The community came together on a sparkling Sunday morning to protest against the proposed extension of the privately owned Woolwich Marina.   At a well-attended and upbeat event on the beautiful harbour foreshore at Horse Paddock, the ‘Paddle Protest’ of canoes, kayaks, small boats and sailing yachts was held on sparkling water, with crowds of supporters gathered on the shore.
 
They came to highlight the severe and dangerous implications of an expanded marina three times larger than currently, with double the capacity including catering for 25+m 3-storey high super yachts, alienating this public, historic foreshore to the sailing community and to the users of Kelly’s Bush and the Parklands.
 
Below is a selection of photos from the event:

There has been much publicity around this issue which is capturing the public’s attention and outrage – particularly at the potential implications for Kelly’s Bush (see our web post of 1st June below for all the issues around this proposal).
 
The SOS Team delivered a petition to Council containing 535 signatures against the Woolwich Marina expansion, in time for Council’s next meeting on Monday 23 June.    The number of signatures continues to grow, with people registering their concerns about the dangers of the marina expansion and the significant losses incurred to the community should it go ahead.
 
Sign the petition at https://www.sossaveourshores.com.au/woolwich-marina-petition to add your name to the community’s resolve to defend public waterways and backing Council’s commitment to protect this important open space for future generations.
 
Submissions on the proposal close on Friday 27th June so make sure you Have Your Say at https://connect.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/woolwich-marina-proposed-Development 
 
The Protest also made the front page of The Weekly Times published on the 18th June and the ‘To the Point’ article by Jim Sanderson explains why this expansion is unacceptable on every level.
 

 

 

 

 

Following the unanimous rejection by Hunters Hill Council and the Sydney North Planning Panel of DA 20230094 Alterations & Additions to the Woolwich Marina (see our webpost of 3 March 2024) the Applicant appealed to the Land and Environment Court (LEC).
 
The Trust and other community groups joined with Council as ‘parties’ to oppose this development (see our webpost of 25 August 2024) and an onsite LEC Conciliation was held on 19 September 2024 with a second day planned for 1 November 2024.   That date was subsequently moved to allow the Applicant time to produce more documentation – but the day before this scheduled hearing – the Applicant advised of their intention to terminate the Conciliation Conference.
 
This has resulted in a move to a full appeal hearing at the Land and Environment Court from 4 to 17 September 2025.
 
The Applicant’s new amended proposal has now been received by Hunters Hill Council and can be viewed at https://connect.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/woolwich-marina-proposed-development. Still missing are reports on aboriginal heritage, heritage, maritime archaeology and an updated preliminary site investigation.
 

 
These new plans now position the extended Marina completely around the Kelly’s Bush foreshore (as image above).  This represents an unacceptable takeover of a public amenity for private gain and is totally incompatible with the significance of Kelly’s Bush, the site of the world’s first Green Ban.  This change would monopolise public waters, risk turning our shared waterways into exclusive zones, and permanently impact on the vistas of the historic connection of Kelly’s Bush and Clarke’s Point across the water to Cockatoo Island.
 

We can protect our precious local parks, foreshore and amenities by actively opposing this unacceptable marina expansion.

 
Submissions close on 27 June 2025 and a Have Your Say form is provided on Council’s page, but if you prefer, submissions can also be sent via email to: info@huntershill.nsw.gov.au with the subject line Submission for DA20230094 Alterations and additions to the existing Woolwich Marina (please include your contact details).   This may be an easier option as it allows us to copy our objections to the mayor and councillors to register the strength of feeling on this issue:
 
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
 

The numerous problems with this proposal include:

• The lack of recognition of the social, historical and cultural importance of State Heritage Listed Kelly’s Bush and the unacceptable bulk and scale of large vessels having a devastating impact on Kelly’s Bush Park.

• The expanded Marina will be over 300% larger than currently and will double in capacity to 79 berths to accommodate larger vessels, which risks turning our shared waterways into exclusive zones.

• The significance of the visual connection between heritage items with natural, historical, cultural, social and aesthetic importance has not been recognised.   The obstruction of views to and from UNESCO World Heritage Listed Cockatoo Island and State Heritage Listed Kelly’s Bush, by moored yachts, some more than 25m in length and 3 storeys high, is unacceptable.

• The privatisation of over 18,500sqm of precious Sydney Harbour is incompatible with the social history and significance of Kelly’s Bush. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 makes it very clear the consent authority must consider that Sydney Harbour is a public resource, to be protected for the public good. The protection of the natural assets of Sydney harbour has precedence over all other interests.

• The alienation of foreshores and waterways and loss of safe public waters for adult and junior sailing, kayaking and other small boats

• The very real fire danger posed by yachts with combustible material parked next to precious native bushland and local homes, with no easy access for fire-fighting equipment.

• Increased noise and light pollution on a fragile marine environment, kelp forests, seahorses and adjacent bushland wildlife.

• Dangerous disturbance to toxic seabed waste around Kelly’s Bush waters, formerly used for heavy industries

• The traffic congestion and loss of parking on narrow local streets

 
If you wish, you can also express your views to the following Ministers:
 
Federal Member for Bennelong Jerome Laxale: Jerome@jeromelaxale.com
Federal Minister for Environment Senator Murray Watt: senator.watt@aph.gov.au
State Minister for the Environment Penny Sharpe: office@sharpe.minister.nsw.gov.au
State Minister for Transport John Graham: office@graham.minister.nsw.gov.au
State Minister for Planning Paul Scully: office@scully.minister.nsw.gov.au
 
And in addition you can contact the following supporters of heritage and the environment:
 
Chair of the Australian Heritage Council The Hon. Bob Carr: AHC.Secretariat@dcceew.gov.au
Senator David Shoebridge: senator.shoebridge@aph.gov.au
 
If you would like more information to assist you in preparing your submission the SOS team https://www.sossaveourshores.com.au are holding weekly community briefing sessions every Wednesday in June at the Hunters Hill Sailing Club at 7.30pm

• Wednesday 11 June
• Wednesday 18 June
• Wednesday 25 June

Like the Kelly’s Bush Battlers who fought and won the battle to preserve Kelly’s Bush for the people

WE CAN STOP THIS NOW!

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”.   Even with the recent announcement of one additional bus service along Victoria Road, an expected increase in population of at least a thousand residents, means that the congestion on this major commuter route will only get worse.
 

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

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

There was the inevitable 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 even 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 appears inconsistent 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