Category: Uncategorized

GSV + 10 Cowell St + 230 Victoria Rd + Amalgamation

Hi Everyone,

A quick update as we close out 2015.

Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV)           

Christmas is upon us, and Hunters Hill Council has a Planning Proposal (attempt to change the planning rules, like making it much bigger than planning rules permit) for Gladesville Shopping Village – which we should expect to be exhibited to public while everyone is spending time with family, on holidays, or otherwise busy with school holidays.

10 Cowell St heritage listing

Hunters Hill Council deferred the heritage listing of 10 Cowell St on 30^th July 2012 despite unopposed expert recommendation of heritage listing, apparently because Council ran out of time to consider the property – not because it was assessed as being unworthy of listing. It is important to note that 3 & ½ months earlier on 16^th April 2012 Hunters Hill Council exhibited a draft of the Local Environmental Plan with 10 Cowell St listed for heritage protection.

Instead of answering the outstanding question of heritage listing, Hunters Hill Council delegated authority to the Mayor and General Manager on 26^thNovember 2012, who negotiated option instruments which gave an interested developer a unilateral right to acquire 10 Cowell St (without a heritage listing) along with the open air car-park at 4-6 Cowell St, and property at 1c Massey St, whenever the developer is ready for it. The Council did not consult the public, did not put the sale out to tender, and did not build any protections into the transaction which would ensure compliance with local planning instruments instead of going to the state government for developer-friendly approval. Council has been prevaricating over the heritage listing that was finally resolved by Council on 9th June 2015 (almost three years after the original listing was deferred).

Amazingly, the application to the state government for approval of the heritage listing magically has NEW WORDS ADDED THAT WEREN’T RESOLVED BY COUNCIL, TO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE IT’S CURTILAGE. Of the 1,000+ items in the Hunters Hill Municipality enjoying the protection of a local heritage listing, 10 Cowell St is the only property that explicitly excludes the property’s curtilage in it’s listing.

An excellent piece by the Hunters Hill Trust addresses the Heritiage listing, at http://huntershilltrust.org.au/2015/11/why-does-the-heritage-listing-of-10-cowell-street-exclude-the-land-around-it/

Another excellent piece by the Hunters Hill Trust discusses amalgamation, and the relevance of heritage &10 Cowell Street, at:
http://huntershilltrust.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HHT-JOURNAL-NOVEMBER-2015-RF.pdf

Hunters Hill Council has been spending our money telling us that after amalgamation we would end up with a Council that is out of touch with the community. The irony BURNS SO HARD.

230 Victoria Rd (corner Jordan St)

The redevelopment of what was known as the old ‘Consulere’ building, or NRMA, or where Anthony Roberts has his office, from a commercial building into a 7 storey building with 100 Units (allowing 100% foreign sales), is with Ryde Council for review before the Joint Regional Planning Panel will determine the DA. The JRPP meeting date isn’t set, yet, but we’re keeping an eye on it. A well-organised group of residents near the site have petitioned Ryde Council for more responsible development than (amongst other objections) pushing all vehicular traffic associated with 100 units down the narrow access street Gerard Lane). It would also be beneficial to retain some commercial space in Gladesville with traffic and parking activity not correlated to the rest of the increasing residential load, and having workers to patronise local businesses during the day instead of turning Gladesville into a suburb for sleeping.

Amalgamation – Ryde + Hunters Hill + Lane Cove

The Councils accuse the state government of not properly consulting and of ignoring the residents, but we note that consultation in our local government areas imposed the Joint Regional Authority model as the only option, and asked us if we wanted a “Superior Alternative” to a mega-merger. We should probably have expected more than 80% of us to have got that question right (by definition superior IS preferable to inferior). Thanks for the consultation. Those with opinions can just hang on to them in case anyone is interested, one day.

Here’s a link to the state government information (some might call it drivel or propaganda), which tells the other side of the story to the information that our Councils have spent our money feeding us (some might call that drivel or propaganda).
https://www.councilboundaryreview.nsw.gov.au/summary-sheets/hunters-hill-lane-cove-and-city-of-ryde-councils/

Here’s a link to another interesting article – in which Hunters Hill even gets a special mention!
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/council-mergers-are-an-easy-fix-for-a-stupid-sydney-problem-20151220-glrt4s.html#ixzz3utzsQCm3

Pretty soon even the residents of Hunters Hill Municipality might be able to see local DA’s that have been lodged, online, like those in Ryde and Lane Cove Municipalities can, at:
http://eservice.ryde.nsw.gov.au/DATracking/Modules/ApplicationMaster/default.aspx?page=home
and
http://www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au/Development/CurrentDAs/Pages/DASearchandEnquiry.aspx

Merry Christmas

Have a wonderful Christmas, enjoy the break, and stay safe if you’re on the roads. We’ll be back in touch in the new year, or earlier if the GSV Planning Proposal is put to public consultation in the interim.

From the team and Gladesville Community Group (inc)

230 Victoria Rd; Gladesville Shopping Village; Amalgamation and Ribbons; Gutters

Hi everyone,

Please see below updates on a number of issues since we were last in touch.
LDA2015/0433 – 230 Victoria Road, Gladesville

Ryde Council has received a DA for a 7-storey development to replace the building on the corner of Victoria Rd and Jordan St (you may think of it as the “Consulere” building as it was once named, or for NRMA being in there, or the State member’s office). The plans (links are at the bottom of this section) specify the height and the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) at levels that are compliant with Ryde Council’s Local Environmental Plan.

Of great concern is the change in use from being commercial to being mainly residential, with 100 units above a smaller amount of commercial space. With all of the developments going on in Gladesville, with the Local Environmental Plans of both Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils concentrating a large increase in building heights along the Victoria Rd corridor in Gladesville, we are right to be concerned about the cumulative impact on parking and traffic management. Without access to/from Victoria Rd or Jordan St, this DA seeks to direct all vehicular access along Gerard Lane, a small lane for the levels of vehicular movements that should be expected at peak times in a 100 unit complex.

We have seen no integrated report about managing the foreseeable cumulative impact as developer’s build to the maxima allowed under both Councils’ planning instruments, but rather each DA states that its impact in isolation will not be significant. Cumulative impact is what matters.

The change in use of this building would exacerbate the peak traffic flows and parking demand of residences, of which there are so many others being built or planned to come to Gladesville. Having a mix of residential and commercial floor space protects Gladesville from being a ghost-town during the day; but saturating parking and locking up streets with all vehicles moving out of the multi-story developments in the morning and coming back in the evening. The removal of commercial space would adversely impact day-time demand for local businesses. Being 100 units, the developer is entitled to apply to the Foreign Investment Review Board for approval to sell 100% of these units to foreign buyers.

This DA will be assessed by the state government’s Joint Regional Planning Panel made up of 3 state government appointees and 2 local council representatives. It can also receive a recommendation from Council, after Council’s review of the plans.

We encourage you to make a submission to Ryde Council urging them not to support this Development Application, because of its impact on: parking, traffic, the local economy, and doing little for housing affordability with potentially 100% of units going to foreign buyers, and anything else that matters to you – if you feel that way about it. We also recommend joining Nabo (a useful website for local communities to share information and promote common interest) and following Ros T’s posts, such as https://www.nabo.com.au/group/5600c1c6e7ec617b088b4568.

Submissions are due by 21st October 2015 (after an extension granted by Ryde Council, for which we are grateful), and can be sent to cityofryde@ryde.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to copy the Councillors, their email addresses are: dpendleton@ryde.nsw.gov.au; rmaggio@ryde.nsw.gov.au ; bpickering@ryde.nsw.gov.au; sarkis@yedelian.com ; salvestro-martin@ryde.nsw.gov.au; cchung@ryde.nsw.gov.au ; artine@ryde.nsw.gov.au; gsimon@ryde.nsw.gov.au ; jli@ryde.nsw.gov.au ; JStott@ryde.nsw.gov.au; tperram@ryde.nsw.gov.au ; mayor@ryde.nsw.gov.au

Please click here for the DA plan files http://gladesvillecommunity.com/230vic.html

GSV – Exhibition of concept 3

A few months ago we saw the 3rd proposed concept from the developer. We appreciate the meaningful consultation as the applicant is exhibiting to the public in advance, transparently, and we have time to consider what is coming. We also appreciate the higher quality work from the consultants and architectural merit in the design.

However, we cannot support a development that seeks to exceed the Floor Space Ratio limit from the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) – by application to the NSW Government (with or without the support of Hunters Hill Council). Any additional bulk/scale would exacerbate the adverse impacts on the local community, and we don’t think that can be effectively offset by design quality. The consultants put forward an interesting discussion on height. We should remain open to discussion on amendment of height by way of redistribution across the site if the net impact is favourable to the Community. To be clear, we would all prefer a smaller development, but we are starting from the position of Hunters Hill Council’s LEP – which allows the height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) that accommodated the first DA in 2013. The DA in 2013 did not fail because it was too big, despite that being the almost-universal response from the community. It failed for other reasons.

The assessment from Architectus did not recommend withdrawal because of height and bulk, and we should not ever think that withdrawal of that DA means we will not get a development of that size. The height and size of the first DA is our staring point, because Hunters Hill Council’s planning instruments allow it. From this starting position, we believe that it is sensible to discuss net improvement to the amenity of the community if a redistribution of height can achieve that. The 25 storey tower of Concept 2, and the 15/16 storeys of the concept 3 that was recently exhibited, though, were a combination of redistribution of height AND an increase in FSR – which is why the taller towers were so high.

With the lack of frontage to Victoria Rd, the cumulative impact of all of the developments hitting Gladesville, and the widespread outrage at the size of the first DA which was supported by Hunters Hill Council’s LEP, we think it would be reckless to indulge any plan to increase FSR on the site. No increase in FSR should be supported.

Above does not even contemplate the treatment of the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street, for which Hunters Hill Council has still not finalised the Heritage listing  failing to complete a process that stalled in 2012.

As always, we are grateful to the Hunters Hill Trust for their excellent response, far more eloquent than we could articulate the very reasonable position. The summary and the full submission are available here http://huntershilltrust.org.au/2015/08/latest-proposal-for-gladesville-shops-even-worse/

Amalgamation

The foreseeable flow of DA’s into Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils, to develop Gladesville to the LEP maxima increase the importance of a coordinated plan to manage the future of our suburb, and give us strong reason to question the merit of the Joint Regional Authority response to which these Councils (and Lane Cove) are committed. Councils are spending tens of thousands of dollars of our money running ads to tell us and the state government that the JRA is what we want. More accurately, survey respondents opted for a “superior alternative” which is preferable as a matter of definition, it is our Councils that have nominated the JRA as the FORM of the “superior alternative”, and we had no real opportunity to have our own opinions heard. Under the JRA concept, the 3 Councils would collaborate on planning, and make strategic decisions by unanimous agreement of their respective representatives.

Quite how this JRA structure, with a long list of issues on which to achieve consensus, would leave us better off than a smaller amalgamation in which Gladesville sits entirely within one municipality, is a question for which we see no sensible answer. As it stands, we can’t get Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils to commit to a joint study to model the cumulative impact on traffic and parking of all of these developments being assessed by each Council, independently. If they can’t agree to that, now, how can we expect them to achieve timely agreement on planning issues when there are other initiatives competing for consensus agreement. Further information is available in our submission to IPART, available here http://gladesvillecommunity.com/fftf%20submission.html.

In 2003 many residents of Gladesville put balloons on the front of their homes to show that they wanted Hunters Hill Council to be protected from amalgamation with Ryde. After Hunters Hill Council entered into option deeds (like contracts) for the sale of public land (including the timber cottage at 10 Cowell St, without heritage protection) to the owner who wants to redevelop the Gladesville Shopping Village, and had developed planning instruments to allow the 8 storey towers on the site, many of us feel betrayed. The fact that Council entered into the option deeds before actually answering its outstanding question of whether 10 Cowell St should get heritage listing in the Local Environmental Plan (as it was listed in the draft of the 2012 LEP that was publicly exhibited), and that there was no prior consultation and no public tender, and that it left no mechanism (without exposure to being sued for damages) to refuse the sale if the developer wants to pursue state government approval to ignore local planning instruments (like going up to 26 storeys), we’re outraged.

This time the councils and their supporters are encouraging us to display ribbons, but there probably won’t be many ribbons being flown in Gladesville. In fact, we’ve received a disappointing report of ribbons being tied to a front fence without the home-owner’s consent. If you or someone you know has had ribbons tied to your fence or tree, and you’d like our help – just let us know and we’ll get someone over there to cut down those misleading ribbons that purport to speak for your opinion.

You might remember our survey into Gladesville residents’ satisfaction with local council performance, results of which were posted here http://gladesvillecommunity.com/survey%20results.html

We welcome suggestions of how dissenting residents might like to be heard. One interesting suggestion was to stop mowing the nature strip / grass verge, saying that if the Council doesn’t look after us we shouldn’t look after their grass.

Gutters – can be used to get water from the street into the storm-water drains

If you haven’t seen the videos, here’s how a gutter was recently poured in a part of Gladesville under Hunters Hill Council’s control. An affected home-owner requested permission to address Hunters Hill Council on the matter but the Mayor refused the request. The home-owner has requested details such as plans/specifications, how the gutter heights were specified to the contractor, what inspection was undertaken before the concrete pour, etc from Hunters Hill Council – and is still waiting answers after 3 & ½ weeks.

Hunters Hill Council’s website and email auto-signatures identify Excellence and Accountability as two of Council’s values, which are apparently at the heart of everything that Hunters Hill Council does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgU0aT_YvQ&list=PL-O5ZTxPWnRORah-4GDTIPpLCz2C0gRE9

Register to receive our emails

Feel free to share our emails with your friends who are interested in local affairs, and encourage them to register to receive emails directly, here http://gladesvillecommunity.com/register.html

– Team and Gladesville Community Group (Incorporated)

Hi Everyone.

Submission re Draft DCP for Gladesville – Hunters Hill planning controls

Please scroll down for our submission to Hunters Hill Council regarding the Draft DCP amendments, to controls in Gladesville.

If you would like to make your own submission, please email council with your thoughts – agreeing or disagreeing with our submission, raising other issues, or whatever you believe.

The list below can be copied into your mail program.
futuregladesville@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;richardquinn@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;meredithsheil@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;justinemclaughlin@huntershill.nsw.gov.au; garybird@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;zacmiles@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;markbennett@huntershill.nsw.gov.au ;
peterastridge@huntershill.nsw.gov.au

Amalgamation

In other news, it was great to see 23 submission to IPART regarding amalgamation – addressing Hunters Hill’s proposal. Well done everyone! There were 5 addressing Ryde, and none addressing Lane Cove’s submission. There may be some distortion in the split between Ryde and Hunters Hill because the email we sent had a link to the Hunters Hill page, for the joint submission with Ryde. It could have been either, as the submissions were joint and same, but IPART required the submission to identify a particular Council.

You can see the media release from IPART here.

Next DA for GSV

Also in other news, the Developer will be holding drop-in sessions for the next DA concept at the GSV site. These will be on 6-8pm on Thursday 13th August and Monday 17th August.

Below is our submission re the Draft DCP

Appreciation for Quality of DRAFT DCP

We thank Hunters Hill Council and Place Partners for the work undertaken to date, and acknowledge the superior aspirations of this planning instrument over both of the DCP’s which were adopted by Hunters Hill Council in 2010, particularly relating to the key site (Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ (GSV) and surrounds) in Gladesville.

We believe that this quality of work should be extended to the entire required scope of this review, including parking, traffic management, and specific heritage protections. We also believe that the Planning Instrument should be re-formatted in a manner as to allow the reader to easily distinguish controls that are actually of consequence to development assessment, from explanatory & supporting information. We are concerned with the lack of specific / numerical controls against which a development application will be assessed.

Welcome changes

A number of proposed amendments are welcomed, including:

·       The increased requirement for activated street frontages,

·       The classifications of streets and associated definitions of controls (as an approach), and

·       The progressive setback & height pattern as articulated on page 19. The  diagram at the bottom of page 19, which seeks to visually demonstrate the setback and height patterns, is not visually consistent with the actual controls as set out  on pages 23-24 and 26-27, but gives rise to a number of issues, being:

a)     The importance of giving prominence (in the document) to the actual controls, as distinct from the broader concepts underpinning them,

b)     The value of a review of the Local Environmental Plan 2012, which should consider the merit of defining a transition as presented on page 19 to the building height controls surrounding the Gladesville key site, and

c)      Ensuring that the controls defined in the DCP actually align with the desired transition articulated on page 19.

Areas not yet addressed

We note with disappointment that the draft DCP amendments are lacking in these key areas:

·       Traffic flows and management, as were defined (albeit not necessarily supported) in the 2010 DCPs (the latter being consolidated in 2013). The inevitable traffic generation arising from increased commercial floor-space and residential dwellings in the Gladesville key site, let alone taken cumulatively with other developments in Gladesville under both the Hunters Hill Municipality & City of Ryde, require traffic management to be considered. Any requirement for a key site over a certain size to have direct vehicular access to Victoria Road must be considered and dealt with, as well as how residential streets may be expected to manage additional traffic loads associated with developments that are invited under the Local Environment Plan 2012.

·       Parking is a critical issue to local residents, businesses, staff, and customers alike. The success of Gladesville as a service centre to the broader Hunters Hill Municipality does depend, in some part, on the ability for those farther than walking distance from the retail/commercial precinct to access and conveniently park in the vicinity of shops. Parking was a key issue identified in the 270+ submissions received in response to the Development Application (2013-1036) lodged for redevelopment of the site.

·      Heritage protections. The modified Draft DCP removes the explicit controls and protections stipulated in the existing Hunters Hill Council 2013 DCP for significant Heritage items. Several items of important cultural and heritage significance exist within the precinct of the key site, the amenity of which should be articulated and protected in the new DCP. Specifically the property “Dunham house” at 2 Massey Street, which was previously singled out for consideration in respect of height impact from any redevelopment, has been totally removed. Further, no consideration has been offered to articulate protections for the latest addition to the list of Local Heritage items, being the building at 10 Cowell St.

Scope of the engagement

Page 34 makes reference to the parking controls defined in Chapter 5 of the existing DCP. We believe that it is remiss not to consider the adequacy of parking controls defined broadly for the entire municipality. The Future Gladesville initiative arose from requests to revisit the DCP as applying to Gladesville, particularly the key site, informed by 270+ submissions in response to the Development Application (2013-1036 for GSV) that largely fitted the DCP controls. Parking was identified as an issue.

Council’s request for Expressions of Interest for the DCP review engagement, contained in Council Meeting 4360 (10 June 2014) identified below (extract) as part of the project (highlighting added):

2.  A Public Education/Communication Campaign using innovative engagement techniques. This will cover but not necessarily be limited to the following information:

•                     The background behind increased densities in Gladesville. The scope of influence available to the public. 


•                     How increased densities will impact on amenity in the area: noise, service facilities, heritage buildings, parking and traffic volumes. 


We welcome the $80K investment to create a higher quality DCP, which recognises the importance of, and better balances, community amenity against developer objectives. We believe that it would be a critical weakness in an otherwise excellent endeavour, not to address the parking, traffic, and heritage details as discussed above.

Hunters Hill Council is bound by Option agreements to sell (at the will of the developer, unilaterally) the at-grade car park at 4-6 Cowell Street, which provides 30 car parking spaces that benefit the retail and commercial precinct of Gladesville by accommodating visitors. The loss of these parking spaces will be a direct loss to the community. Inevitable development at the Coulter Steet site, near the Gladesville RSL club, will change the parking provided for community benefit at that large open car-park also.

Cumulatively, an enormous increase in floor-space and numbers of dwellings is in progress across by the ‘Ryde and Hunters Hill sides’ of Gladesville, driven by the Local Environmental Plans of each Council.

The importance of parking, and of traffic management, cannot be overstated.

The Opportunity: Fit For The Future and the Joint Regional Authority (JRA)

While these proposed amendments to the DCP were being prepared, Hunters Hill and Ryde (as well as Lane Cove) Councils were spending and planning further expenditure exceeding of $100,000 (combined if not individually) on consultants, advertising, lobbying, and similar – of ratepayers’ money representing to the NSW government that amalgamation is not warranted and that cooperative cross-municipality coordinate, delivering economies of scale and superior management, with unanimous agreement, is a plausible alternative.

Since the lodgment of DA 2013-1036 (for GSV) in 2013 we have asked for an integrated parking and traffic study across Ryde and Hunters Hill sides of Gladesville, to consider the cumulative impact of development. We have not seen such a study.

If the JRA model is to be taken seriously, we hope to see that 2 member Councils can work cooperatively in a bilateral, simple, sensible engagement to deliver a study which considers the Building Heights and Floor-Space-Ratios of the Local Environmental Plans, and consequential impact on traffic loads and demand for parking.

Format & Content of the Draft DCP document

Section 79c (3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states, in relation to Evaluation of Development Applications and the applicability of DCPs (highlighting added):

“If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and

(b)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards—is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development, and

(c)  may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that development application.”

We believe that the subsection above creates the consequence that:

·       If a DCP codifies a control regarding an aspect of a development and an applicant’s proposed development meets it, then an applicant should expect that their DA is satisfactory in that regard,

·       If a DCP does not codify (numerically, or similarly objectively but not subjectively) a control, then it will be extremely difficult to succeed in an argument that it fails,

·       If a DA doesn’t meet the requirements of the DCP the consent authority is expected to take an accommodating view of the failure, and

·       For a control to be of value to the community, it must be codified at the expected standard (or greater), for the control to be expected to be effective.

It would seem to be a mistake to expect that statements of objectives or subjective expressions of the performance standard in the DCP will be sufficient to safeguard community objectives when a DA is assessed.

Accordingly, we look for the DCP to:

1)     ensure that the performance standard of each control that is represented to be important, is codified in a numerical or non-subjective manner, and

2)     that the actual controls which are defined performance standards (that an application should meet) are brought forward in the DCP so that the reader may clearly distinguish the actual controls from the supporting information, objectives, discussion, or other information which is beneficial but should not be confused as actual controls.

Conclusion

We welcome the quality of the DCP, thus far, but look forward to seeing the full proposal.

Controls dealing with traffic management, parking, and heritage controls are critical to this DCP delivering against the requirement of the engagement, which is particularly clear when viewed in context.

If the Joint Regional Authority model is to be taken seriously as a superior alternative to amalgamation, this is an opportunity for Hunters Hill (and Ryde) Council(s) to show how bilateral cooperation is achievable and that consensus decision-making and commitment to strategic planning initiatives is actually plausible.

Amalgamation / Fit For The Future, Survey 2 results, Counter-arguments – refer to the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition

Hi Everyone,

Council Amalgamation / Fit For The Future

Your opinion about local government does matter. NOW is the time to make a submission with your views on Local Government.

The NSW Government is proposing reform of Local Government through the Fit For The Future (FFTF) initiative.

Our submission, available on our website here, does not claim to represent your views. Please take a few minutes to make YOUR own submission directly to IPART.

To be clear, nothing in our submission is an accusation, explicitly or implicitly, of corruption or impropriety. Our references to actions falling short of the expectations of the community are exactly that, in our opinion.

The quickest and easiest way to make a submission is from the IPART website, at the link below.

http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Local_Govt/Special_Variations_and_Minimum_Rates/Applications_Determinations/Submission_Form?versionId=dbf698e6-8a9a-4587-8bed-1c68bcf776f0

You can either type/copy up to 500 words into the box, or upload a file with your submission (easier if you would like to submit more than 500 words). You can even choose to make your submission confidential.

A valid submission could be as simple as describing your:

• Desire for reform of local Government and boundaries not splitting integrated suburbs,
• Desire for fewer senior managers per head of population,
• Support for amalgamation of a smaller group of Councils instead of the mega-merger,
• Support for a model other than the Joint Regional Authority described in Ryde, Hunters Hill, and Lane Cove Councils’ joint response, and/or
• Anything else.

We encourage you to be heard, even if you don’t agree with us.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales (IPART) will assess how well the Councils’ proposals meet the FFTF criteria, and provide the assessment to the state government during October 2015. Council submissions were due 30 June 2015, and we all have until 31 July 2015 to make our own submissions.

You can learn more about IPART and FFTF at this link:
http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Local_Govt/Fit_for_the_Future

The public comments included as results of Survey 2 run by Gladesville Community Group are comments made by respondents and are produced in recognition that the respondent has taken the time to submit their comments. Our publication here does not imply agreement or support.

If you agree with our submission, please feel free to make reference to it (from Committee of the Gladesville Community Group) in your submission. Of course, you can make an entirely un-related submission, or make a submission that disagrees with ours.

The Counter-arguments: Refer to the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition

We also acknowledge the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition, lead by Phil Jenkyn and Ross Williams – referred to in our submission. Although we come to different conclusions, we have great respect for their commitment to the community, and agree with the importance of public access to elected Councillors. We also appreciate their support for Gladesville by way of making requests that promote transparency and align with community expectations, directly to senior representatives of Council. We encourage you to read their opinions at http://www.savehuntershill.org/.

Survey 2: Satisfaction with Council’s consultation for Fit For The Future

Thank you to the respondents to our second survey. The results were not released prior to now, but have been incorporated in this submission at Annexure 2. They can also be viewed separately on our website here.

Donations

Fit for the Future / Amalgamation

Please click here to complete our survey on Councils’ consultation process, ahead of their submission on “Fit for the Future” – the state government initiative for reform of local government.

The agreed notes of the previous meeting between the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition, and senior representatives of Council (including the Mayor and General Manager) are available here. We understand that Councillors have received legal advice but no General Meeting to deal with the instruments for disposal to the developer has yet been called – which is a source of great disappointment.

7 Pittwater Rd Gladesville

Members associated with the Gladesville Community Group have, to the best of their abilities kept an eye out on other DA applications across Gladesville and where possible actively participated in proceedings.  On particular example is the DA at 7 Pittwater Road where members have made submissions & presentations to Hunters Hill Council as well as the Land & Environment Court in relation to this matter.

Those involved are not against the development especially those which add value and vibrancy to the community, however we are greatly concerned with DAs which do not meet or flaunt the requirements of the Hunters Hill Council LEP and DCPs.

The DA at 7 Pittwater Road has been running since March 2014. The DA has had a number of revisions and from the last we heard the DA has not been approved by the HHC or the L&E court. As of June 2015 we believe the applicant has another opportunity to submit an amended DA for the site.

There have been a number of issues with the DAs at this site especially in relation to failing to meet requirements outlined under the Hunters’ Hill Council LEP & DCP including boundary setbacks, FSR limits, providing the sufficient deep soil and landscaping area required for the size of this site to name just a few of the issues.  A submission made in relation to this matter is available (available here).

Members will continue to monitor the progress of this DA & to the best of their ability and participate in proceedings where possible so as to assist in promoting DAs that meet the requirements outlined by the LEP/DCP and building standards of Australia.

10 Cowell Street – heritage listing (for the building)

Some good news, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, by Matthew Connellan of the Northern District Times, here.

At the Council meeting on Tuesday 9th June, Hunters Hill Council resolved to approve heritage listing the building – being the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street. This may be  expected to provide protection for the structure, but not necessarily retain it in-situ. It is a victory for those who’ve worked so hard to get this issue back on Council’s agenda, since 2012 when Council resolved neither to list it as a heritage item in the Local Environment Plan, nor to classify at as not worthy of listing.

During the 3-year period of uncertainty, Council has signed option instruments for the owner of the Gladesville Shopping Village to acquire the property at their will, and use in their proposed redevelopment (last concept exhibited included a tower standing 26 storeys over Gladesville).

The listing is late but very welcome and we thank the supporters for their efforts, including representatives of the Hunters Hill Trust, the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition, the Ryde – Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, and numerous individuals who’ve made presentations to Council or given their time and moral support to the cause.

Donations

Hi Everyone,

10 Cowell Street – recommended against heritage listing – to be resolved at Meeting 25th May 2015

Please find attached the relevant extract from the business paper for tomorrow’s Council Meeting (Monday 25th May) relating to the timber cottage at 10 Cowell Street.

We are disappointed to read the report from Council staff recommending that 10 Cowell Street not be listed, and hope that Councillors will move against the recommendation and resolve to pursue the heritage listing, consistent with Councillors previous resolution, and all credible expert opinion on the heritage value of the property.

We believe that any assessment of the relative merits of a development application, to be balanced against the heritage value of the existing property in-situ, should be made at the time of assessing such a development application. It does not seem right for Hunters Hill Council, so proud of its heritage protection, to start by denying the value of the property – to make it easier for a developer to proceed with an application to redevelop the site. The DA and the concept that we’ve seen for the site so far instil little confidence that the developer intends to balance community amenity suitably against their economic returns.

Questions about the process for the disposal of publicly owned land at the site

We also attach our questions to the Mayor and General Manager, about the process of valuing the land and entering into the option contracts, by choice, for the disposal of the public land – under which our land will be sold at the developer’s will. Copied below is the response from the General Manager.

It is important to note that the draft Local Environment Plan, which had been on exhibition and was in effect at the time of the s149 certificate being issued, included the heritage listing of the property at 10 Cowell Street. This document is noted in the s149 certificate as being the planning instrument referenced. Councillors have been told by senior staff (during Council meetings) that a draft Local Environment Plan is taken into account when a Consent Authority assesses a Development Application.

Response by Barry Smith, General Manager of Hunters Hill Council, below:

—–

Thank you for your email of 3^rd May 2015..

The email seeks a response to two questions.

The questions relate to:

1.            The s149 certificate attached to the contract for sale of 10 Cowell Street.

In respect of the 149 certificate information relating to 10 Cowell Street was correct at the time of issue.

The building situated on the land at the time of issue was not a local heritage item at that specific time.

2.            The instructions issued to the Valuer who undertook the valuation of a number Council properties, including 10 Cowell Street.

The purpose of the valuation was to understand the value of the property at its highest and best use, that is with ‘no constraints’.

The valuation was not provided as vacant land as there was and still is a building located on the land. At the time of writing its status was yet to be determined. Once determined that status may, or may not, impact on the value of the land.

The instructions were issued by the General Manager with the authority of Council.

—–

Agreed Actions after SHHMC meeting

We also attach the Notes of the meeting between the Save Hunters Hill Municipality Coalition and senior representatives of Council, held on 2nd March 2015. We note that there has been no Extraordinary General Meeting, nor any sign of Council’s intention not to proceed with the sale of our land to this developer – the action listed at 6(b).

Fit for the Future / Amalgamation

Related, on Wednesday 6th May (2 & 1/2 weeks ago) Council ran a ‘consultation’ session on the current amalgamation drive by the State government, known as “Fit for the Future”. Approximately 75 people turned up and were mainly supportive of Hunters Hill Council remaining an independent municipality. One 50+ year resident gave due thanks to Phil Jenkyn and Ross Williams (conveners of the SHHMC, referred above) for their efforts in preserving Hunters Hill Council as an independent municipality, and went on to comment on the threat that performance has for the likelihood of success this time. We share the gratitude expressed by all present, for Ross and Phil’s efforts and commitment to outcomes for the community.

In our survey of satisfaction with Council performance (February 2015) we had 140 eligible responses from 122 different IP addresses (locations), most identifying with Hunters Hill Council as the one they they are most connected to, and those survey results are available here. There is widespread dissatisfaction with Hunters Hill Council’s performance.

The importance 1) of proceeding with the heritage listing of 10 Cowell Street, 2) of refusing to sell our publicly owned land to a developer seeking approval for such inappropriate development, and 3) of ensuring quality planning outcomes in the eagerly-awaited redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’ – cannot be overstated if Hunters Hill Council wishes to regain the support of Gladesville.

General Meeting of Council 25th May 2015

Sorry we couldn’t give you more advance notice of the impending determination of the 10 Cowell St heritage listing. Those of us who made submissions were only advised that it would be considered at tomorrow’s meeting, on Friday (the business day immediately preceding the meeting). Come along and watch how Hunters Hill Council treats heritage items if you’re free!

SHHMC Notes of meeting with Council Final 3 March 2015 report by council Questions about 10 Cowell Street process

Kind regards,
– team and Gladesville Community Group.

Hi Everyone,

Hi Everyone,

– From the team at Gladesville Community Group