Hunters Hill Hotel re-development

Who will decide what gets built in Hunters Hill – the community or the developers?

The Hunters Hill Hotel has submitted a section 96 amendment to their approval to develop the hotel and car park site.

In The Trust’s view the original consent did not score well in meeting these objectives but the modified proposal does even less to satisfy the goals of the Development Control Plan that Council and the community have spent the last 10 years developing.  We urge members to write to or email the Council as soon as possible to register their objections to this proposal. The objectives of DCP 27 are to ensure that any development, among other things:

• Respects the recognised heritage values and positive architectural character of the village;
• Respects the scale and urban form of existing buildings;
• Provides for additional landscaping to the street;
• Ensures a high level of amenity by encouraging active uses at street level and through public domain improvements

Who will decide what gets built in Hunters Hill?  Here is an opportunity for Council to make a stand on behalf of all of us and insist that the development of the Hotel site complies with the planning controls agreed on by the community. We have until 16th April to get letters to Hunters Hill Council, PO Box 21, Hunters Hill 2110.  Email: council@huntershill.nsw.gov.au.

HUNTERS HILL TRUST SUBMISSION to Council

The Trust is opposed to the proposed amendments to the original consent for the following reasons

• The proposed changes to the approved application increase the level of no- compliance with the planning controls in DCP 27 for Hunters Hill Village.
• There is no additional public benefit by way of increased public space or landscaping or anything else as a result of the amendments.
• The proposed changes to the approved application will have an additional adverse impact on,
  • the desired character of the Hunters Hill Village core as set out in DCP 27 for Hunters Hill Village
  • the hotel itself, which is a heritage item.
  • the heritage item at No 62 Gladesville Road.
  • the amenity of the village core and the surrounding area because of the increased level of traffic generated and because of the changes to existing roadways, traffic lights and bus stops.  There will also be an increase in non-resident on-street parking.
  • Gladesville Road and the heritage item at No 62 Gladesville Road through overshadowing.
  • the amenity of houses in Avenue Road and Joubert Street through increased noise from the beer garden and overlooking from the units on the new fourth floor.
• The submission of an application to modify the development consent is not applicable in this case and a new DA should be lodged and assessed under DCP 27 for Hunters Hill Village.

A new DA is required

The proposed changes to the existing development consent are extensive and include changes to heights, boundary setbacks, the use of various areas and changes to external finishes, window proportions etc.  These are much more than what is envisaged by a Section 96 application, which states:

If the changes you propose mean the development will not be substantially the same as originally approved, you need to submit a new development application. (Please do not use this form).

Clearly the applicant should submit a new Development Application and that DA should be assessed in accordance with DCP 27 for Hunters Hill Village. Such an assessment would require compliance with the controls for height, density, boundary setbacks, building setbacks, relationship to heritage items and architectural character.

The applicant’s reference to “existing use rights” to justify non-compliance with the planning controls is spurious, particularly when there is no public benefit granted in lieu.

Need for clarity in the documents

The only drawings available for public scrutiny were at a very small scale (A1 reduced to A3, which is around 1:436) so that it even for a building professional it is difficult to determine not only the details of the treatment of the elevations, the proposed use of materials etc, but also the relationship of the various parts of the building either to itself or to its neighbours.

This is a major development in a critical part of the Municipality.  The development application should be fully illustrated and include a scale model of the proposal so that it is clear to everyone what is being proposed.

Non-compliance with DCP 27 for Hunters Hill Village

The Council and the community have spent the last 10 years and more developing the Development Control Plan for this area.  The objectives of DCP 27 are to ensure that any development, among other things:

• Respects the recognised heritage values and positive architectural character of the village;
• Respects the scale and urban form of existing buildings;
• Provides for additional landscaping to the street;
• Ensures a high level of amenity by encouraging active uses at street level and through public domain improvements

In The Trust’s view the original consent did not score well in meeting these objectives but the modified proposal does even less to satisfy them.

The modifications to the approval do not comply with a number of important controls including:

• Maximum building height
• Number of storeys
• Boundary setbacks
• Building setbacks from Gladesville Road.

Adverse impact on the character of the core area of the Village

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed revisions to the approval significantly change its impact on the character of the core area, the adjacent heritage items and the surrounding area in a number of ways including the following:

Building height and setback Gladesville Road

• The increased height of the 3-storey presentation to Gladesville Road exceeds the maximum height of 11 metres to say nothing of the additional fourth storey, which is 2.2 m above the maximum not including the lift over run.
• There is no set back of the third storey, which DCP 27 notes should be 3.5 m.
• This will adversely impact on the form and scale of the core Village area. The objective of the DCP is to create a 2-storey scale of buildings along Gladesville Road.  Third storeys are allowed but they must be set back to maintain the 2-storey scale.
• The additional building height will have a major impact on views of the site from distant vantage points such as from Tarban Creek and Figtree bridges.

Building height and setback from the rear boundary

• The increased height of units and the addition of the fourth storey will exacerbate the loss of amenity through increased noise and overlooking for the nearby neighbours in Avenue Road.  The proposal does not comply with the setbacks from the rear boundary set out in DCP 27.

Building height and setback from the heritage item at No 62

• The revised building is much closer to and does not set back from the heritage item at No 62 Gladesville Road.  Add to this the fact that a 13m wide truck bay is now right next-door and it is clear that this proposal pays no respect to the heritage item – it completely dwarfs it.  Even Urbis’s self-serving Heritage Impact Statement comments adversely on this aspect of the proposal.

A 13m wide truck bay on Gladesville Road

• This ugly industrial scale truck entry and exit point immediately adjacent to the small sandstone single storey heritage item at No 62 does absolutely nothing for the precinct.  The revised plans increase the width of this totally inappropriate feature.

Adverse impact on the heritage listed Hotel

• The revised plans have reduced the separation between the hotel building and the proposed 4-storey unit block.
• The height of the revised 3-storey element of the unit block has been increased so that it is now 2 metres above the main parapet of the hotel.
• The fourth storey element is 4.9 metres above the main hotel parapet.  This flies in the face of the objectives of the DCP as well as the original heritage advice from the Hotel’s own consultant, Clive Lucas, who advised that the new building should not be higher than the hotel.

Adverse impact of the design of the new unit block

• Not only is the new unit block too high, too close to the hotel and the heritage house at No 62 and way over the height and setback controls of DCP 27, its use of materials, proportion of openings and bulk is out of character with the Hotel. 
• The Hotel should set the scale and tone for the new building. The design language of the hotel is one of simplicity, a minimum number of different materials and horizontal lines.   In contrast the revised unit block is overly complicated uses too many different materials and has a vertical rather than horizontal emphasis.
• Whilst it too left a lot to be desired, the approved scheme is a more appropriate response to the hotel.

An overdevelopment of the site leading to poor planning for light, air and views

• The controls set out in DCP 27 are designed to set a standard for the future development of the Village that would be in keeping with its character and to produce an appropriate level of development on the various sites in the area.
• Apart from its failure to comply with Council’s planning controls in relation to its bulk, scale, architectural form etc, the residential part of the revised development is clearly an overdevelopment of the site.
• Residential units require natural light and ventilation for bedrooms and living rooms.  Ideally bathrooms should also have natural light and air.
• In this revised scheme the units have been crammed together so tightly that 3-storey high light-wells from the roof level down first floor level the building are required for light and ventilation. One of these light wells is only 3.5m x 2m and the other two are not much bigger.

• Some units look out onto a roof garden built over the first floor of the hotel and the main aspect of many of the units is to the south over and increasingly busy Gladesville Road.
• All this is simply bad planning and indicates that the design parameters were to maximise the number of units at the expense of the amenity of their occupants.
• This is clearly indicative of an overdevelopment of the site.

Traffic and Car Parking increases

• The modified proposal includes a whole additional floor of parking, which is to be cut out of Hunters Hill’s bedrock.  In itself this is a sufficient modification to the approval to warrant a new DA.
• The planning of the car parking areas also indicates an objective to cram the site to the maximum.  It has narrow access aisles and ways and a confusion of car parking access to the commercial parking areas with truck deliveries to the retail areas.

• The right hand turn in and out of commercial parking areas off Gladesville Road for both cars and trucks will cause considerable delays and traffic snarls especially when a bus is parked on the south side of Gladesville Road.
• The difficulty in accessing the commercial car parking and the limited car parking for residents will ensure the increased use Avenue Road, Figtree Road, Abigail Street and Martin St for street parking for resident’s guests and retail and hotel customers.

CONCLUSION

The proposed changes to the approved Development Application should be dismissed out of hand as they will have serious adverse impacts on this part of the Municipality.  Any future major revisions to the approved application should be the subject of a new Development Application and should be assessed under DCP 27.

Who will decide what gets built in Hunters Hill – the community or the developers?

Here is an opportunity for Council to make a stand on behalf of all of us and insist that the development of the Hotel site complies with the planning controls agreed on by the community.

Tony Coote, President, The Hunters Hill Trust