At Council’s meeting on 28 April, a resolution was passed to escalate the Council-initiated Planning Proposal for the Gladesville Shopping Village through to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) for a Gateway Determination BEFORE a public exhibition period is held for community comment.
 
The two Independent Councillors argued that, as this was a new Planning Proposal for building heights that have already been rejected by the community, as well as by Council when a 16 storey tower was proposed, the Proposal should not proceed to Gateway but be put on public exhibition for community comment.  This argument was disappointingly rejected.

Council has now pushed through a Planning Proposal which will increase the density, population and building heights in Gladesville, a total change of character that will be detrimental to the surrounding mainly low-rise neighbourhood and the amenity of people living in and around the area. We are very disappointed that residents have not been given the opportunity to comment until after the Gateway approval process, by which time any suggested modifications could prove difficult to implement.

The following issues remain unresolved:
 

1. The proposal enables overdevelopment of the site

Council’s Planning Proposal does not provide the promised improvements to Victoria Road and the shopping strip, nor address the site as a whole, as anticipated in the Gladesville Masterplan and as specifically requested by the Local Planning Panel.
 
The Proposal only addresses one area of the site (Block 4) adding two 19 storey towers above a 2 storey retail podium. The proposed layout could even allow up to 23 storeys, completely out of context with the surrounding mainly low-rise established neighbourhood.
 

2. Amendment of our Local Environmental Plan

Council proposes to amend our Local Environmental Plan via “additional site-specific provisions” to incentivise development and allow increases to height and floorspace ratios in order to facilitate favourable developer financial returns.  This sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of our LGA.
 

3. Population density for this site has approximately doubled

Even with this density there is no provision for affordable housing. In addition there is no information as to how new residents from the 522 apartments will be absorbed into the local infrastructure and already congested peak hour traffic on Victoria Road and surrounding streets.
 
Council’s own Transport impact Assessment states: “It is anticipated that the future Gladesville Development would generate a total of 565 [car] trips in the AM peak and 829 trips in the PM peak”.   The Mayor’s assertion that if the State Government approves the development, it is up to the State to invest in additional public transport is at best optimistic, when Transport for NSW have previously confirmed that this is not possible.
 

4. Parking issues have not been fully resolved

Only “a review of on-street parking patterns” will be undertaken by Hunters Hill Council.
 

5. Overshadowing of Gladesville Public School

There has been no thought given to the right to sunlight for primary school children.   In addition, the potential reduction of green space is concerning when this proposal could allow the 3400sqm open space to be reduced to 1800sqm.
 

6. Demolition of a protected heritage building

The cottage at 10 Cowell Street is a loss to the community and its demolition is of great concern to the Trust.

Council seems to believe it can outsource all risks associated with this project to developers, but the community has a long memory and will continue to hold  Council accountable for the outcomes on this site.

 

If you would like to express your own views, please contact Paul Scully, Minister for Planning & Public Spaces at
https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces 
 
Contact the Mayor and Councillors at:
Mayor@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
JuliaPrieston@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
MarcLane@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
TatyanaVirgara@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
CarlaKassab@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
CarolTannous-Sleiman@huntershill.nsw.gov.au
RossWilliams@huntershill.nsw.gov.au

On 9th April, Council held a ‘Library Consultation’ meeting inviting community feedback on the functional spaces required for a library building. The proposal is to demolish the Croquet Clubhouse, the Respite Care cottage, the Community Hall and Community Services building (pictured below) between 40-46 Gladesville Road at Hunters Hill Village, and replace them with a two storey (and potentially higher) development that includes a library and some of the functions of the existing buildings.  Neither traffic congestion nor parking were covered in the presentation.
 
The consultant architects have stated that the building is being designed to comply with the current LEP and, as Hunters Hill Village was not included in the recent planning reforms introduced by the NSW State Government, we will be looking for Council’s reassurance that the current LEP restrictions on height and density in this location will be maintained.
 
Questions and concerns were raised about the justification for this major new project as Council appears to have gone straight to a Consultation for a ‘Building Brief’ before standard preliminary steps such as the Business Case and Needs Assessment, Financial Risk or Cost/Benefit Analysis, have been made available to the community.
 
It is important to remember that a similar multi-storey development with residential units in this location was proposed as part of Council’s Property Strategy in 2020, and the community’s objections were clearly expressed at that time.  The Strategy was not supported at Council’s meeting of 26 April 2021 with a motion that ‘options and associated financial modelling be investigated’ prior to its adoption (See HHT JOURNAL December 2020 and our webpost of March 28, 2022).
 
This would be a massive undertaking by Council, for which the cost is likely to exceed the available capital and recurrent grant funds.  One estimate of the build cost (based on floor area estimates) was approx $12 million for a 1250 square metre building, but it is not known if this covers demolition or potential underground parking. Residents need to understand Council’s assessment of the estimated build cost and the likely ongoing recurrent costs to the community of maintaining this development.
 
We note the priority areas expressed by the community in the Community Plan 2022-2032 rated the need for Library services (not a Library building) in last place behind Managing financial sustainability:

• Footpaths
• Roads
• Traffic management
• Managing development and the development application process
• Managing parks, playgrounds and open spaces. Innovation in sustainability.
• Managing financial sustainability
• Library services

 
We have written to the Acting General Manager, Mayor and Councillors HERE to express our concerns and to request they seek further community input regarding the wider implications of this project. 

For instance what would the community’s views be, if:

Having a library building, means terminating the current agreement with Lane Cove for use of their very good and extensive facilities?

In order to deliver this facility, height limits were increased to three, four or more storeys along Gladesville Road.

There was a strong likelihood of additional traffic adding to the congestion in this already popular zone.

There was a possibility that Council may need to take on a large amount of debt, rely on a developer or increase its recurrent deficit for staffing the Library?

We are concerned that Council is working towards producing a ‘draft Building Brief and associated designs’ before the community has been given the rationale, potential scale or ongoing costs of this development.  The Trust supports the principles of open and transparent communication enshrined in Council’s recently endorsed Community Engagement Strategy and this process does not appear to be consistent with these principles.

The tragic news of the recent poisoning and vandalism of mature trees, including a significant 120 year old Moreton Bay Fig plus several mature Casuarinas and Eucalypts at Horse Paddock in Woolwich, was a devastating blow to residents. The article below appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 January 2025.

The area is managed by the Harbour Trust who reported that eight trees were poisoned and approximately 30 trees damaged Tree Vandalism at Horse Paddock Woolwich
 
The Harbour Trust is working with both the NSW Police and the AFP to investigate this crime and signs have been erected at the site of the destruction. This is yet another deplorable attack on the mature trees so valued by the community, by selfish individuals who are determined to destroy anything that stands in the way of their view.

 

A Vigil for our Trees

The SOS team www.saveourshores arranged a Vigil near the site on 9 February and their message was:

Trees don’t have a voice but we do!

Parkland trees are precious natural assets protected by law.

They belong to the community and provide invaluable amenity, beauty, shade ad wildlife corridors for many species of birds, mammals and other biodiversity.

Over 75 residents gathered to hear passionate speeches about the immeasurable benefit provided by canopy trees and listen to Indigenous elder Aunty Mary’s powerful message that our social and physical wellbeing is wholly dependent on our respect for nature.  Her heartfelt speech was delivered and appreciated by her audience, in spite of the deliberately deafening music being played by a nearby resident.

Urban Forest Management Strategy

The subject of tree loss was included in Council’s recently exhibited draft Urban Forest Management Strategy prepared by consultants for community feedback and the Trust’s submission to Council is HERE
 
The known benefits of maintaining tree cover, particularly large mature canopy trees, which it has been estimated provide 16 times the value to the community compared to small trees over their lifetime, is a major component of our urban forest.  Their role in mitigating the effects of climate change and providing clean air and amenity to the community is immeasurable.
 
Given the recent horrific experiences of tree loss via unlawful removal and deliberate damage, the Trust regards the robust protection of our highly valued trees, both in private hands and in the public realm, as an immediate focus.  We are urging Council to ensure there is much more effective monitoring and rapid response to the rash of deliberate destruction that is harming the environment and distressing our community.

Hunters Hill Council is asking for feedback on their Draft Community Engagement Strategy and we urge you to Have Your Say!
 
Comments need to be submitted by 5pm on 3 February 2025 and the stated aim for this strategy is “to enhance the capacity of Council to make well-informed decisions that clearly demonstrate community buy-in and support”.      As many past decisions have not demonstrated such buy-in, we are urging Council to display a much higher level of willingness to listen to residents and ensure there is a clear rationale and full exposure as to why decisions have been taken, and the process that has been applied by Council in reaching their conclusions.   The Trust’s feedback is here Draft Community Engagement Strategy & Community Participation Plan 240125.doc
 
Residents are entitled to greater transparency, which is also the aim of the Office of Local Government’s proposed reforms to the Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in order  “to ensure councillors are making decisions in full view of the communities they are elected to represent”.      Details of their proposals are here Office of Local Government Reforms to Council Meeting Practices and we are invited to comment before 28 February 2025.
 
In case you missed it, here is The Weekly Times article of 18 December 2024 summarising these proposed reforms.
 

As reported in our webpost of 10 December, at Council’s 25 November meeting, the 3 parcels of land including the significant foreshore site at 16C Vernon Street (opposite) were deemed ‘surplus to the needs of Council and the community’ and the motion to sell was carried 5 votes to 2.
 
The attempt to characterise this site as accessible only by the adjoining owner is incorrect.   Access is possible but has never been enabled by Council, and this site, which could become part of the Great North Walk, has been allowed to sit idle without any infrastructure or signage to encourage public use.
 
At Council’s last meeting of the year on 16 December, the resolution was put forward to authorise the sale and specify a ‘selective’ tendering method.
 
Objections were raised by community speakers that, apart from the controversial act of selling a valuable piece of public foreshore, this sale did not fit within legislative framework.  In addition, no Aboriginal heritage consultation has been carried out despite documented occupation along the Lane Cove River.
 
It was also argued by the Trust and others that the method of disposal should be by ‘Open’ tender to encourage any interested parties to bid which would give the best possible outcome for the community. Council staff maintained that the adjoining neighbour/s were likely be the only interested bidder/s and an invitation to submit a bid in a ‘Selective’ process was the best option. However when the motion was put forward, an amendment was requested by Councillor Virgara to change to an ‘Open’ tendering method, which was accepted and therefore became part of the successful motion.
 
The Vernon Street site already owes the ratepayers of Hunters Hill a huge return, given that Council had to compulsorily acquire it in 2005 for $2,515,000 after a lengthy legal battle with the adjoining neighbour, who may now be the purchaser.
 
If retained, this valuable asset will only grow in monetary value. So if the logic, as stated by Council, is to raise operational revenue in order to provide “intergenerational equity”, this action is inexplicable and contrary to the intention.
 
Detailed objections were put forward by Cllrs Williams and Lane, who argued that the disposal of the Vernon Street foreshore would be to the detriment of the public, and recommended pausing the process until Council at least had an accurate survey of the site and other important information on which to base a meaningful decision.      Regrettably this course of action was rejected and the motion was carried by the votes of Cllrs Prieston, Virgara, Tannous-Sleiman, Kassab and Mayor Miles.
 
Privatising a spectacular asset that will yield income only once, and depriving future generations of precious Sydney foreshore, is a tragic loss of public space and patently poor fiscal management.

As reported in our 4 November post below, a Public Hearing conducted by an Independent Chairperson was held on 13 November regarding Council’s application to reclassify the Fairland Hall site from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ land.
 
This site was originally gifted to the people of Hunters Hill and Council’s proposal to keep the Hall for the foreseeable future gives no reassurance because, with reclassification, the land becomes a saleable asset.
 
At the Hearing and in submissions, residents stressed the need to retain the existing ‘Community’ classification of the land on which Hall and the Playground stand.   There was general agreement that there is good reason to sell the two northern blocks adjoining properties below the 10m cliff, which would release funds to repair and maintain the Hall.
 
So we were optimistic on reading the recommendations made to Council in the Report dated 9 December 2024 which included the following:
 
“Subject to legal advice and Council resolution to subdivide the site ….

“Retain the southern portion comprising Fairland Hall and the playground as community land
Use funds from sale of the northern portions to renovate Fairland Hall “

“If legal advice precludes the process above:

“Seek legal advice about retaining the community land classification across the whole site and leasing/licensing access to the adjoining property owners which is authorised in an adopted Plan of Management…..”

Council’s further legal advice confirmed that:

“It is possible to reclassify only part of a lot (provided that the relevant part to be reclassified is specifically and accurately identified)….and to have that part discharged from any trusts, estates….affecting the land.”

 
This course of action would be a win-win for all by facilitating the sale/lease of the two northern blocks while retaining the community land even if it involved a survey of the boundaries, which we were surprised to learn does not currently exist.  However we were even more astonished at Council’s response that:

“Despite the recommendations in the Report and the public submissions expressing preference for reclassification of only part of the site, it is considered that reclassification of the whole of the site from community to operational should proceed…..”

Council argued that it needed ‘flexibility’ and ‘reclassification would facilitate the practical and orderly future stages of the proposed management of the site’.   But if there is no plan for the land on which the Hall and playground stand, what are these ‘future stages’ that have to be facilitated?
 
At Council’s last meeting of the year on 16 December 2024, Cllr Williams seconded by Cllr Lane, put forward an amendment to not proceed with the Planning Proposal to reclassify the whole site, arguing that Council should be following the Independent advice it has been given, particularly as this provided a workable solution to give residents certainty of the future of community land and allow for the sale of the northern part of the site.
 
The counter argument was made that no sale of the Hall was imminent and any future proposal would be subject to a full DA process and dependent on a suitable replacement being made available for the community.
 
Regrettably, the option to honour the original generous donation of land for community use was rejected in favour of an uncertain future and potential sale. The motion was carried by the votes of Cllrs Prieston, Virgara, Tannous-Sleiman, Kassab and Mayor Miles.

We were delighted to be invited to yet another fabulous Jeanneret-built house for our 2024 Christmas Party!
 
‘Wyralla’ is said to have been a wedding present for Jeanneret’s daughter Florence, and we were very grateful to our hosts Elizabeth and David who generously opened their historic sandstone home to Trust members so we could enjoy a very special Christmas get-together. The house also held fond memories for some members who had previously lived in the neighbourhood. Interestingly, our local historian Beverley Sherry surprised us with the fact that this was the very last sandstone house built in Hunters Hill!
 
All agreed it was a wonderful evening full of good food and wine, excellent music and lots of great conversations!

At Council’s 25 November meeting regarding the proposal to sell 4 parcels of public land, including the significant foreshore site at 16C Vernon St (see our webpost of 2 October),  we regret to report that the Resolution that 3 of the sites (excluding a small parcel on the corner of Church Street and Reiby Road) are “surplus to the current or future needs of the Council and the local community and have potential for disposal”, was carried by the votes of Cllrs Prieston, Virgara, Tannous-Sleiman, Kassab and Mayor Miles.
 
This was despite strong opposition with 59 written submissions received against the proposal, 5 residents speaking against it, and a large turnout of concerned citizens to Council’s meeting.   
 
Amongst the arguments for retention of 16C Vernon Street in particular are:

• • This foreshore land is accessible to the public and access “should be increased, maintained and improved” in accordance with The Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan. It is noted as being included in the Great North Walk.
  • Contrary to Council policy, there has been no consultation as to its potential Indigenous significance.
  • In 2005 Council spent $2,515,000 in a compensation payment following a legal battle with the adjoining owner, who they now look poised to sell back to.

The value of this site to future generations, especially foreshore land in the Sydney Catchment area is immeasurable, and once sold it will never be available again.
 
The letters below on this subject were published in The Weekly Times of 27 November:

If you want to get involved in the fight to save our community lands and waterways, please look to the activities of the ‘Save our Shores’ community group at www.sos saveourshores.com.au

Council is proposing to reclassify the site at 14 Church Street, on which Fairland Hall and the playground currently stand, from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ use.   This land was originally gifted to the Hunters Hill community and reclassification would allow the whole area to be divided and potentially sold.
 
Although Council’s stated intention is that the site fronting Church St containing the playground and the Hall will be retained “for the foreseeable future”, this term is not further defined, which provides little assurance of its continued community use.
 
Nor has Council given any reason for re-classifying the entire site rather than just the two northern parts bordering homes in The Avenue, which it intends to sell. Once community land is lost it will never be returned.

 
Here is the Trust’s submission HHT Submission to NSW Planning re C A Fairland Hall, 14 Church St, Hunters Hiill.docx and for more information please see our web post of 23 August 2024 below.
 
This public hearing on Wednesday 13 November at 6pm in the Town Hall is intended to give the community an opportunity to expand on our written submissions and discuss issues with an independent chairperson. 
 
Register here to attend or request to address the public hearing

Below are the Trust’s submissions to two recent proposals from Hunters Hill Council:

Planning Proposal, 4 Pittwater Road, Gladesville

This site, owned by Hunters Hill Council, is located next to the Gladesville Library and is occupied by Gladesville Occasional Child Care Centre, a not-for-profit community-based child care centre.  The property falls within Ryde Council who recently sought feedback on Hunters Hill Council’s proposal to reclassify the site from ‘Community’ to ‘Operational’ land to enable future development or sale.  The Trust does not support the reclassification and our submission to Ryde Council is HERE.  Our main objections are:
 
a)   The proposal is not the result of Hunters Hill Council’s Property Strategy as indicated. This Strategy was not endorsed and Council papers from July 2021 state that that the Property Strategy was no longer being progressed.
 
b)   The land is currently being used for a valuable community service, Gladesville Occasional Care Service, which provides an affordable type of care, has been operating since 1983 and is only one of three childcare services providing this type of care in Gladesville.
 
c)   The loss of this service would impact families, particularly low-income families in the decades to come.  Extensive research has shown the value of early education in child development and Hunters Hill Council has recognised the value of this service by awarding community grants to the service over each of the last four years.  Yet it appears that Council has not provided any assurances that the service would be relocated.  Their Proposal now envisages that the best use of this site would be for residential and commercial outcomes, which is not consistent with maintaining a community based service.
 
The Trust believes that Ryde Council should not support this proposal at Gateway Determination and instead retain the Gladesville Occasional Care Service in its current location.
 

Disposal of Council Land Policy: Proposal

Hunters Hill Council is proposing to pass a resolution stating that the following 4 parcels of land are surplus to the current or future needs of the Council and the local community and have potential for disposal:

• 24 Gale Street and 527sqm at 16C Vernon Street
• 16C Vernon Street, Hunters Hill – Lot 31 DP 1040602
• Church Street (Cnr Reiby Road), Hunters Hill – adjoining 12 Church Street, Hunters Hill
• Land between 22 and 24 Gale Street, Woolwich – waterfront

Our submission regarding this policy is HERE and our main objections are:
 
a)   The Trust takes the view that the disposal of any Council land must be assessed on an individual basis. There has been no explanation as to why these particular four parcels of land are being grouped together, given the disparity in size of 14sqm at 22-24 Gale Street and 527sqm at 16C Vernon Street.
 
b)   We are particularly concerned about the sale of 16C Vernon Street located on the Lane Cove River waterfront.  Council’s 29 July 2024 Report incorrectly describes it as ‘accessible only by the adjoining owner‘.  An on-site visit clearly demonstrates that this tract of land between the neighbouring property and Serpentine Road Reserve is accessible via the Serpentine Rd Road Reserve.  Unfortunately, the access has never been improved by Council even though nearby signs point to the Great North Walk and Mornington Reserve further along the shoreline.
 
c)   When assessing whether the land is currently used or required for use in the future for community or public recreation purposes, Council’s Report states ‘The land is deemed to be cost prohibitive to become an active or passive recreational space‘. The Trust asks, how has this been assessed and is the estimate of cost available to the community?
 

 
The waterfront site (pictured opposite) at 16c Vernon Street is a significant parcel of land that cannot be classed as “remnant”. 
  
The Trust believes the potential disposal of this land is short-sighted and strongly advocates keeping foreshore land in public hands so that future generations of Australians can continue to have access to enjoy and explore their natural history and inheritance.