Art Project – including survey for your say

City of Ryde Council is currently undergoing consultation (where people are invited to give their opinions) ahead of the Coulter Street upgrade, to make a more pedestrian-friendly and attractive connection between Trim Place and the Coulter Street Car Park (bound also by Linsley Street and Western Crescent). There’s information about the initiative, the concept plan, and there’s a survey you’re invited to complete.

Investing in Gladesville to remain a functional and pleasant place to be – a great initiative!

Chamber of Commerce survey

Noting that trading conditions are challenging and wanting to do what they can to help, the Chamber of Commerce is looking for input. You will note that it is focussed on business, which makes sense – given that it’s from the Chamber. Please do take a moment to give your input to this initiative also, it’s not only for business owners / operators.

Successful business and a vibrant suburb go hand in hand. Whether you’re in business in Gladesville, or a resident or visitor, it’s in all of our interests that business succeed. We have it on good authority from the survey author, they DO want your input – including residents!

Please note: Gladesville Community Group has never opposed the rejuvenation of Gladesville. We’ve just objected to overdevelopment, poor quality development, and development without proper planning and investment to mitigate adverse impacts. ‘Do it properly’ is all we’ve asked, since 2013.

Heritage Walking Trail Booklets

Another great initiative from City of Ryde Council with the production of the Heritage Walking Trail booklets. There are two – one for Ryde and one for Gladesville, and they are downloadable from the website at the link below.

It’s nice to see that the Gladesville booklet treats Gladesville as a suburb not as a boundary. It does include sites within the Local Government Area (LGA) of Hunters Hill Council.

Have a wonderful long weekend everyone, and we hope you can make it to the Bedlam Bay Community Garden on Friday afternoon to meet the Happy Hens – Helen, Emma and Nicole!!

Hunters Hill Trust submission re Planning Proposal to GS’V’

Hi Everyone,

Please refer to the link below for the Hunters Hill Trust’s excellent submission to Hunters Hill Council about the Planning Proposal which intends to change the controls in the Local Environmental Plan – as they would apply to redevelopment of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’.

We are grateful for the articulate and intelligent submission which seeks to prevent further degradation of Gladesville from being a functioning suburb. We hope that Hunters Hill Council will take the Trust’s points seriously.

If you haven’t done so already, please email Hunters Hill Council to express your opinion at – by Tuesday 20th March (two days time). Even just a simple email stating what you support or object to is enough.

The Hunters Hill Trust’s submission concludes:

“We do not support any of the clauses proposed by the Pre-Gateway review.

The clauses relating to open space, “good design”, etc. have been designed in a pathetic attempt to ameliorate the negative impact of proposed increases in density on the site. When “good design” is proposed as a bargaining chip for increased densities it implies that “bad design” is acceptable provided the arithmetic control boxes have been ticked. This, of course, makes a mockery of the current LEP and DCP as well as begging the question: “who will be the arbiter of “good” design?”

We are particularly outraged by the idea that Council would offer up to the developer potential sites for the relocation of the once publicly owned heritage item at 10 Cowell St, which are public parklands and essential open space.

The Trust has opposed Council’s sell-off of 10 Cowell St to the developer since it was first mooted. We have never deviated from our opposition to this act of barbarism from a Council that claims to be a champion of Heritage.

To now have Council proposing that the developer should plonk the cottage down in public parkland just adds insult to injury.

It is clear that any proposal for the GSV that increases its density, population and building heights will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding low density residential areas and on the amenity of people wishing to visit the shops and offices housed in the site.

The Trust therefore objects to the Planning Proposal in its entirety.”

Flagstaff Street boarding house – send submission today

Hi everyone,

With a very short exhibition time, today is the day to send your comments to Hunters Hill Council about the Development Application (DA) for a boarding house in Flagstaff Street.

A boarding house Development was proposed for 126 Victoria Road (the site just below Tennis Ranch) on the Ryde Council side of Gladesville, and Ryde Council refused it.

If you have concerns about this proposed Development in Flagstaff Street, please send an email today to today. Even 1 sentence counts and it’s better than missing your chance!

The reference is DA 2018-1009 for 2 Flagstaff Street. The documents are available at

You may have other or additional concerns, but we draw your attention to:

* The development proposes to have 12 boarding rooms / units and a manager’s residence, but only has 4 parking spaces.

* Small sizes of room and low rental cost does not mean that occupants won’t have cars. Vehicle ownership in NSW was recorded as 696 vehicles per 1,000 population in 2015. With 12 rooms, if they have 2 people in each plus 1 on-site manager, that’s 25 residents x 69.6% = 17 vehicles (rounded down). Flagstaff Street has no on-street parking. Where will they park?

* This development has windows and balconies along the boundaries facing the neighbouring blocks. We are concerned that this might give rise to objection if a neighbour intends to redevelop to height, but the design of this building and creation of 12 units requiring light might unfairly limit or prevent perfectly reasonable development from being undertaken next door. Such a concern was raised against the 126 Victoria Rd DA and the developer amended plans to address that concern.

* Is this development consistent with Hunters Hill Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP)’s objectives and desired character for streetscape and landscaping?

Breaking news: Masterplan for Gladesville

Hi Everyone,

We are pleased to advise that a Motion was Resolved at Hunters Hill Council last night, for a Master Plan be developed for Gladesville!

Councillors Zac Miles and Ross Williams drafted and requested the Motion below, for a plan to look more broadly than just at the ‘key site’ where Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ is about to be redeveloped.

We strongly welcome this initiative, which we hope will finally address more of the remaining concerns from the 290+ submissions that were lodged in response the 2013 Development Application for the GS’V’ site.

It is certainly ‘better late than never’. The last Master Plan was developed in 2005, long before the dramatic increase in dwellings targetted Gladesville by changing the controls for heights and floor-space-ratios under both Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils’ Local Environmental Plans.

The motion as drafted is copied below. During last night’s Council Meeting the movers clarified that the reference to Massey Lane was not intended to be the laneway between Pittwater Rd and Massey St, but rather (and only) the shared access-way used by pedestrians and vehicles between the GS’V’ shopping centre and the back of the premises fronting Victoria Rd.

Councillor Zac Miles spoke to the motion he had moved, commenting that Council must broaden its focus in Planning for Gladesville beyond just the ‘key site’ (which is the GS’V’ shopping centre and adjacent lands including parcels that were publicly owned until 2016), and the need to proceed promptly. Councillor Ross Williams spoke to the motion which he had seconded, commenting that Council should “not be responsible for a lost opportunity” and should “develop something we can all be proud of”. Councillor Jim Sanderson also spoke in favour of the motion, saying that he heartily endorsed it and emphasised that multiple meetings may be required as the public consultation and engagement are so critical. Councillor Justine McLoughlin commented on the value of continuing to advise Ryde Council and to invite participation by neighbouring Councils, an amendment readily agreed by Councillors Miles and Williams. The Motion was then carried unanimously.

The Motion is copied below, along with the note by staff which was included in the Agenda of the General Meeting. It was clarified that removing parking obligations from sites facing Victoria Road was not the intention of the movers of the motion. We expect that a proper process of consultation will be undertaken, and expertise used to develop quality planning instruments – rather than prematurely jumping to conclusions. Consistent with a great number of the submissions lodged in relation to the 2013 DA for the site, we see the provision of parking as something which must be ‘got right’. Accordingly, we strongly oppose relieving requirement by developers to provide parking as part of their applications to redevelop sites, until or unless the community is reassured about the adequacy of parking to meet both residential and commercial needs in Gladesville.

Also: please do not be distracted, please make a submission about the Planning Proposal which seeks to allow the developer to jam up to another 100 flats (180 becomes up to 280) on the site where Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ is located (plus adjacent land already purchased). Our emails from 12th March (yesterday) might assist you with suggested content and commentary.

MOTION – Clr Zac Miles & Clr Ross Williams

1. Develop a master plan for the Gladesville precinct with a particular focus on:
a) Developing active frontages along Victoria Road with appropriate connectivity into the Gladesville key site;
b) Building an overarching vision for development of land, particularly between Pittwater Road and Batemans Road fronting Victoria Road;
c) Pedestrian access into and out of the site; including Investigating an above ground walkway from Trim Place into the Gladesville Village amongst other connectivity priorities into the surrounding residential areas;
d) Alleviating pressure from increased traffic flows stemming from development in the Gladesville precinct;
e) Developing a public pedestrian plaza along Massey lane with appropriate connectivity to the key site/shopping village and Victoria Road
f) Councils potential to acquire land for the public purpose and improved design outcomes for the community;
g) Improving access to public transport and the cycling network;
h) Assessment of heritage items and the impact of development of the Gladesville Village to those items;
i) Urban design outcomes and place planning priorities as outlined in the Future Gladesville report and the updated DCP for the Gladesville Village;
j) The relocation and development of Gladesville Library facilities or other council interfaces within the shopping village or adjoining sites.

2. That, consistent with Part 1 of the motion above, Council arrange for an ‘indicative
design concept’ to be developed through:
a) The holding of a public meeting of residents and stakeholders;
b) Workshopping concepts with residents and stakeholders;
c) Consultation with the Department of Planning.

3. That current landholders, and any entity’s/individuals who have live applications under consideration be made aware of the development of this master plan and its potential to affect their applications;

4. That the design concept outlined in Part 2 of the motion above be published on the Hunters Hill Council website and, subsequent to being brought back to council, go on public exhibition for comment;

5. That the Department of Planning is made aware of the development of a master plan for this precinct with the view to better  planning/design outcomes being made by way of amendment to the Hunters Hill LEP (2012);

6. That potential for funding from the Department of Planning for the development of this master plan is sought as appropriate.

Note from Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control

Matters that need to be considered on the above MOTION are as follows:


1. In reviewing the current DAs on Victoria Road it is clear that small developments each with substandard carparking arrangements opening onto the potential shareway (for which the legalities have not been worked out) would generate many issues such as – safety, poor urban design, aesthetics, servicing and access legalities.

So to make sense of the commercial area of Gladesville (for all Victoria Road properties – Pittwater down to Cowell Street (possibly further) – a suggestion is that we waive their carparking requirements. They have been upzoned on the premise that they are on an arterial road and have great access to Public Transport – therefore no provision for carparking makes sense. Once you say no carparking – the shareway and Massey lane can be imagined as great pedestrian spaces because they will not have openings to underground carparks on each individual
allotment. This means the developments on Victoria Road will not be so compromised.

To achieve no carparking entails employing a traffic engineer to run the numbers to support our case i.e. they would work with the full development capacity allowed by the controls and model the impacts on the shareway and Massey Lane with multiple openings and high levels of ingress and egress traffic. I imagine they will advise that the shareway and Massey lane may accommodate 1-2 openings to
underground parking and based on this we require site amalgamations.

So the end result would be if you can achieve a large site by amalgamation of a number of site along Victoria Road (individual building form and structure must be retained) you could provide for underground parking. If you cannot achieve a large amalgamation they your other option is to develop without carparking provision.

As a sweetner we could offer “Go Get” carspaces in the Council carpark or GSV development.

2. If we require amalgamations/no carparking – this means we would not end up with the “missing tooth” scenario currently an issue with the current Victoria Road Development Applications. Therefore more thought and possibly expert advice is required before we pursue any decisions to buy property.

3. We already have 1 Master Plan and 2 Reviews of the DCP for Gladesville- plus numerous other base study reports. Please see Council webpage: planning & heritage/future Gladesville/ – for a full history of the joint strategic planning for the Gladesville Commercial Area by Hunter’s Hill and City of Ryde (see below for summary table).

[Gladesville Community Group comment: the table that appeared at this point of the note does not copy well into this email. Readers may view the table within Item 3.2 on pdf page 27 of the Agenda for the Council Meeting at the link]

4. Masterplans are expensive and take a long time to develop and the architects/urban designers who prepare them are not specialists in traffic resolution issues.

Planning Proposal submission – suggested content

Hi Everyone,

Below is draft content for a submission to Hunters Hill Council. You might wish to copy some, all, or none of it – as you please. Please just make a submission to by Tuesday 20th March 2018.


I do not support the Planning Proposal including an ADDITIONAL increase in the number of flats to be built on the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (key site), by increasing the applicable Floor Space Ratio, beyond the existing zoning.

I do not support an amendment to Hunters Hill Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to increase the Floor-space-ratio (FSR) applicable to the ‘key site’.

I do not support the proposed relocation of the heritage listed timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street to a remote location. I support retention of the heritage listed timber cottage in its present location as part of a redevelopment exhibiting architectural merit, or relocation to a site very near to its current location.

I do support Hunters Hill Council introducing a requirement for Design Excellence into the LEP, but this should NOT lead to additional FSR.

I do support Hunters Hill Council introducing requirements for open space for public benefit, but this should NOT lead to additional FSR.

Any bonus available in the LEP should be limited only to Height, with no concession on FSR and any bonus available in Height must be conditional upon delivering the proposed open space requirement is introduced into the LEP. Any bonus available in the LEP should be limited only to Height and not available to FSR, and only be available if Design Excellence is achieved – as determined under a robust assessment (criteria no lower than the threshhold set in the draft motion). Where required to deliver design excellence and a significant increase in open space available for public benefit, a higher Height control to facilitate optimal organisation of the site should be available.

The criteria for achieving Design Excellence should be extended to require the architectural integration of the heritage listed timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street into the design of the redevelopment, in its current location.

No increase in FSR should be permitted.

I do not believe that further increasing the number of flats to be built in this area of concentrated development is responsible. I do not believe that the proposed increase in open space or design excellence can mitigate the detrimental impact of the additional development that is proposed. I do not believe that the additional open space or design excellence within the ‘key site’ will mitigate the adverse impacts on parking, traffic flows, pedestrian safety, additional demand on local services and infrastructure, or the linkage between the Gladesville retail and commercial ‘high street’ on Victoria Road and that of the insular development on the ‘key site’ being Gladesville Shopping Village.

Victoria Road is the boundary by which Gladesville is divided between the Local Government Areas of Hunters Hill Council and Ryde Council, and has been an area of concentration of additional dwellings allowed under both Councils’ LEP’s. The Community has not seen a combined report on traffic management for the suburb that is informed by the increased population that inevitably will arise from the Height and FSR controls which now apply along Victoria Road and other sites in Gladesville. Other sites in Gladesville are already being developed, increasing the population and resultant demand on services and infrastructure, and I am concerned about the impact on traffic and parking – which is relevant to the residents and to the business community alike. Increasing the FSR and the number of flats on this site will exacerbate the problems which will arise from demand exceeding capacity.

The ‘key site’ already has generous Height and FSR controls that apply to it, by far the highest in the entire Hunters Hill Municipality. The existing controls will allow the construction of approximately 180 flats on this one site alone. There are other developments on Victoria Road which are creating 5-6 storey developments with shop-top housing, that use rear lane access adjacent to the ‘key site’.

The planning proposal would be estimated to permit up to 100 additional flats on this one site alone. Any amendment to the LEP must not permit an increase in flats by increasing the FSR. Any amendment to the LEP must introduce the proposed requirement for open space, must require design excellence, and should only permit a rearrangement of height on the site as required to deliver excellence in the design.

I do not support the relocation of the heritage listed timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street other than to a location in the immediate vicinity. The developer should be required to appropriately integrate it, at ground level, into the proposed development for the site for any proposed design to qualify as meeting Design Excellence.

If not integrated into the site, the heritage listed timber cottage should be required to be retained at ground level in a location not more than 100m from the current location, to respect heritage and the streetscape of the local precinct.

Explanation for content in Planning Proposal submission

Hi Everyone,

This email is to be read in conjunction with the suggested submission which was just sent separately. This email is to explain our understanding, and why we have suggested a submission with the content as we have.

We do not view the planning proposal (PP) as a benevolent act from Hunters Hill Council trying to protect Gladesville by introducing open space requirement or a design excellence requirement. The planning proposal is an amendment to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) that the owner of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GS’V’) is seeking. The amendment they are seeking would increase the value of the development site by increasing the number of flats which can be built on it. The open space and design excellence elements have been directed by NSW Department of Planning to be included in the proposal, as well as planned relocation of 10 Cowell Street, and the change to the control for the developer’s desired increase in the number of flats is included in the design excellence clause in the DRAFT that we have just been provided by Council. It does not mean that the LEP will be changed as exhibited in the DRAFT.

We view the proposed increase in Floor Space Ratio (FSR) as being highly problematic because it will translate into additional flats on what is already zoned to be a big block of flats – approximately 180 of them (before the increase). There are already developments of more blocks of flats all along Victoria Road, and there is valid concern from the community that local services and infrastructure will not cope. The idea of adding an extra 80-100 flats on that side alone is concerning.

It is not in the interests of residents or businesses for Gladesville to be crippled by concentrated over-development. The proposed redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ focuses on adding residential flats far more than it does of adding commercial or retail space. We do not agree that this proposed redevelopment will revitalise Gladesville, by mainly increasing the number of people who come home to sleep here. We believe that retailers require customers to be here during the weekdays, which requires commercial space and available parking for associated staff. We do not see that catered for in the Planning Proposal or in the existing Local Environmental Plan. Indeed we have not heard an articulated strategy or overarching vision for Gladesville from Hunters Hill Council, as a suburb having a ‘high street’ commercial/retail strip along Victoria Road which is separate from and not well connected to the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ site.

If the planning proposal is successful in adding the extra FSR, those additional residents living in the ‘extra extra’ 100 flats will be also competing for public transport along the Victoria Road bus corridor, and/or adding more traffic and parking demand into a concentrated area. Because the nearby section of Victoria Road is the boundary between two different Councils’ Local Government Areas we are concerned that there is no single point of accountability or control to ensure that Gladesville remains a functional centre after all of the impending development (already zoned in Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils’ LEP’s) is completed.

Although we do not support an increase in FSR, because we do not believe that the site can cater for continual increases of intended population, with each site redevelopment and this proposed re-zoning, we acknowledge that design excellence is a worthy concept. We believe there is room for the Height on the site to be rearranged and increased strategically, effectively resulting in a taller but more slender development, reducing the width and overall visible impact at ground level. Higher flats can also attract higher prices as their views are superior to other stock, so we believe the concession of additional height required to execute a design of excellent quality is a fair trade-off. But the FSR must remain unchanged.

We do not believe that relocation of the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Streetaway from the existing site or its immediate vicinity is sufficient to respect the existing streetscape of the area, and the heritage value of the property which should remain at or near its existing location. The handling of the Heritage listing of 10 Cowell Street is well documented and we will continue to provide reminders of how that process unfolded, for public awareness. For this purpose, we simply believe the appropriate response to the Planning Proposal is not to support relocation to remote locations, but instead to require it to be located locally. Noting that this will probably be approximately a $200 – $250 million dollar development, acquiring a suitable site for relocation nearby it not an unreasonable financial impost.

The above-reasoning is the reason why the suggested submission or content available for use in your submission, is drafted as it is. Of course, please feel free to use it or express your opinions otherwise.

Please just make a submission to by Tuesday 20th March 2018, so your voice can be heard when it matters.

For reference, documents relating to this Planning Proposal are available at Council’s website

For reference, the draft motions proposed to be included in the Local Environmental Plan in the Planning Proposal are copied below.

Draft Clause – 6.11 Special Provision (Open Space)

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure any development involving the Key Site achieves the character objectives specified in Chapter 4.4 of the Hunters Hill Development Control Plan 2013.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to any development to which this clause applies unless at a minimum two publicly accessible, open landscaped recreation spaces are provided:
(a) The first open recreation space is to have a minimum area of 600sqm and be located adjacent to Cowell Street as shown on Figure 3 – Chapter 4.4 of the Hunters Hill Development Control Plan 2013. This location will ensure the landscaped open space is highly visible, enhances the existing pedestrian network and has a level connection to the Cowell street footpath.
(b) The second open recreation space is to have a minimum area of 25% of the Key Site area. This area is to be clearly visible and easily accessible to both the public and residents of a Key Site development. At least 75% of the space is to be provided in one consolidated area.

Draft Clause – 6.12 Design excellence 

(1) The objective of this clause is to deliver the highest standard of architectural, landscape and urban design.

(2) This clause applies to development involving any Key Site land and the erection of a new building; or external alterations to an existing building.

(3) Clause 4.6 (Exemptions to Development Standards) does not apply to development to which this clause applies.

(4) Despite Clause 4.3 and 4.4, the consent authority may grant consent to the erection or alteration of a building on the Key Site that has a floor space ratio of up to 3.4:1 and a building height greater than that allowed by clause 4.3 if:
(a) the existing level of solar access to Trim Place is maintained; and
(b) the residential apartments at 3 – 7 Cowell Street are kept free of shadow for three hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June; and
(c) the development exhibits design excellence.

(5) In considering whether the development exhibits design excellence, the consent authority must be satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated and documented that the proposal:
(a) has a high standard of architectural, landscape and urban design and will be constructed with quality materials;
(b) has a high standard of detailing that reflects the building type, location and any surrounding buildings, especially heritage items, which add to the amenity of the area;
(c) has overall heights which allow for appropriate transition from the low scale heritage main street and surrounding residential neighbourhood;
(d) has minimised street frontage heights;
(e) does not detrimentally impact on view corridors;
(f) meets the requirements of the Hunters Hill Development Control Plan 2013, particularly Chapter 4.4;
(g) will significantly improve the quality and amenity of the public domain through the use of materials, landscaping and built form at street level which maximises the comfort and amenity of pedestrians.
(h) is designed with active frontages at or near street level, particularly around the two main open recreation spaces. At a minimum 23% of the Gross Floor Area of any development involving Key Site land is to be commercial floor area;
(i) will contribute positively to the configuration of the local vehicle, cycle and pedestrian networks. Cross-site pedestrian paths (both north-south and east-west) are to be provided which link to the two main open recreation areas and existing surrounding pedestrian access points;
(j) has integrated landscape design into the development in an exemplary way, to provide green, comfortable, attractive spaces throughout the development. The two main open recreation spaces are to include layered landscaped areas that include grass, shrubs and trees;
(k) has evidently integrated the provision of essential services such as car parking and pedestrian and vehicular access, waste collection/removal, stormwater management and electricity requirements into the development at design stage.
(l) has addressed the relationship of the development with other development (existing or proposed) on the same site or on neighbouring sites in terms of providing adequate separation, setbacks, solar access, acoustic and visual privacy;
(m) has addressed environmental impacts and factors such as sustainable design, noise, wind, reflectivity, water and energy efficiency and water sensitive urban design.

Boarding house on Flagstaff St + GSV Planning Proposal

Hi Everyone,

Boarding House DA

For those who live nearby, you might have received a letter in yesterday’s post about a boarding house proposed to be built at 2 Flagstaff Street. Fortunately you can disregard the comment in the letter about needing to attend Council to view the DA, as Council has now uploaded it to the website also, available at

We have not had a chance to review, yet, but want to let you know about it ASAP.

You might recall that a boarding house DA was lodged for 126 Victoria Road(just below Tennis Ranch) recently and was refused by Ryde Council. There will be a hearing for that application at the Land and Environment Court today (Wednesday 7th March) at 4pm. We will update you when we know more.

Please note that submissions on the Flagstaff St boarding house DA should be sent to by Friday 16th March 2018.

Planning Proposal to add up to another 100 flats (180 flats becomes 280 flats) on the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ site

We are still preparing our information for distribution and will get it to you ASAP, but be under no illusion: This planning proposal is not an attempt to strengthen safeguards against poor development or any other community minded initiative you might wish Hunters Hill Council to have undertaken.

This planning proposal was sought by the applicant who wants to increase the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) controls (Height and FSR) applicable to the site. The planning proposal is meant to allow up to an additional 100 flats on that site alone (and to allow ~16 storeys), which is already zoned with controls that would permit approximately 180 flats to be build on it – already allowed up to 10 storeys high.

Some people have read Council’s submission form at the back of the handout materials distributed at last week’s information session, and thought that the questions being asked only with reference to the favourable elements means that we can just choose to have favourable elements. The favourable elements, being the requirement to meet design excellence, and to provide open space, are PART OF the planning proposal which seeks to amend the LEP. The applicant has bought our land off the Council and now wants NSW government approval to amend locally developed planning instruments, to build bigger and build more – for their benefit.

This confusion may also be reinforced if people read page 6 of Hunters Hill Council News dated March 2018 (distributed on or around Friday last week), which is concerning in how little attention is given to the extra 100 flats intended to be jammed on to that site.

Hunters Hill Council could have pursued the favourable elements of the proposed LEP amendment any time since the 2013 DA was lodged, generating nearly 300 submissions – 98% of which were negative. They’re well aware of how Gladesville residents feel about the quality of redevelopment we’re supposed to have inflicted upon us, and Council hasn’t changed the LEP in 4+ years. Instead, the Planning Proposal has been sought by the applicant, which owns GS’V’, and wants more height and more bulk.

We view the favourable elements as intended distractions, designed to elicit complacency or confuse residents into thinking that the favourable elements are readily available and to distract from the further grab for commercial profit at cost to community amenity written into the proposed height and FSR amendments. At best, they are intended as compensation or trade-off, for the extra benefit to be given to the developer.

It beggars belief that the pedestrian and vehicular congestion, competition for transport, school and other services, and impact on parking of 100 EXTRA FLATS ON THAT SITE ALONE – are somehow supposed to be properly offset by a bit of extra open space!.

We will be distributing information to assist you with making submissions, soon.

– From the team at Gladesville Community Group.

Victoria Rd DA’s (submissions due Friday) + Info meeting quick update

Hi Everyone,

Thank you to everyone who was able to make it to the meeting at Hunters Hill Council last night. We estimate ~150 people came to find out about the Planning Proposal. The sentiment from the meeting was strongly against irresponsible over-development, acknowledging that the development impacting Gladesville is cumulative across both Councils who are each managing their own side of Victoria Rd.

Which brings us to the most urgent issue, being the 3 x DA’s on Victoria Rd for exhibition closing this Friday.

We will come back to the GSV Planning Proposal in coming days to give you more information, but below is the best info that we are able to provide about the 3 x DA’s for which submissions should be made to Council by this Friday 2nd March 2018. Thanks to Gladesville Community Group committee member Richard for his review of the DA’s – and the highlights he was able to identify.

We hope that below is useful to you if you are able to lodge a submissions with your concerns/comments/ other regarding these DA’s, to Hunters Hill Council by THIS FRIDAY Friday 2nd March 2018. Please send separate emails or make separate submissions, so they can be considered specific to each DA to be assessed, to

Please excuse if there are any errors in below, we are amateurs (like most of you) and have had to review these quickly.

DA 20171197 (Gladesville Arcade site)

  1. LEP: Breach of FSR and LEP. The FSR that this DA is seeking is 2.82 vs 2.5 under the LEP. Height at the back of the building facing Massey Lane is proposed to be19m vs 16m as required under the LEP. There is a distinct lack of any justifiable reasonto overdevelop this site.
  2. Traffic Report: No traffic Report has been submitted for this DA, yet envisages the use of Massey Lane as the main access point to the car park.
  3. Car Space: lack of sufficient car spaces and its unclear how retail center will be supported if the council car park at GSV was unavailable.
  4. Amenity: it’s unclear how the existing infrastructure will support the increased population especially the cumulative impact of the other proposed DA.

DA 20171199 (BWS site)

  1. LEP: Breach of FSR and LEP. The FSR that this DA is seeking is 3.31 vs 2.5 under the LEP and the south-west corner of the site breaches the LEP height restrictions of 16m under the LEP.There is a distinct lack of any justifiable reason to overdevelop this site.
  2. DCP has not been adhered to requiring a 5m setback as envisaged under the DCP on level 3 for Vic Rd and level 4 for Massey Lane as a secondary street under the DCP.
  3. Traffic Report: No traffic Report has been submitted for this DA, yet envisages the use of Massey Lane as the main access point to the car park.
  4. Vehicular access inconsistencies: There are discrepancies within the plans of where the Vehicular access to the carparkwill be in the DA being a mix of either the southern or northern entrance from Massey lane.
  5. Car Space: lack of sufficient car spaces and its unclear how retail center will be supported if the council car park at GSV was unavailable.
  6. Amenity: it’s unclear how the existing infrastructure will support the increased population especially the cumulative impact of the other proposed DA.

DA 20171183 (Commonwealth Bank site)

  1. Traffic: This DA at least sought to provide a traffic report, however it is a report completed standalone without consideration of the cumulative effects of the other potential Das. Given the potential increase in traffic from all the DAs this traffic report grossly understates the potential impact. The traffic report also only measured traffic flow on a single day of the year which may or may not reflect the actual average flow into and out of GSV on any given day. The Traffic report assumes that there will be available off space parking at the council car park and GSV and does not take into consideration the other developments – let alone on the key site will remove a significant portion of free council parking.
  2. LEP: To this DA credit, the design seeks to meet the LEP and FSR requirements. The building slants downwards from Vic road in an attempt to meet the height requirements as outlined in the LEP (as opposed to the DA at BSW and the Gladesville Arcade) and provides sensible reasons (i.e. lift well, fire stairs etc.) for when it does breach the height restrictions, further they have consolidated potential height breaches in the middle of the building to reduce footprint on the surrounding area.
  3. Heritage item: This DA has at least sought to maintain the unique Commonwealth Bank art deco design at the front of Victoria Road.
  4. Amenity: it’s unclear how the existing infrastructure will support the increased population especially the cumulative impact of the other proposed DA.

Reminder: GSV information meeting Tuesday 27th Feb at 6:30 p.m.

Hi Everyone,

Just a quick reminder that the Information Meeting to learn about what the owner of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ wants to do with the site will be held (next week):
On Tuesday 27th February
Starting at 6:30pm
At Hunter Hill Council

This is the opportunity to find out about the plans to increase the maximum hight on the site from ~10 storeys (34 metres) to ~16-18 storeys (54 metres). And how many extra flats should be jammed onto that one site (180 in the original DA, more like 250 if they get their amendments through) with an in increase in floor-space-ratio.

You can find more information on Hunters Hill Council’s website, at:

There aren’t many opportunities left for us to reduce the severity of the overdevelopment of Gladesville, so we hope to see you there.

From the team at Gladesville Community Group.