1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville

To amend the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels, reference 2016SYE117 PGR)

39 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Kirsten Schumann commented

    Dear Sir,
    To increase the building height from 28m to 58m is extreme and out of context of the area. Clearly this is to encourage skyscraper towers to be built along the Cowell Street area, causing shadow and ghetto like areas with tiny lanes for car access and little to no parking. This is not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville.I object to this building height incease proposal and add again that there is very limited car access to this area that is clearly being positioned for massive development.

  2. Jeff Hayes commented

    To more than double the height of allowable developments clearly goes against the surrounding area and will impact significantly on existing local residents. We are no strangers to developers who live out of the region attempting to place massively out of context buildings in the Gladesville/Hunters Hill area but this is change to the existing environmental plan allows for something that will be too large.

    Slowly but surely we are becoming the new Chatswood - but we don't have a rail line. So where are the infrastructure investments to go alongside the developments?

    Again, I object to this environmental plan amendment to increase allowable heights due to impacts on surrounding residents, car parking and congestion issues that will result from a major development and that overall it is not in line with the surrounding region.

  3. Nicholas Lea commented

    The increase in the proposed building height from 28m to 58m is well and truly out of keeping with the Cowell St local area. This will cast long and deep shadows over much of the surrounding area. To my mind, this is certainly not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville. We are not Top Ryde!

  4. Fletcher Simpkins commented

    I object to the increase in heights as this is a move to increase the density of people in the space, however, there is no planning for supporting infrastructure to deal with the added congestion. There are several medium rise apartment blocks approaching completion within a 2km radius of the proposal but no work has been undertaken for road widening, additional buses or ferries, additional parking. This development will greatly add to the congestion along Victoria and Pittwater roads.

    I also agree with other submissions that the high rise will not provide any benefit to local residences due to overshadowing and is out of character for the area.

  5. Gabriella Bruno commented

    Once again a development is being "amended" after they received approval for development at a certain height as they knew that if they put forth the proposal for 58m initially, it would have been rejected and there would have been uproar in the community. How can a government who is meant to have the best interests of the local community at heart, consider allowing this to be approved. Let them submit a new application for 58m and see if it goes through. Stop letting developers dictate our area and our way of life. No thought is being put into traffic congestion, infrastructure, schools. For the sake of the area, please consider the people first, before letting the developer in to demolish entire suburbs with no thought to the people already in it

  6. Leon Concannon commented

    I do not see how this proposed cluster of apartment blocks in Massey/ Flagstaff Sts with heights of up to 58 metres is in anyway in-keeping with the local character of Gladesville area. Out of character especially as ALL the other existing or proposed developments in the Gladesville business district are 5 or 6 storeys maximum! Please understand this Gladesville area was only rezoned as Medium Density by the Premier O'Farrell Government on the premise that the State Government would build a light rail system which would incorporate a Gladesville Station (I still have the colour brochure!). The light rail didn't go ahead unfortunately ...but the Medium Density Rezoning did! . As every survey that has been done to date has indicated that just this one development alone will put a significant strain on Gladesville's inadequate local road system.
    With this in mind I ask that the panel please take into consideration the CUMULATIVE effect the many Gladesville developments (either recently completed ,underway or in the wind!) will have on local infrastructure , the local residents quality of life , local traffic congestion and of course the problems getting these shoppers and residents on and off the congested Victoria Road. There are also major concerns for local residents as all proposals from this development company have insufficient parking for retail staff and for the residents with more than one car.
    If approval of a large development like this is supposed to provide opportunities for the average young local person and young families to buy into the Sydney market.. Then I am sorry but I can confidently predict the average price will be in the $750 000 plus range ! These prices simply do not make it possible for young people to buy into the Sydney market?
    Regards

  7. Sarita beukes commented

    This is a huge development that will impact negatively on the local amenity of Gladesville. There are currently numerous residential developments along the Victoria road corridor in Gladesville that have much more sensible height restrictions. Without a large scale improvement to local infrastructure, this development application is unfeasible.
    I implore you to reject this development application and instead negotiate for a smaller scale development of the site with more sensible height restrictions that are in keeping with the near by developments occurring.
    Regards

  8. Alana Clark commented

    Once again it seems amendments are being made to previously approved developments, with minimal community consultation and consideration. Gladesville residents are not opposed to growth and change in our area, but we do oppose developments that are growing beyond the acceptable scope, especially when it puts unreasonable pressure on our already limited number of schools and the availability to service the growing population in the area with roads, transport and facilities.

    We don’t want to live in the shadows, send our children to out-of-area schools, or schools with no playgrounds, sit in traffic mere metres from our homes because intersections are gridlocked and spend hours commuting to and from the city because of bottlenecks and public transport issues.

    We accept there needs to be progress and change, but please consult with the community about what is fair and reasonable for us already living here.

  9. Sharon Murray commented

    I do not approve of this increase; we do not want our entire suburb to be in the shadow of tall apartment blocks, blocking out the sun! I have lived in the Gladesville area now for over 10 years and do not wish it to become a high-rise neighbourhood. Please do not pass this increase, it would seem to be motivated purely by greed!
    Thank you

  10. S & S Ahern commented

    We object to the proposed increase in height for this site. This overheight proposal was objected to and revised previously, but now this latest proposal seems to be trying to go back to the excessive height. It also seems to be being pushed through far too quickly, with not enough time for resident comment.

    To increase the building height from 28m to 58m is extreme and out of context of the local character of the Hunters Hill Council area. It will also cause massive parking and traffic flow problems in adjoining streets. And where are the infrastructure investments to go alongside the developments?

    This over height development should not go through in its current form, it should be reduced to the previous lower height proposal.

  11. J&M Owen commented

    Gladesville is becoming an ugly overbuilt, over-trafficked concrete jungle. I can't understand who is approving all these hideous huge apartments in what was such a quiet, calm, beautiful, green and quaint suburb. Its not fair that no matter how much we the people of Gladesville object, the building just keeps going on. Green spaces are being bulldozed to make way for more pokey yet towering concrete (ugly coloured) eyesores. Putney Hill is an absolute never-ending atrocity. It looks like the great wall of China. To think of the wildlife that has been pushed out of that area due to the clearing of so much vegetation is selfish and thoughtless. We are getting ducks and Ibises in our yard now - we never used to - they have nowhere to go.
    Apartment blocks are sprouting up and over residential home backyards that have been there for years. I can't imagine having a block of units towering over my backyard like that so I feel for my Gladesville neighbours. This is absolutely unacceptable and our voices should be able to put a stop to this frenetic building marathon. Enough already.
    Therefore, our household is over it, we object to this proposal.
    Yours sincerely

  12. Scott Mackenzie commented

    Significant developments already occurring and more to come for Gladesville Town Centre. Developments on the Victoria Rd Corridor North Gladesville, major developments in Putney, Ryde, West Ryde up and down the Victoria Rd corridor to Parramatta. Now a development completely out of character FSR/Building Heights increased with those previously agreed ? THERE IS NO HEAVY RAIL IN GLADESVILLE OR ON THE VICTORIA ROAD CORRIDOR, the transportation to the West of the CBD on the Victoria Rd corridor has been neglected and ignored. NSW JOINT PLANNING PANEL - TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN RYDE COUNCIL AND HUNTERS HILL COUNCIL PARTICULARLY IN GLADESVILLE TOWN CENTRE AND SURROUNDS - SCALE DOWN THIS PROPOSAL - IT IS LUDICROUS AT BEST AND FARCICAL.

  13. J&M Owen commented

    Gladesville is becoming an ugly overbuilt, over-trafficked concrete jungle. I can't understand who is approving all these hideous huge apartments in what was such a quiet, calm, beautiful, green and quaint suburb. Its not fair that no matter how much we the people of Gladesville object, the building just keeps going on. Green spaces are being bulldozed to make way for more pokey yet towering concrete (ugly coloured) eyesores. Putney Hill is an absolute never-ending atrocity. It looks like the great wall of China. To think of the wildlife that has been pushed out of that area due to the clearing of so much vegetation is selfish and thoughtless. We are getting ducks and Ibises in our yard now - we never used to - they have nowhere to go.
    Apartment blocks are sprouting up and over residential home backyards that have been there for years. I can't imagine having a block of units towering over my backyard like that so I feel for my Gladesville neighbours. This is absolutely unacceptable and our voices should be able to put a stop to this frenetic building marathon. Enough already.
    Therefore, our household is over it, we object to this proposal.
    Yours sincerely

  14. Helen Andrews commented

    I am one of many long term residents of Gladesville and consider that the proposed development will destroy the village atmosphere. This and (until recently) lack of over development are in essence the reasons that people remain. In addition, over the past decade younger families have moved into nearby streets attracted by the relative peace and quiet of the area.

    Since 2013 the residents of Gladesville have been subjected to proposal after proposal to develop the Gladesville Shopping Village. All of these proposals have been out of character with the surrounding residential area and have not taken account of other developments under construction or planned. Consultants engaged by Hunters Hill Council have all identified shortcomings with the proposals. If this latest proposal goes ahead it will destroy the character and amenity of Gladesville and increase pressure on already overcrowded schools and transport systems. The proposal to increase building heights by 123% at worst or 70.6% at best, and to increase floor space ratios by 161% at worst and 26% at best, are highly offensive.

    The local community is not against development per se and understands the need to meet Sydney’s growing population. However, they would not forgive any government that destroyed our suburb by approving this application.

  15. SC Wilson commented

    The Council did a traffic study around the Western Cres/ Linsley St/ Cowell St area a while ago..... that should have meant something.
    With so much media attention around poorly-built pea-sized apartments in cities that do not assist the aging population (who REMAIN in their homes with gardens)
    WHY purposefully increase the population of Gladesville when ...
    •our schools
    •car parks
    •Huntley's Point Ferry - car park

    are already insufficient for current demand.

    If there is not sufficient infrastructure & services in place CURRENTLY.

    My prediction for the future...
    HH and Ryde councils will build all over our 2km stretch of Victoria Road and thereafter blame each other for lack of foresight/ lack of any amenities on either side of the 70kmh bus thoroughfare ( no cars) which bisects the (past/ historical) "village" atmosphere.....

    UK/ The many and varied London suburbs provide plenty of warnings & red flags .... a sign of quality & flair being keep it green, minimalist and habitable OUTside the front door.....

  16. Andrew Franz commented

    We are 25-year residents of Gladesville and owners of Ryde.news, a local media startup.

    This amendment to the LEP is being sought because a PARTICULAR Development Application failed to conform to the original LEP. Because the amendment is a RADICAL CHANGE from the original height restrictions, it cannot be considered merely an 'amendment'. Therefore the ENTIRE LEP should be considered from the perspective of the fundamental LOCAL environmental objectives for Gladesville and reissued for public comment and feedback.

    If the wishes and needs of the Gladesville community are not respected then we will ensure that representatives at all levels of government are held accountable.

  17. Michael Gannon commented

    My major concern with the proposal and its size is the lack of infrastructure to support such a large development on top of the developments already approved. Namely:

    1. Traffic flow: with traffic already bad through Gladesville on Victoria rd at all times of the day, I would see the additional residents (the volume that is proposed) making through traffic on Victoria rd very painful. This will push "rat runners" through quiet residential streets. What does Hunters Hill Council/ the developers propose to keep traffic clear on Victoria rd while ensuring residential back streets don't pay the price for poor planning?

    2. Public transport: for a complex of this size there should be sufficient rail transport hubs such that is located at Chatswood, Epping, St Leonards and NW rail link. If you want to buil high rise, please do it where there is sufficient rail transport networks.

    3. Amenity: Insufficient green space in the proposal and a towering apartment block does not fit well with Hunters Hill/Gladesville. Please have a long hard think about what the right thing to do is for the benefit of the community (current and future) not developers.

    Kind Regards

  18. Andre Shrimski commented

    I've been living in Gladesville for 10 years. I agree with many of the comments above that the wonderful thing about this area is the village atmosphere and easy convenience of living here.

    I'm concerned that increasing the max building heights is going to have a negative impact on the area, opening the doors to high density high rise living, and casting shadows across the surrounding streets. Not to mention the lack of infrastructure to support the sudden increase in population.

    I understand that Gladesville will need to become more populated over the next few years, but please can we do this in a measured, sustainable, and intelligent way, preserving the unique qualities of the area? The quick buck mentality is easy now, but if we stand up to that pressure, the long term future will be much better for the majority of local residents.

  19. Anne Wagstaff commented

    Lack of infrastructure to accommodate the extra density of housing and the change from a suburban feel to a high rise scape are the main reasons I oppose the vastness of this proposed development. The community needs are being sacrificed while developers are reaping the gains.

  20. Russell Young commented

    The team at Gladesville Community Group are following this attempt to change the planning controls, and will be providing information to email subscribers.

    Community members should send an email to mail@gladesvillecommunity.com to join the email list. The Gladesville Community Group website is out of date but information is still being sent to subscribers by email.

    There are many valid comments on this website and it is understood that they will be provided to the consent authority, but we understand individual submissions (letters or emails) sent directly to the consent authority to mean more than 'petition' style submissions.

    The applicant will have well-funded professional submissions arguing for their case. The community needs to be organised and informed if we are to properly argue against such amendments to planning controls, and associated Development Applications.

  21. Rachel Morgan commented

    I am a local resident.
    It is disappointing to see amendments used as a way to circumvent thorough consultation procedures.
    The large buildings are not in keeping with the housing in local streets. It is aesthetically unappealing but also totally impractical in terms of transport, roads and schools.

    Victoria Road, while being a significant through-road between the city and Parramatta, cannot cope with increasingly over-sized apartment blocks. There has already been significant traffic issues in relation to other developments nearing completion. Once accommodation is open, this will only increase. Other streets in neighbouring councils are feeling similar pressure and are causing great stress on bus and road networks. The devlopment between the Gladesville Bridge and Ryde is already putting pressure on schools, traffic, transport and amenities. We chose to live here because it was not like Chatswood, Roseville, Burwood and Artarmon.

    This is an unacceptable change to community culture. We do not want to be a a ghetto-like suburb which has lost its character and intimacy.

  22. Sabina FIELDING-SMITH commented

    I am a long term resident of both Ryde and Hunters Hill Council areas. I have seen it go from a green oasis to a ghetto of apartments which puts pressure on all aspects of living in these areas. Throwing up over height 'butter boxes' will not increase the quality of life for those in such buildings or those in domestic housing sitting cheek by jowl - it is totally out of character with the area and will cause many problems with traffic, parking, safety the general amenity and 'community' of the area - low quality of life for all residents will ensue. It is not in keeping with the area and should be reviewed down. Where is the infrastructure to support such an over development? Only the councils and developers win from such a development proposal. This needs a total re think - definitely back to the drawing board with more input from the community about what we need - not what will line pockets.

  23. J Gibson commented

    I'm a long time resident of gladesville - within HH council area - and strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons;
    1. Overshadowing - I live 3 streets from the site and stand the risk of being overshadowed by massive tower blocks - why should so many residents be so affected by the prospect of such a huge increase in scale?
    2. Traffic - Junction St, Venus St and Batemans Rd in the near vicinity are extremely narrow streets. Currently these streets are used as rat runs at afternoon peak for those seeking to avoid Victoria road gridlock. How do we think these narrow local roads might cope with such large scale development / extra residents / local traffic movements? (Batemans road is 6.7m wide). Has this been assessed?
    3. Local amenity - gladesville public school is bursting at the seams, local parking is terrible, footpaths are narrow (eg Massey st between Victoria Rd and the shopping centre). None of this is amenable to the proposed scale and size of this site.
    4. Other developments - please consider the multitude of other developments in the gladesville area and their combined impact.

    I agree with sympathetic and appropriate development in the area but just not to this scale and proportion. I cannot believe anyone (except the developer) could think this is in any way good for Gladesville.

  24. amber short commented

    As a new resident to this area i am astounded at this proposal.

    Part of the reason we chose to move to this area was that lack of building denstiy. and relatively low traffic congestion compared to other surrounding areas. the village of gladesville feels like home, and the sense of genuine community was a big draw card to us.

    After reviewing the application and the amendments made, proposed changes and recent changes to the planning laws it is a clear manipulation of the system that this developer is attempting.
    being approved on an application of 10 stories was the right decision, now "amendments" have been made for an even taller building, it should in all rights be declined without question. Should they reapply with a new DA for a similar structure it too should be declined on the same grounds. There are many buildings of approx 10 stories in the area, built at various times. they have significant green space and thus 10stories is in keeping with the local area. 25 stories is an abuse of local planning laws.

    Recently there has been a number of significant high-density developments in the Ryde area along Epping road and in that surrounding area. While those developments put strain on existing infrastructure unlike Gladesville there is a train line which can absorb the significant increase in numbers. HOWEVER these other nearby developments strain many other things that we share with them like schools, hospitals and sporting facilities.
    There are a number of developments currently underway in Gladesville along victoria road which once completed will increase demand on public infrastructure. The schools in the area are already at capacity, the hospitals in the area are in desperate need of significant upgrades, the roads are in poor condition, littered with potholes, and constantly used by busses and large trucks as well as regular traffic. more consultation with state government is required to improve those services BEFORE problems arise. adn before further large scale developments are accepted.

    With the closure of college road, and the impacts on the local bussiness' , not to mention the effects that building bunnings will have on thoes local bussinesses, coupled with other residentional developments there is already a shortage of accessible parking to other local bussiness' as shown by the significant number of vacent shopfronts, and local inductrial spaces.

    The local supermarkets are small and busy, with limited parking and no nearby street parking. local small bussiness such as doctoers, chemists, and various other local run and owned shops for food, clothing and gifts are being significantly impacted by large scale development as they are covered in dust, subjected to noise, have limited parking removed and their customers are displaced.

    Gladesville has historically been a working to upper middle class area, where hard working families coudl raise their children in a safe and delightfully enriched area. Dont turn your back on history.
    Small appartments in high rise buildings is not enriching.
    The area still has significant number of original owner builders who are active members of the comunity, however their needs have changed as their age progresses. Long term rate payers and residents, the people who have paid their rates for over 30years should not be pushed asside - maintain the comunity and it will reward you.

    While i understand there is a perception of an abundance of space in this area, that is just ripe for developments, and that may be the case, there is a multitude of ways that can occure, without high rise, in a more harmoneous, sustainable manner.

    This development could by overshadowing significant numbers of local residents effect their property value. it is not acceptable that so many peoples lives should be negativly affected because one company wants to make as much money as they possibly can. These developers do not have to live with the ramifications of thier developments , we as residents DO.

    In all matter i object to this development on grounds of :
    - inappropriate for this communty
    - size, height, and overshadowing.
    - strain on inadequate infrustructure.
    - abuse of the current planning laws by the development company.
    - lack of green space.
    - lack of sustainable building practices.

  25. Melanie commented

    To the planning committee
    I appreciate that development is inevitable right across sydney to accommodate the increasing population, surely this should be done with respect and sensitivity to the local community. I have seen first hand the debacle in Lane Cove which had rendered a once beautiful area become so clogged with people and traffic you can no longer drive two ways down a street. The schools are overflowing and resources stretched to the limit.
    Business is business and I understand there are always those looking to make money off others, but perhaps council should Enforce a provision for those making money off the local community that a significant portion of the profits need to be reinvested in the local community to improve infrastructure and schools. Surely we need a quality local, co-ed high school before we need even more accommodation? So disheartening that money seems to speak louder than reason.

  26. Sharon Whitbourn commented

    I have been a resident of the Gladesville area all my life. This new amendment to the existing application is a back door to overdevelopment of a low rise area which seems to have suddenly become part of the high rise commercialisation of all major arterial roads. We have more than adequate large scale shopping areas at Ryde, Drummoyne and Macquarie to cater for the commercial and retails requirements of our region. I am not opposed to the reasonable modernisation of the Gladesville shopping precinct nor some increase in building height but the current number of high rise developments along Victoria road threaten ghetto like conditions for living into the future for this area. Further pressure on existing infrastructure in an area of national historic interest will be deterimental to the environment and lifestyle of those who live in this community. Allow the developer the original 28 meters, anymore is just greed on their part to take advantage of the state governments increased housing density plans into the future.

  27. karen mackinnon commented

    Stop over developing gladesville and putney! There is a way to increase housing and beautify the area without ugly high storey unit towers shadowing housing that has been there for years and destroying beautiful areas. Respect the people who live in these affected areas and understand how much emotionally and financially you are affecting their lives.

  28. Lisa cipriani commented

    Our family objects to this development proposal! This new development will ruin the atmosphere of Gladesville and will turn it into a mini Rhodes with high rise apartments. We do not have the public transport or villiage facilities -enough strip malls and amenities to support this growth.

    It will also ruin the natural bushy landscape in the surrounding streets near Morrison road, glades bay park etc.

    Our roads are already congested enough and the increase in cars will be horrendous for our streets, neighbours and wildlife that exists in the area.

  29. Rebecca Hansen commented

    To double the height of buildings is clearly not in keeping with the surrounding area. There is no train or transmission infrastructure for the people who inhabit such structures to commute. The surrounding streets are narrow and difficult to access. This area is already a traffic snarl. Please use some common sense and dismiss this application.

  30. Liesl Bailey commented

    The Development Control Plan for the Gladesville Town Centre speaks of development that is in keeping with the local area and which seeks to enhance and strengthen the local community. While it is understandable that with Sydneys population pressures that higher density living is inevitable, this should not be done at a cost to current neighbourhoods. The Gladesville/Hunters Hill precinct is not a mini city like Parramatta and should not be developed in a manner which is not in keeping with the areas character and amenity. What has been proposed is a sky scraper which is inconsistent with other developments in the area and in considering this, the governing authorities are dismissing the essence of our local community, the plan which was put in place to control the appropriate development of our area, as well as significant resulting over- shadowing and loss of privacy to one of our areas main primary schools. The council has furthermore not behaved with integrity in trying to amend local zoning in this area. There has been little to no fair, reasonable or transparent communication, putting the Council at substantial risk of a community disengaged and openly at arms against this development. Further, with other planned, existing and proposed developments in the area, how can we as local residents have any faith that due consideration is being given to crime prevention, waste control, the increased burden on already stretched schools and public transport. We are a residential neighbourhood of quiet streets and families with young children. There is not the infrastructure, the justification nor the community support for this development. Listen to your constituents!

  31. Rob Dalton commented

    Dear Panel Members,

    Please consider the following:
    - Traffic (please refer to the Gladesville Shopping Village Traffic Report)
    - Schools (Gladesville Public School is full - please talk to the head mistress)
    - Tower Height (58 m is totally out of context to the precinct of Gladesville - I'm sure those living to the south of the proposed tower will be affected by the shadow - it's not appreciated and not warranted - imagine this, 58 m is 17 m higher than the Gladesville Bridge at 41 m).

    I do hope common sense prevails.
    Thank You for your time.

  32. Kevin Johnson commented

    I object to this proposal for the reasons mentioned in other objection notices - the proposal is far too large for the Gladesville/Hunters Hills area which is already experiencing issues with traffic, parking, public transport and lack of community services to cope with the influx of thousands of new residents expected from this and multiple other nearby developments. Previously the North West Metro was planned to go through Gladesville - now that these plans have been abandoned what is the traffic and public transport plan to cope with the new residents on the Victoria Road route to the city which is already one of the most congested traffic routes in Sydney?

    My main objection is the obscene scale of the proposed development - until recently the highest development in the Gladesville area was 5-6 stories and my understanding is that this is 7 stories under the Ryde Council LEP (I object to the Hunters Hill LEP amendment to a 28 metre height for this development which I believe that this is far too high and out of context with the area). A number of residents recently unsuccessfully objected to the 230 Victoria Road 7-storey development and argued that a 5-storey development was more appropriate for the area. For the Sydney East JRPP to argue for an increase up to 58 metres is outrageous and completely out of context with the area. I have trawled through the documentation relating to the development proposal and have not seen anything to explain why the size of the proposed development is appropriate for the area.

    All comments submitted suggest strong objections from residents to the proposal. I have not heard of a single Gladesville or Hunters Hill resident who supports this development proposal (this applies to both the 28m and 58m heights). It should be noted that the vast majority of objectors are not anti-development and support responsible and appropriate development. My understanding is that Hunters Hills Council also object to this proposal. For the Sydney East JRPP to propose a new development of such scale - especially at a time of uncertainty with Council amalgamations - is irresponsible planning which appears to be completely absent of community consultation. I do not understand how the Sydney East JRPP can recommend a development which grossly exceeds LEP guidelines - is there any point to having a LEP if the JRPP can seemingly easily override it and propose a development which is greater than 2 times LEP height limits? I can assure the Sydney East JRPP that our strong community objections will be directed to our local, state and federal government members - including Rob Stokes the State Planning Minister - to stop this proposal. I would also recommend that we ascertain how the Sydney East JRPP could recommend a development of over 20 storeys? (it would be appreciated if someone can confirm # of storeys proposed) in an area where current guidelines excluding this development are for a 7 storey maximum and where no other buildings exceed 7 storeys.

  33. A Leon commented

    An amendment of such significance should in no way be considered an amendment rather require a new application.

    The existing infrastructure surrounding Cowel St and the remainder of Gladesville in no way can withstand the increase in traffic and population.

    As a local business owner of 16 years, even though an increase of residence might be of benefit to me, it proposes a detrimental and negative effect on our coveted community.

    I implore that the existing local community be taken into consideration prior to any approval and this "amendment" to the application be rejected.

  34. I Luft commented

    I oppose the proposed plan to increase the height of this building application.
    Apart from being completely out of character with the built environment of the local area, my main concern, which is more than just the scale of this building, is the massive increase in residents per square metre in the local area, with no improvement to infrastructure. Particulary roads, public transport, schools and other services.

    The additional height means additional people and this again increases the population density. We already have insufficient public transport and clogged roads. This development will just further perpetuate these problems.
    Sincerely,
    I Luft

  35. Luka Krivacic commented

    Appallingly out of context and scale for the area.

  36. Stuart ireland commented

    As a local resident I strongly object to this proposal. I am sad to say council will probably have little influence on this decision. The Baird government are throwing up high rise apartments around every arterial road into city without future proofing infrastructure. Stand up for your community against Baird or it will disappear.

  37. R Lim commented

    No, thank you.

  38. Angela O'Grady commented

    I strongly object to this proposal for a number of different reasons. As a local resident I have a vested interest in the community of Gladesville.

    Firstly, what is the point of having planning instruments and guidelines set out in the LEP if developers can breach the height limitations and almost triple the FSR entirely for their own financial benefit?

    The height of the proposed building will cause overshadowing for the surrounding low density residential dwellings and impede on their natural light.

    The scale of the building will not be in keeping with the aesthetics of the area and the scale and bulk completely breech the planning guidelines. The impact from the increased traffic on the local roads has not been considered and the local roads will not withstand this increased high density. Without improving the infrastructure on Victoria Road and consideration be given to alternative modes of transport, the use of cars will continue to dominate the area and therefore the surrounding streets will be impacted.

    The lack of planning for community infrastructure for example no planning provisions for extra primary school or high school classrooms. The current local schools cannot cope with an influx from the current developments currently under development, so I fail to understand the lack of consultation with other planning silos.

    The impact on the environment and the lack of sustainable sensitive planning. We need more green space to counteract the carbon load from the apartments being built and one of this magnitude cannot be offset.

    And finally, the shear lack of community consultation. The community are the major stakeholder in this development site. It is only through sensitive planning with the community that a successful development can be considered. These types of developments require much more consideration other than the immediate FSR and height impacts.

    The heritage significance of Gladesville cannot be disputed. 10 Cowell Street is listed in the Hunters Hill LEP as Local Significance. I strongly disagree with the proposal to move the dwelling as stated in the Heritage Impact Statement commissioned by the developer:

    “10 Cowell Street be either relocated; or the heritage values of 10 Cowell Street should be conserved through interpretation and the incorporation of significant heritage fabric (ie. pressed metal ceilings and walls) into a contemporary structure that would be incorporated into the new development.”

    This is our history and should be preserved. The planners in the 70’s destroyed enough history; please don’t let history repeat itself. This is an opportunity to maintain the character of the area and prevent it turning into an urban jungle.

  39. G Foley commented

    I strongly oppose this modification. There is no need for this height development in gladeville.

    It will be out of place with the current local community and the new developments built and being built on Victoria rd. These 4 to 5 story units with shops underneath enhance the local community not destroy it.

    The success of the developments at hunters hill shops shows that it can be done we.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts