Month: November 2013

Hi Everyone,

Hi everyone,

The Hunters Hill Trust has made its submission on the GSV Development.

HH TRUST GSV SUBMISSION 7NOV13rf

It is an excellent submission which applies a professional standard of evaluation of the design, its impact on the community, and the performance of the Council. Please take a few minutes to read it. The Summary and selected extracts are shown below.

Remember to make your own submission, the more – the better. A short submission with a bullet-point list of your specific concerns is perfectly valid. We can’t all write submissions like attached, but we all have a right to be heard and to have our views taken into consideration – make a submission before the window closes on 15 November.

More info at http://gladesvillecommunity.com/submissions.html

SUMMARY

The Hunters Hill Trust is opposed to the proposal from Gladesville Shopping Village Developments Pty Ltd for the redevelopment of the Gladesville Shopping Village (GSV) for the following reasons:

1.It is an overdevelopment of the site.

2.The revised DCP, which sets the planning controls, is flawed and misleading.

3.It will have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential and commercial areas.

4.It will exacerbate existing parking and traffic problems.

5.It creates a poorly designed gated community physically separated from the rest of the area and fails to provide a safe and healthy environment for its occupants.

6.It involves the demolition of a building of considerable heritage significance, which was on land previously owned by Council.

7.The proposed GSVD redevelopment is a cheap and very ordinary proposition that is driven by commercial profit and pragmatism.

8.The Council, as a stakeholder in the proposal, has failed to properly represent the community by taking a leadership role in its development.

[From Section 7 – A cheap and very ordinary proposal]

The proposed GSV redevelopment is at base a cheap and very ordinary proposition that is driven by commercial profit and pragmatism rather than the aim of creating a fine public place with well-designed and properly integrated private housing, car parking and retail facilities. It does not aspire to excellence.

[From Section 8 – Council has failed to properly represent the community’s interest]

As a result of Council’s ineptitude the community has lost out. Profit and pragmatism have prevailed over the community interest.

8 November 2013

To: Mayor Richard Quinn, Clr and Deputy Mayor Meredith Sheil,Clr Justine McLaughin, Clr Zac Miles, Clr Peter Astridge, Clr Mark Bennett, Clr Gary Bird

Re: DCP for Gladesville Village Centre

We believe there is a clear call from the Community for our Council to protect the long-term interests of the residents and others with interest in this municipality.

The expectation that our Council should safeguard against poor quality development goes beyond the treatment of DA 2013-1036 for the redevelopment of Gladesville Shoppping Village (lodged in June 2013), and extends to the planning instruments under the control of Council. Specifically, we believe Council can do more to safeguard the quality of design that could be approved for this site, by improving the Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Gladesville Village Centre.

Amongst other impacts, the 2013 DCP removed the requirement for setbacks to Cowell and Flagstaff Streets, previously required under the 2010 DCP to be 5 metres with landscaping requirements, and reduced the parking requirement expressed as spaces per sqm of retail floor area. The writing of option instruments that subject our Council to the will of a developer, enabling the developer to acquire and demolish 10 Cowell St, is highly controversial. Given Council’s financial interest being linked to the commercial viability of this development, such actions must be viewed with concern, as the actions are contrary to the Objectives of the DCP and LEP, and the commitment to Heritage, which is often expressed. Actions are what count, and the adoption of any given DCP is an action of significant consequence in the planning and approval process.

Accordingly, we ask that Concillors i) take immediate action to urgently adopt a DCP for the Gladesville Village Centre which restores the superior requirements of the 2010 DCP, removing any validity that the 2013 DCP (adopted AFTER the lodgement of this DA) may have in assessment for DA 2013-1036.

Further, we call for Councillors to ii) task Architectus with improving the DCP, as was undertaken in respect of Hunters Hill Village. Ensuring quality of design and satisfaction of the Objectives of the DCP and the LEP should not be left to the subjective judgement of the Consent Authority of the day, but should be enshrined in planning instruments that codify and explicitly require that the quality of design that this site should attract, are achieved. The preservation of Number 10 Cowell St is clearly an issue which receives great public support, and must be addressed adequately by Council given the previous failure to accept recommendation for Heritage Listing, or to formally refuse.

It is imperative that, at this time when the State Government is seeking to reduce the power of Local Governments in Planning, Hunters Hill Council demonstrates its relevance and value to the local Community.

Russell Young (GladesvilleCommunity.com)                   Richard Li (GSV Action Group)

Hi Everyone,