Category: Uncategorized

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 council@huntershill.nsw.gov.au 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 http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1319

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.

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 http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1331

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  council@huntershill.nsw.gov.au 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.

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 council@huntershill.nsw.gov.au

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.

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:
http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1319

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.

* GSV meeting at Hunters Hill Council building to be held 27th February
* Boarding house at 126 Victoria Rd, LEC on-site meeting was held 12th February

Hi Everyone,

SAVE THE DATE – Meeting about Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GSV) redevelopment

Please diarise: Tuesday 27th February from 6:30pm at Hunters Hill council building – 22 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill. There will be a meeting held, to provide information to interested parties.

We are disappointed that the community has not been updated on the last 12-18 months of activity, and not given an opportunity to learn about the complexities of the planning system where the Council and state government appointed bodies play different roles in different situations, as was intended to happen at the meeting resolved by Hunters Hill Council to be held initially before Christmas, and then (sensibly) deferred to the new year. The meeting will now occur part way through the exhibition period, so everyone will be trying to understand the planning system and context of the application, as well as the details of the proposal itself, and then get organised to make submissions – within a tighter timeline.

The consultation period for the developer’s intended change to allow extra height and floor-space-ratio at the GSV site runs from 21st February until closing date for submissions – being 20th March.

We will provide more information when we are able, but the important point is to pleasesave the date for that meeting, and let friends know about it – if they are concerned about over-development in Gladesville. This is one development (or intended increase in development from 10 to 16/18 storeys) where we hope that public attention can create a less-worse outcome. It will not always be possible to influence the scale of development, understanding that most of the 5-6 storey development on Victoria Road will continue – because the planning controls allow it on most sites.

126 Victoria Rd redevelopment: Boarding House site visit by LEC Commissioner and meeting

Yesterday at 9:30 am on Monday 12th February, a Commissioner from the Land and Environment Court attended the site of the proposed redevelopment and received presentations from concerned residents.

Apart from representatives of the applicant, of Council, and the Court, there were about 12-15 people present, presumably concerned members of the community. That’s quite a good turn-out considering most people have to be at work at that time. Approximately 6 presentations were given, generally from residents, some immediate neighbours and others from streets away, with key concerns being adequacy of parking (including cumulative impact on street parking) and features of the application including the reliance on the vehicle lift/turning disc to allow access to the lower parking floor. The site only offers 12 car parking spaces for 58 rooms, and there was concern that fear of mechanical failure could discourage residents from using the lower parking level. There was also some concern or confusion about whether the project deserves special consideration as an affordable housing initiative, but as far as we could tell it is simply a normal commercial project but to create smaller living spaces than normal multi-unit dwellings – which is not surprising given the high cost per square meter as housing has become so expensive in Sydney. The logic of assuming a low rate of vehicle ownership was challenged.

Along with other valid comments, the following extracts from Gladesville resident Warren Bell’s presentation are representative of the concerns and views expressed, broadly.

“However, the lack of an on-site manager’s residence and the apparent lack of any specialised facilities or support suggest that this proposal is for a boarding house open to any potential resident including those who own a motor vehicle.

The ABS Motor Vehicle Census, Australia 9309.0 dated 31 January 2015 recorded that in NSW the number of motor vehicles registered per 1000 population was 696 or 69.6%. This suggests that the 116 residents proposed could generate the need for parking for 80 additional vehicles of which only 12 are provided for within the building.”

“This development takes the opportunity of revenues through the provision high density accommodation without taking responsibility for the impact on the local traffic and parking which is already under significant stress.”

We are grateful to Ryde Council for refusing the initial application, which is why the matter has progressed to the Land and Environment Court. As Gladesville residents well know, there is a lot of redevelopment in progress and coming – adding more residents, cars, and parking demand to every street – across two different Council areas so there is no single authority responsible for ensuring that the end result leaves Gladesville functional. Ryde Council’s rejection of the proposal was a welcome protection, where the cumulative impact of developments will intensify problems created by any one project.

From the team at Gladesville Community Group

Hi Everyone,

We’re pleased to be able to advise that the supporting information for the 3 x DA’s on Victoria Road (which we wrote about yesteday) are now available online on Hunters Hill Council’s website.

They are listed in the News section on Council’s website, at:
http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/page/HomePage.aspx

Over time the News links will be replaced with newer content, so the DA files are at these links – for your reference.
http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1316
http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1317
http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1318

We appreciate Council’s attention to making this information conveniently available to interested parties.

Dear Subscribers,

Boarding house development at 126 Victoria Rd, Gladesville – (next to the Tennis Ranch)

A controversial 58 room boarding house is proposed to be developed on Victoria Rd, in the section between the Caltex and the Tennis Ranch.

As reported in the Northern District Times (link below), a meeting will be held on Monday 12th February at 9:30am when a Land and Environment Court Commissioner will attend the site and hear from residents.

The original plans described on Ryde Council’s DA tracking website (link below) as being for 66 rooms, but with parking for only 14 vehicles. From the Northern District Times article we understand that the number of rooms proposed has been reduced to 58, but we are unsure of any change to the number of parking spaces to be provided.

As residents of Gladesville are acutely aware from sites already redeveloped, and those in progress or yet to commence, there is already high demand and competition for on-street parking. Each additional site adds further demand, especially if the parking provisions in the DA aren’t adequate for the reality of vehicle ownership of residents who live in Gladesville – recognising that transport links other than to the City or Victoria Rd corridor are quite limited.

Please note the Northern District Times article advises that submissions may be made to Ryde Council until Monday 5th February. Ryde Council can be contacted on 9952 8222 to confirm how you can send your submission on Monday (tomorrow). Please also note that the on-site meeting will be held the following Monday 12th February at 9:30am if you would like to attend.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-district-times/parker-logan-boarding-house-prompts-concern-at-gladesville/news-story/18569a46d471e6478e671f7a79becae1

http://eservice.ryde.nsw.gov.au/DATracking/Modules/ApplicationMaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=214824&pKey=529256

http://www.planningpanels.nsw.gov.au/DevelopmentRegister/tabid/62/ctl/view/mid/424/JRPP_ID/3326/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

Hunters Hill Council – Information Meeting to advise residents about the last 12-18 months of activities related to Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GSV) and the planning context

We look forward to a better working relationship with the new Council elected 2017, including the information meeting resolved to be held – originally in December but deferred to February due to the tight timing before Christmas.

Unlike the past, when the public would have a significant DA dumped on us and no prior explanation or education about the planning system, it will be helpful to have the context and planning system explained before the narrow window of consultation starts.

Although there hasn’t been much update to the public, we do understand that the applicant (owner of GSV and adjacent land that was publicly owned until 2016) has been busy preparing amendment(s) that they’re seeking to Hunters Hill Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) – which controls building heights and floor-space ratios (bulk). The LEP already allows height that equates to 10 storeys, but we believe that they want 16-18 storeys. The public are right to be concerned, understanding that there is already a lot of 5-6 storey development occurring along Victoria Road.

We understand that it is normal for the Council’s planning staff to meet and discuss with applicants who are preparing applications, but the problem in the past was that – even though Council knew it was coming and knew people would be interested but would reasonably require some education on the planning system and how to properly participate (lodge submissions in support or against, raising their concerns effectively) – there really wasn’t much if anything done to help the public until the clock was already ticking. It will be a welcome change that Council will dedicate some of the rate-payers-funded resources not just to working with the applicant, but also to educating the public and helping us to have some say over what happens in our local community.

This new way of operating, where Hunters Hill Council actually helps the community by dedicating some effort to educating residents instead of only working with the applicant developers, could really help change the sentiment in Gladesville – where amalgamation really wasn’t as concerning a prospect as it was for the peninsula.

For reference:
* The original resolution from meeting 4430 held 27th November 2017 was “That a meeting be held with Gladesville residents to provide an update on the status of the Gladesville Shopping Village site, its planning context and environment, prior to Christmas.”
* The meeting was agreed to be deferred at meeting 4431 held 11th December “That Council defer the planned Community Information Meeting on the Gladesville Shopping Village until early 2018.”

Other large DA’s in Gladesville (Hunters Hill Council ‘side’) recently lodged – submissions due 2nd March

* DA 2017-1183: 219-221 Victoria Rd (Comm Bank site): 5 storey shop top housing
* DA 2017-1197: 223-227 Victoria Rd (Glades Arcade + OB Cuts site): 30 residential + 10 retail unit shop top housing
* DA 2017-1199: 233-235 Victoria Rd (BWS site): 24 residential + 3 retail unit shop top housing

Please email us if you would like a copy of the single A4 page plan for each DA that Council sent with the notification letters.

Because Hunters Hill Council doesn’t operate a portal from which documents can be downloaded (Lane Cove Council does), the notification letter states that plans and supporting documentation can be viewed at Council between 8:30am and 4:00pm.

We realise that a lot of people in Gladesville have to work full time, so we will request electronic copies of the files from Council and also provide them to you by email upon request – if supplied to us by Council.

Subscription

If your friends would like to join the mailing list please advise them to email us atmail@gladesvillecommunity.com

Hi Everyone,

Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ redevelopment

If you’ve been wondering what’s happening with the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GSV) redevelopment during 2017, so have we!

On the evening of Monday 13th November 2017, Russell Young (of Gladesville Community Group) attended the Hunters Hill Council meeting and requested that Hunters Hill Council engage with the local community, by 1) educating the local community about the planning process being used by the applicant (owner of GSV) to have the planning controls amended to allow the GSV site to be increased to allow approximately 100 more flats (280 now intended, compared to 180 in the 2013 Development Application), and the towers to go up to ~18 storeys instead of ~10 – currently permitted by the Local Environmental Plan; and 2) inform the local community about actions of the Applicant and the Council, so far – so we understand what is going on.

It is hoped that, with a new Council, may come a new era of greater engagement with the community and greater transparency.

We appreciate that Councillors were supportive, and the initial plan was to hold an information meeting before the end of 2017, so that the community could be advised about the process being used to seek developer-friendly changes to the planning controls, and be updated about actions to date.

On Monday 27th November Russell Young was advised by Mr Steve Kourepis (Group Manager – Development and Regulatory Control) that information for which Council staff have been waiting is expected to be received from the Applicant/Developer around 12th December, which was the intended timing of the information meeting – yet to be scheduled and advertised. Russell Young attended the Council meeting on the evening of Monday 27th November, requesting that the information meeting be deferred because it is not desirable that:
a) such a meeting be held too close to Christmas (when many people are away or preoccupied),
b) such a meeting be held with too short a notice period, and/or
c) such a meeting be held exactly when critical information is being received – making it very difficult for the community to separate fact from expectation/assumption.

Russell requested that Council provide written information that can be circulated to members of the community, including (~135) subscribers to this mailing list, so that people can start to understand the planning process, and actions of the Developer and of the Council until this point.

On Tuesday 5th December we were advised that a report will be prepared for the Council Meeting to be held Monday 11th December, and that report will be available on Council’s website on Friday 8th December.

The report from Council is available at this link.

Or the whole agenda of the Council meeting can be downloaded from this link.

It is clear that there has been a great deal of activity during 2017.

The following questions have been asked of Council:

***

1) Will you please publish to Council’s website all communication (and reports received or prepared) between Hunters Hill Council and other parties, including the applicant/developer, and state government authorities and panels involved in the assessing the application (past and future). Approximately 290 submissions were made in response to the Development Application lodged for the site in 2013. With so many people interested in this site, the lack of information provided to us through 2017 is disappointing, and it is reasonable to expect that many people are interested to see what Council has communicated on behalf of the the public, especially since Council’s involvement is complicated by having sold public land to the developer and having responsibility for managing heritage protection of 10 Cowell Street – which was a publicly owned asset until its disposal by Council in 2016.

2) During 2016 and 2017 Hunters Hill Council spent a significant amount of rate-payers money fighting amalgamation. Council was successful on a legal challenge, but during the campaign it was frequently claimed to be desirable because an independent Hunters Hill Council is critical to the protection of heritage and local character of the municipality. Standing up for locally developed planning instruments (Local Environmental Plan limiting heights and bulk of buildings) is a very important part of that protection of local character. Why is Hunters Hill Council supporting the applicant’s attempt to circumvent locally developed planning instruments with its Planning Proposal, by planning the relocation of the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street on to land owned by Council – which is not in the vicinity of its present location? The applicant wants the LEP changed, so why is the Local Council cooperating to accommodate ANY condition imposed in the Gateway Determination, without being satisfied that it is in the LOCAL public interest to allow the applicant to build ~18 storeys on the GSV site, adding EVEN MORE flats to the Gladesville area which is quickly becoming over-developed with 5-6 storey blocks of flats along most of the Victoria Rd corridor?

***

We will keep you updated about response(s) received.

Over-development of Gladesville and (how) will Hunters Hill Council help?

We have received a number of emails and frequently see comments on social media from members of the local community who are concerned about the over-development starting to hit Victoria Rd, Gladesville.

The development seen, so far, is only the tip of the iceberg. \

It is realistic to expect that developers will build buildings to the height and bulk (floor space ratio) permitted in the Local Environmental Plans (LEP) – as they are permitted by legislation (EP&A Act). The heights are generally 5-6 storeys for most buildings on both the Ryde and Hunters Hill Council sides of Victoria Road, through the Gladesville town centre and up as far as Monash Road.

The heights permitted in the part of Gladesville within the Hunters Hill Council LGA are available here.

The heights permitted in the part of Gladesville within the City of Ryde Council LGA are available here,

and here.

Except where an applicant is seeking to over-develop a site beyond the (height and bulk) controls of the LEP (as IS the actual case with the GSV redevelopment and this Planning Proposal seeking to increase permissible height and bulk), perhaps the more relevant question to ask now becoming: What are our Councils going to do to help?

Hunters Hill Council’s delegation of authority to the former Mayor and the General Manager (current and at the time) of Hunters Hill Council, authorising them to dispose of the public land in Cowell and Massey Streets – (to the owner of the shopping centre without public tender) occurred in 2012. For at least 5 years now, Hunters Hill Council has been on notice that the ~$9.5m cash windfall from disposal of public land was foreseeable.

In addition to the proceeds from sale of public land, there are ‘section 94 contributions’ (reference to section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) titled “Contribution towards provision or improvement of amenities or services“) which will be financially significant from a development of this size.

The disposal of public land and the limited heritage listing of 10 Cowell Street – the first in Hunters Hill Local Government Area (LGA) “excluding the curtilage”, will reduce resident amenity. The high number of flats that will be concentrated in Gladesville will create a massive increase in population density leading to significant increases in: vehicle movements, parking demand, demand for public transport services, demand for public services and increased loads on infrastructure, and more. We HOPE that Hunters Hill Council, while working towards the concentration of the LGA’s additional dwellings in Gladesville and the sale of public land, has given some thought over the past 5+ years as to how those funds can be spent to HELP THE LOCAL PEOPLE WHO WILL SUFFER.

We hope that Hunters Hill Council does not intend to add insult to injury by ‘gold plating’ the peninsula, nor keeping the money in reserve to create the impression of financial sustainability for the next time a State Government looks to amalgamate Hunters Hill (the smallest Council in NSW) – an impression bankrolled by ‘selling the silverware’ – from Gladesville. We HOPE that Hunters Hill Council has given due consideration to the adverse impact on residents and visitors, including school parents and patrons of local businesses, if traffic and parking aren’t managed and catered for properly. We HOPE that Hunters Hill Council has considered how to mitigate the massive disruption which will be inflicted on the local community in Gladesville during the period of reconstruction of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ – which could easily take years. We HOPE that Hunters Hill Council is intending to spend every dollar and cent of section 94 contributions on “provision or improvement of amenities or services” serving the affected area. We HOPE that Council is intending to reinvest every dollar and cent received from selling our assets, back into the community that has lost that amenity – for the provision of new dwellings that satisfied the State Government’s target for the whole LGA of Hunters Hill Municipality – leaving the rest of the Hunters Hill Municipality largely unscathed. From the LEP map (link above), it is easy to see that development permitted at the Hunters Hill overpass, an area very well served by public transport, is extremely ‘light’ by comparison to that permitted in Gladesville.

People in Gladesville still pay rates like the rest of the Hunters Hill Municipality does, and we still suffer from an infrastructure backlog like other parts of this Municipality – such works that must be funded from rates and grants. The community of Gladesville MUST expect the Council to reinvest the financial ‘upside’ of the over-development, for which the pain WILL BE borne in Gladesville (to the benefit of Hunters Hill and Woolwich), back into the LOCAL community.

The following question has been asked of Council:

***

Will you please advise us what plans have been developed, or how Hunters Hill Council will engage with residents and other stakeholders in the development of such plans, to relieve the Community of Gladesville of the adverse and enduring impacts of the massive increase in population density, and also the assist the Community to deal with the severe disruption during the redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’?

***

We will keep you updated about response(s) received.

Spending EVEN MORE of ratepayers money on legal action fighting amalgamation?

Gladesville Community Group is calling on Hunters Hill Council not to use any more of ratepayers’ money by continuing with further legal action against the State Government’s planned amalgamation of Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde local government areas.

This follows the decision in the Land and Environment Court, announced on Tuesday 20 September, which rejected Hunters Hill Council’s objections. The Group’s spokesperson, Russell Young, said: “We understand that Hunters Hill Council has already spent over $235,000 of our money on legal action although it has not revealed an exact figure.

“Both Botany Bay and Woollahra Councils’ failed legal action each attracted a cost award for them to pay the legal costs of the NSW Department of Local Government so the total current cost exposure from ratepayers’ funds in Hunters Hill is probably already close to half a million dollars – before any appeal.

“It should be noted that when the legal action was first approved by Hunters Hill Council with an estimated cost of $150,000+, the report to Council (item 8.4 of meeting 4400 on 26 April 2016) disclosed that the legal action was more likely to fail than it was to succeed.

“We were disappointed that Hunters Hill Council took such a gamble by responding to the State Government with an outright refusal to consider any kind of amalgamation.

“Being the smallest local government authority in NSW, it was always going to be a big and costly risk to expect the State Government to undertake a process of local council reform and leave this micro-council untouched.

“That half a million dollars could have gone a long way to repairing roads, footpaths, drains, gutters, and other infrastructure assets in the works backlog; or funding improved services; or supporting groups that promote local interests and our sense of community.”

“With Councillors Miles and Bird dissenting, the Council delegated authority to Mayor Richard Quinn and the General Manager to lodge notice of intention to appeal, to spend more of our money if the judgement handed down on 20 September was unsuccessful.

“Instead of Hunters Hill Council embarking on yet more unwelcome expenditure on continuing legal action, we favour a more productive conversation with the community about how all suburbs in the legacy Hunters Hill Local Government Area can enjoy the benefits that will come from being part of a better-resourced council, without losing local identity”