GSV Planning Proposal Public Meeting and more

Meeting re GSV Planning Proposal – 30th August 2018, 6pm at HHC Chambers

You might remember that the owner of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ site is seeking to amend the local planning instruments to increase the number of flats on the expanded site consolidating adjacent land including what is currently a public access car-park on Cowell St, and the timber cottage at 10 Cowell St which was sold to the developer by the previous Council of Hunters Hill. The changes sought will allow them to increase the number of flats that can be built, from approximately 180 already allowed by the controls in the Local Environmental Plan, to go up as high as 280 flats on that site alone.

Council will be holding a public meeting, which interested parties are welcome to attend. The meeting will be held on Thursday 30th August 2018, from 6pm to 7pm, at Hunters Hill Council (22 Alexandra Street). Come along and find out what’s happening with this very important issue!

New General Manager for HHC – Ms Lisa Miscamble

We are pleased to share the good news that a new General Manager has been appointed and will commence at Hunters Hill Council on Thursday 20th September 2018. You can read more at the link below.

2 Massey Street DA – Boarding House

We were pleased and grateful to see that Hunters Hill Council refused the DA.
The issues are well summarised in items 3.1 on pages 6-24 (pdf page numbers, not footnote page numbers) of the Local Planning Panel Agenda, available at the link below.

219-221 Victoria Rd DA – Comm Bank site

We were pleased to see that Hunters Hill Council rejected the DA, but we have been advised that the applicant is appealing, and a conciliation conference will be held on-site on 26th February 2019. You can read more at the link below.

Gladesville RSL DA

We don’t have much information on it yet, but a DA has been lodged with Ryde Council for “Refurbishment of existing club, façade upgrade and signage and replacement of footpath awning”. You can find some details at the link below.

Eltham Street area parking and traffic management drop in session

Hi Everyone,

Ryde Council has organised a ‘drop-in’ session at Gladesville Library to allow residents in the area bound by Monash, Ryde, Pittwater, and Victoria Roads the opportunity to discuss parking or traffic matters with a member of their traffic team.

The picture shows that it is advised to be held from 5:30pm to 7:30pm on Tuesday 18th June 2018. We cannot be certain whether it is on Monday 18th or on the Tuesday 19th, but Mr Hassan Choudhry is listed as the contact on 9952 8199.

We cannot see the event listed on City of Ryde Council’s website, so cannot confirm when it will be held, but wanted to get this out to you ASAP – for anyone in the relevant area.

Well done Ryde Council. It’s great to see consultation and proactive management of parking and traffic problems.

Shout out to Kirsten, one of the subscribers, THANK YOU for letting us know about this (and other helpful emails).

Answer to good Question + Ryde Council response to NSW Government’s new planning controls + Graffiti on hoardings

Hi Everyone,

Header ImageYou may have noticed some graffiti on the construction site hoardings in Gladesville. Without condoning the graffiti, we have copied some pictures of it as header image for this email because we think it is a sign of community sentiment that could be held by many others – who might not actually paint it. From what we hear and observe, there is real concern amongst locals about this high rate of development.

Clarification by answering question we received

We received the following question from a subscriber. It is an excellent question, which is why we have distributed this answer to all subscribers.
My question relates to this statement from this newsletter: ‘Until now, the focus from both Councils has been on re-zoning Gladesville for high-density development.’.
I’m wondering, is this a statement of fact, based on Councils’ clearly stated objectives, or is it sarcastic in nature, reflecting on the reality of what’s actually happening around us and which isn’t openly acknowledged by the Councils?
If the former, then this is news to me and I’d like to find out more information. Who decided this? When? Why? What is the end goal; another Chatswood?
Thank you for the excellent question, which may be shared by others, so we provide this answer to the whole mailing list.
The use of the word “focus”
The reference to the focus being on redevelopment is reference to the lack of equivalent investment in planning to manage the inevitable consequences. We meant focus in terms of the lack of balance in efforts. We we would have preferred the amendment to Local Environmental Plans (LEP’s, which control building height and bulk) to be accompanied by revised master plans and timely development of Development Control Plans from both Councils, regulating aesthetic and other impacts of the developments as well as planning for investment in infrastructure and services, and communication of these plans to the public – for reassurance.
Why the rezoning for redevelopment

Both Councils have been required by the NSW government to amend LEP’s to create more dwellings. We acknowledge that the NSW government drove the creation of the new LEP’s in each Council, adding dwelling numbers in each municipality.

The Councils chose where to rezone to accommodate the dwelling targets.

Unfortunately we don’t have detailed information at hand about exactly how and when the NSW government drove the creation of those new LEP’s, but it has often been discussed and we accept that it was as claimed – driven by NSW government.

Council-by-Council: City of Ryde
Ryde has a larger footprint and other suburbs within its Local Government Area (LGA) have also been targeted for high levels of development. This is easily recognisable when considering areas such as Meadowbank and Macquarie Park.
It has not concentrated all of its development in Gladesville. However, we would like to have seen City of Ryde Council develop and communicate plans to invest in assets and services as described above.
Council-by-Council: Hunters Hill Council
Hunters Hill Council has rezoned Gladesville to take the overwhelming majority of new dwellings in it’s LGA. Given the proximity to Victoria Rd public transport services, some focus is to be expected – to some degree. However, there is a question of balance, about whether too much development is concentrated here vs other areas which also have good public transport links – most notably the Hunters Hill overpass area and along other main roads also served well by buses.
Similarly, we would like to have seen Hunters Hill Council develop and communicate plans to invest in assets and services as described above.
Also, Hunters Hill Council undertook actions during the 2008-2012 and 2012-2017 terms, which may exacerbate rather than mitigating the impact. We understand that the ‘Newbold Report’ and DCP review process was used to inform amendment to the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Gladesville in 2009 – a year in which TWO DCPs were made. The focus was to make the controls applicable to the GS’V’ site more development friendly.
At the very end of the 2008 – 2012 term, Hunters Hill Council deferred heritage listing of 10 Cowell St Gladesville (after exhibiting the draft LEP with heritage listing included). Council did not decide that 10 Cowell St Gladesville wasn’t worth heritage listing (expert recommendation clearly identified that it should have received such protection) – but apparently ran out of time to decide that – before finalising the 2012 LEP (at the end of the 2008-2012 Council term).
Then, at the start of the 2012-2017 term, instead of finalising the outstanding question about heritage listing, Council voluntarily entered into Option Deeds (like contracts) for the disposal of 10 Cowell St Gladesville as well as other public assets adjacent to the GS’V’ development site. That action was authorised at the second meeting of the 2012-2017 Council term, at which time new Councillors must be expected to be ‘learning the ropes’ and looking to more experienced peers for guidance.
Although ‘new’ Councillors of the 2012-2017 term may not have fully understood the history of the deferred heritage listing, not having served on Council during time when it occurred, there were Councillors and senior staff who carried across from the 2008-2012 term. Further, a transaction as significant as disposal of public land for ~$9.5m should have attracted sufficient attention that the combination of those events should not have been ‘unknown’ in a coordinated sense. Eventually, in 2016, a weaker heritage listing was applied but it was the first in Hunters Hill municipality which excludes its curtilage, and that limitation was not included in the Davies (heritage expert) recommendation. We believe that the exclusion of curtilage was introduced not to limit the aspiring developer, having just sold our previously-public asset to them.
You can read more about the treatment of the 10 Cowell St Gladesville heritage listing and disposal at
Publicly owned heritage assets are easier and ‘fairer’ to protect, in the sense that applying restrictions to public assets does not concentrate the financial impact of restricting actions of the site owner – to a private individual – but rather is borne by the whole community – just as the whole community benefits from amenity of its continued existence.

We are not alone in our view that we should expect better from Hunters Hill Council, which claims to be a champion of heritage. You can read more about the disappointment with Hunters Hill Council’s handling of the Heritage listing and the disposal of 10 Cowell St Gladesville, which occurred alongside rezoning of Gladesville for a high level of redevelopment, at:

We hope that this additional information provides better understanding about what was meant in our original comment.

Ryde Council response to NSW Government new planning controls – Medium Density Housing Code

Please also find information from NSW Government and Ryde Council’s response, which we have just received, at the link below:

From the Committee of Gladesville Community Group Inc.

Solve tomorrow’s problems: Traffic and Parking

Hi Everyone,

Councillors Zac Miles and Ross Williams successfully moved a Motion at the Hunters Hill Council meeting on 12th March to develop a long overdue Master Plan that is consistent with the current planning controls.

The current planning controls allow so much more development along the Victoria Rd corridor than was contemplated when the last Master Plan was developed in 2005. We gratefully welcome that initiative. That Motion was, ultimately, supported unanimously by all Councillors of Hunters Hill when it was voted upon.

Until now, the focus from both Councils has been on re-zoning Gladesville for high-density development. Ryde Council has taken the lead on works that provide some benefit, as is evident if you look at the pavements on either side of Victoria Road and the current place-making initiative for Coulter Street.

Re-zoning Gladesville for high density development and ‘walking away’ as if the job is done, and blaming the state government, is not good enough. The effort needs to be made to invest to mitigate the problems which will come with high density. This investment is made more difficult by the boundary dividing Gladesville between two Councils.

We need our Councils to rise to the challenges created by the state government’s policies of forcing additional dwellings into each Local Government Area, by planning to develop infrastructure and services to cope with the increased population. That needs to happen in Gladesville because if we only get the development and don’t benefit from planning and investment, the end result will be worse for residents, worse for businesses, worse for visitors, worse for everyone – than it HAS to be.

In that spirit, we are requesting that Councillors at both Ryde and Hunters Hill Council act now to solve identifiable problems which are inevitable.

This email has been sent to all Councillors in both Councils, as well as our mailing list, and we’re hoping that there will be support from Councillors on both sides to move Motions at the next meeting of their respective Councils – to support these actions.

The problems described below real problems and they will not solve themselves. Councils cannot expect to wake up one morning and find that the “cross-border municipal infrastructure and services fairy” has magically dealt with them.

We need our Councillors to demonstrate a greater sense of leadership and commitment to solving problems, particularly those which require investment in collaboration. We are calling on the current Councillors to continue showing leadership to fix problems, as Councillors Zac Miles and Ross Williams did recently at Hunters Hill.


1) Resourcing and deliberate focus on boundary interfaces

1.1) That, contingent upon reciprocal agreement by the ‘other Council’, the Council resolve to dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that adequate planning and management occurs where areas of high density residential or where commercial activity exists at the boundary between Ryde and Hunters Hill Council’s Local Government Areas (LGA’s). Such areas include Gladesville, Boronia Park, and may include smaller groups of shops such as those on Pittwater Road between Harvard and Venus Streets.

1.2) That, contingent upon reciprocal agreement by the ‘other Council’, the Council nominate a staff member or agree contribution for a shared staff member (full or partial load) to coordinate information flow between specialist teams of each Council, to ensure that activities are undertaken collaboratively where applicable. Such activities should include (but not be limited to): notification of Development Applications, Planning Proposals, or other planning and assessment initiatives; notification and consultation about place-making initiatives, ground surface and streetscape management, and similar; provision of services; and routine management of parking and traffic. The protocol should be activated when the impact of one Council’s actions at or near the municipal boundary is reasonably expected to affect residents, businesses, landowners, students, or other stakeholders across the boundary. Without delaying proper progress, the relevant specialist staff of that Council should provide earliest possibly notice to the liaison officer or agreed resource, to then communicate to their equivalent specialist staff. The would enable the ‘other’ Council to communicate to it’s residents and stakeholders and, where appropriate, contribute to or participate in that activity of the initiating Council.

2) Traffic modelling – Gladesville

2.1) That, contingent upon reciprocal agreement by the ‘other Council’, the Council resolves to contribute appropriately to engage a suitable consultant to develop a comprehensive traffic model informed by the Local Environmental Plans (LEP’s) of each Council. The model should realistically assume development to the maxima of the each Council’s LEP, in height and floor-space-ratio (bulk) – which can be translated into dwelling numbers using benchmark references. With the derived number of dwellings and application of Development Control Plan (DCP) ratios for parking provision, the model should reasonably accurately inform traffic generation which will arise from existing planning controls.

2.2) For the first time since the LEPs were amended to allow so much development in Gladesville, stakeholders in the Gladesville area should have reference to a cumulative and integrated model for traffic management, and the outputs including traffic flows should be prescribed and included in master planning, development of planning instruments, and made available for other purposes.

2.3) That the traffic consultant who is engaged to develop such a model should deliver a comprehensive report, including assumptions and detailed outputs including optimal traffic flows, which must be made available to the public.

3) Parking management – Gladesville

That, contingent upon reciprocal agreement by the ‘other Council’, the Council resolves to engage a consultant to evaluate the adequacy of parking supply for Gladesville, on an integrated basis across both sides of the municipal boundary.

3.1) The model should be informed by the Local Environmental Plans (LEP) of each Council. The model should realistically assume development to the maxima of each Council’s LEP, in height and floor-space-ratio (bulk) which can be translated into dwelling numbers using benchmark references.

3.2) Subject to improved assumptions or methodology under professional guidance by the consultant, the model should assume the existing pattern of retail usage at ground level, residential properties above, and creation of space for commercial use at the existing rate in Development Applications for sites in Gladesville. With the derived number of dwellings and application of Development Control Plan (DCP) ratios for parking provision, the model should reasonably accurately inform any shortfall of parking spaces to be created by complying with DCP ratios, vs expected parking demand, and derive resultant excess parking demand (overflow).

3.3) The model should reasonably accurately describe the demand for parking spaces required by staff of retail and or commercial enterprises to operate in Gladesville. The model should address requirements for customers, shoppers, diners, parents dropping off or picking up school children, and other users. It should provide estimates of the foreseeable level and pattern of demand for parking spaces for relatively short durations (peak periods).

3.4) The model should reasonably accurately define gaps where supply is expected to be insufficient for demand, which would then enable both City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils to develop integrated strategies to meet foreseeable demand. Such data may inform the business case for capital investment to develop multi-storey car-park(s). Coulter St and Signal Hill (3/3A Cowell St) car-parks are both sites which may be considered, among others. Proper consideration of the requirement or business case for development of mutli-storey car park(s) serving Gladesville will require collaboration by both City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils.

3.5) The collaborative effort above should support the development and management of cost and/or revenue sharing arrangement(s) between City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils as appropriate*. The problems faced by Gladesville are shared between both Councils, and must be solved collaboratively. Solving a shared problem but should not attract financial penalty for being the responsible council that acts to solve it.

3.6) The collaborative effort above should support the development and management of various parking schemes which may be tailored to time-of-day based demand, including: parking passes which may be available for sale to businesses, residents, etc; casual paid parking; casual free parking for limited duration; and commuter parking to support the use of public transport (opal car park or otherwise). Such solutions may also look to providing additional/improved commuter parking at locations outside the commercial centre of Gladesville, such as the car park at the corner of Victoria Rd and Crown St (to Henley).

3.7) That the consultant who is engaged to develop such a model should deliver a comprehensive report, including assumptions and detailed outputs, which must be made available to the public.

* For example, given the loss of parking supply to be expected when Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GSV) is redeveloped, it may be appropriate to expedite planning and development of a muti-storey car park at the Coulter St location for construction to commence when the RSL youth club development is completed. Signal Hill might also be designated for a multi-storey car-park when an integrated solution is designed to meet Gladesville’s needs, but it may be preferable to avoid redevelopment of the Signal Hill car park while the GS’V’ is occurring, reducing parking supply and increasing demand. The Council that makes the required investment should not be required to subsidise the ‘other Council’, but rather this should be an initiative of collaboration to solve what is a highly foreseeable problem, with the financial impact shared appropriately.

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.