Please refer to the link below for the Hunters Hill Trust’s excellent submission to Hunters Hill Council about the Planning Proposal which intends to change the controls in the Local Environmental Plan – as they would apply to redevelopment of Gladesville Shopping ‘Village’.
We are grateful for the articulate and intelligent submission which seeks to prevent further degradation of Gladesville from being a functioning suburb. We hope that Hunters Hill Council will take the Trust’s points seriously.
If you haven’t done so already, please email Hunters Hill Council to express your opinion at email@example.com.
The Hunters Hill Trust’s submission concludes:
“We do not support any of the clauses proposed by the Pre-Gateway review.
The clauses relating to open space, “good design”, etc. have been designed in a pathetic attempt to ameliorate the negative impact of proposed increases in density on the site. When “good design” is proposed as a bargaining chip for increased densities it implies that “bad design” is acceptable provided the arithmetic control boxes have been ticked. This, of course, makes a mockery of the current LEP and DCP as well as begging the question: “who will be the arbiter of “good” design?”
We are particularly outraged by the idea that Council would offer up to the developer potential sites for the relocation of the once publicly owned heritage item at 10 Cowell St, which are public parklands and essential open space.
The Trust has opposed Council’s sell-off of 10 Cowell St to the developer since it was first mooted. We have never deviated from our opposition to this act of barbarism from a Council that claims to be a champion of Heritage.
To now have Council proposing that the developer should plonk the cottage down in public parkland just adds insult to injury.
It is clear that any proposal for the GSV that increases its density, population and building heights will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding low density residential areas and on the amenity of people wishing to visit the shops and offices housed in the site.
The Trust therefore objects to the Planning Proposal in its entirety.”