Issues
Lack of community consultation on the new ‘Masterplan’
Council's new 'Masterplan' Planning Proposal is, in fact, no longer a Masterplan. The original Gladesville Masterplan was presented to the community for consultation in September 2021, and it included the entire Victoria Road frontage from Pittwater Road to Junction Street. It was intended that planning controls be developed in a way that considered that entire area. This was a welcome initiative.
Previous community feedback ignored
The 2021 community consultation identified a preference for ‘Option 1’ of the 4 options presented for the Key Gladesville Shopping Village site within the Masterplan. This option had a floor space ratio (FSR) of 3:1, a building height of 15 storeys and about 370 apartments on the site. You can find the Block Plans on the Council’s website via our Planning Documents page.
‘Option 1’ presented for the Key Site in the 2021 Gladesville Masterplan.
Following this community consultation, in October 2021 Council resolved unanimously that “lower height options be investigated” and that it would "continue to consult and involve the community in the development of the Masterplan". Neither of these things have happened.
No community consultation on the new plan
In November 2023, Council resolved to “endorse Council-led planning proposal investigations to facilitate the implementation of the Gladesville Masterplan project”.
Since the acquisition of the Key Site by property developer Third.i Group in 2025, the Council-led Masterplan has effectively morphed into a site-specific Planning Proposal for just the Key Site – without community input. The Proposal includes an increase in the FSR from 3:1 to 4:1, an increase in building height of up to 19 stories, and an increase in the number of apartments to 522.
At a Council meeting on 28 April 2025, Council resolved to forward the new Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning seeking a Gateway Determination. Councillors Lane and Williams opposed this, arguing that a plan that had changed as significantly as this (25% increase in FSR) should go to community consultation before going to Gateway (normally in planning a change of 10% is considered a new plan). They were outvoted.
The Gateway Determination was issued to Council on 22 September 2025, approving progression of the Proposal with some conditions.
At the Council meeting on Monday 23 February, Council resolved to move the updated Proposal to public exhibition (as required by the Gateway process), along with an updated Development Control Plan.
So now we get to have our say on a proposal that has moved in a direction we were not expecting. The good news is these plans are not set in stone yet and can be changed. Feedback from Councillors, the Hunters Hills Trust and previous community campaigns is that the only tool that is effective in changing Council's direction is direct action by residents. The more submissions Council receive about this project, the more likely they are to make amendments. So now is the time to speak up!
Accuracy of the Economic and Feasibility Study
When questioned on why they are proposing such a large increase in FSR and height for the development, Council have referred to The Economic and Feasibility Study as the major driver.
This study, done by HillPDA, can be found as an attachment to the Planning Proposal document. Council argues is not feasible for the developer to develop the Key Site at a density lower than 4:1 while still providing the minimum requirements for publicly-accessible open space.
However, we think there are some flawed assumptions in the feasibility study that lead to an underestimation of the revenue likely to be realised by the developer, and therefore a likely underestimation of the feasibility of less dense, lower options.
A key assumption in the study is the expected sale price of the residential apartments. The study bases the expected sale price on recent (before Feb 2025) sales of similar apartments in Top Ryde, Putney and Meadowbank – not Gladesville.
Recent sales prices of new apartments in Gladesville are significantly higher than those used in the
HillPDA study. The proposed development is on a ridge and will have extensive views in all directions
which would suggest an opportunity for significant sales price premiums. Here is a comparison of sales
values assumed in the study vs average recent sale prices of apartments in new developments in
Gladesville, including Jordan Hall (on Western Cr near the RSL).
An analysis using these recent sales figures compared to those used by HillPDA shows this would increase the total sales revenue for the 3 Options for development presented in the study by greater than 15%.
Estimated increase in development sales revenue:
Option 1 – $79 m
Option 2 – $113 m
Option 3 – $137 m
The HillPDA study provides only limited advice on the sensitivity of the model. To quote:
"At FSR 4:1 project feasibility improves showing both the development margin and project IRR achieving 9.5% to 10%. These levels remain a little below target. However sensitivity testing shows that with an improvement in end sale values of around 5% the development margin increases to 15% and the project IRR to 13% which begins to look possible."
We think it is valid to request that the Economic and Feasibility Study modelling be re-visited and sensitivities in end sale values of 10% and 15% be explored to determine impact on feasibility metrics.
We believe the community should not suffer the detrimental effects of overdevelopment to ensure
development profit. The tail is wagging the dog if the community is expected to keep changing the
planning controls to accommodate developers’ interests.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed new Woolworths development on Victoria Rd (opposite the Sawdust Hotel), has a lower FSR (3.79:1) than that proposed for the Key Site, and a height of only
48.4m (mix of buildings 9-14 stories). This development includes 171 apartments, 12 of which will be
affordable dwellings. Presumably the Woolworths site developer has calculated that this lower
density and height development is economically feasible.
Housing incentives mean towers could go even higher
The NSW Government’s in-fill affordable housing provisions in the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) offer developers a bonus of up to 30% in floor space ratio (FSR) and height for residential apartment buildings and shop-top housing. This applies if 15% of the gross floor area is dedicated to affordable housing (managed by a registered community housing provider) for at least 15 years.
That means if Council’s current Planning Proposal is approved and the regulations in the Local Environment Plan (LEP) are upped to a FSR of 4:1 and height of 70m, the developer can then apply directly to the NSW Government for the up to 30% bonus, which could result in them being able to build with a higher density FSR of 5.2:1 and a height of up to 91m. That equates to buildings of up to 28-30 stories!
Note that there is no provision for affordable housing in the current Planning Proposal. We believe this means it is highly likely that the developer will be pursuing the bonus 30% uplift.
Impacts on traffic and public transport
With up to 522 new apartments plus new shops and cafes on the site, increased traffic and pressure on public transport are critical issues that need to be thoroughly assessed. Has Council done this? It would appear not – the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) provided in the Planning Proposal is outdated and inadequate, as both the Department of Planning and Transport for NSW have pointed out.
One of the conditions in the Department's Gateway Determination was:
"Prior to community consultation, consultation is required with Transport for NSW.
The planning proposal and supporting material should then be updated to address
TfNSW comments."
This did not happen.
The TIA indicated that the development will generate a total of 565 trips in the am peak and 829 trips in the pm peak. The existing number of trips was not included. How can we assess the impact of the development on traffic when we don’t know what the actual increase in trips is?
Another condition of the Gateway Determination was that Council update the TIA to provide detail of the increase in traffic generation. Transport for NSW also requested this be done. Council has not done it.
Transport for NSW also stated:
“The TIA report states that the proposed development would generate a total of 565 trips in the AM peak and 829 trips in the PM peak. This is expected to have impact on the intersection of Victoria Road / Cowell Street, particularly the right turn from Victoria Road into Cowell Street, however, any impact mitigation measures, such as extension to right turning lane or lane reallocations would be subject to further investigation. SIDRA modelling to assess the traffic impact on the surrounding road network should therefore be undertaken and not be exempted for a development of this scale.”
Council seems to have waved this request away by putting a point in the DCP to say that "further investigation is to be undertaken.” When do they plan to do this? Again, how can we assess the impact of the proposed development when we don’t know whether the roads around the it can handle the extra traffic?
The only information regarding public transport in the planning proposal says that the area is well serviced by bus stops but that these need to be upgraded. What about the frequency of actual bus services? There is no information provided about the impact on already overflowing bus and ferry services. Council appears to be leaving this problem for Transport tor NSW to figure out later.
We need to know the answers to all these questions about traffic and public transport now in order to make informed decisions about the impact and feasibility of the planning proposal.
Interestingly, at a meeting on 24 September 2018, Council unanimously resolved to reject a similar but substantially smaller proposal for the Key Site put forward by the previous owner of the site. One of the reasons given for refusal was:
"Roads and Maritime Services, together with NSW Transport and McLaren Traffic Engineering, have identified that the proposed increase in floor space would have untenable consequences for Victoria Road traffic, trunk bus services and the local road network."
How is it that Council could accept that a smaller development would have untenable consequences on traffic and public transport in 2018, but then go on to propose a larger development in 2026 when the road and traffic conditions have worsened and public transport services have become even more overloaded?
Over recent years there has also been substantial change in traffic patterns in the feeder roads around the proposed development. This has been in part due to increased use of navigation apps sending more traffic up local roads to avoid traffic lights and congestion on Victoria Rd. Traffic from Pittwater Rd now uses Venus St, Cowell St, Junctions St and Batemans Rd as rat runs to access Victoria Rd city bound in the morning peak hour.
The TIA presented with Council's current Proposal provides no assessment at all of existing conditions on the local road network or any assessment of the impact a development of this scale would have on these roads. A comprehensive study of the area bounded by Ryde Road, Pittwater Road, Victoria Road, Prince Edward St and Gladesville Road should be undertaken, including detailed monitoring of current traffic in residential streets. Council should then update the Proposal to include solutions for community feedback before moving forward to Gateway determination.
Excessive height causes overshadowing and other problems
The proposed apartment towers of 19 stories, at up to 70 m high (or possibly up to 91 m with 30% affordable housing uplift), cause multiple problems for the community.
Firstly, they create a negative impact on visual amenity – i.e. they could be a massive eyesore that we will have to live with every day. Hundreds of residents will be looking at these towers from their homes. And conversely, hundreds of new apartment owners will be looking down into many of our homes and backyards, creating a privacy issue. Such huge towers are out of scale and incongruous with the surrounding low-rise residential streets, many of which are heritage conservation zones and contain multiple heritage-listed houses.
The high towers will cause unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring properties, including Gladesville Public school. The following image shows the increase in overshadowing of the school with the proposed 19-storey towers vs the 15-storey towers in the previous Masterplan. This is for mid-winter at 9 am. The overshadowing studies only looked at the time period from 9 am onwards, but the shadows would be even longer before that time, so even more of the playground would be in shade while the children are out playing before school. And if the towers end up higher than 19 stories, the overshadowing will be greater still (see the overshadowing diagrams in the Planning Proposal).
Increase in overshadowing of Gladesville Public School with 19-storey towers vs the 15-storey towers in the previous Masterplan (increased area is shown in blue).
With towers of 19 stories there is also the problem of overshadowing of the publicly-accessible open spaces within the development. Council's own reports show significant overshadowing of these areas, particularly in winter.
Environmental wind is another potential problem with a development of this scale, particularly because of its situation on top of a ridge. There is no environmental (pedestrian) wind assessment provided in the Planning Proposal. This is a significant omission as the massing and building heights proposed could create a significant issue for Cowell St, Flagstaff St, the proposed publicly-accessible open spaces and the pedestrian connections between these and Flagstaff St.
Winds from the south and west (across Victoria Rd to the face of the proposed towers) will create downwash that will accelerate flows around the base of the towers at podium and street level (wind tunnel effect). This will have particular impact on the pedestrian link between the public space and east end of Cowell St with these zones potentially becoming uncomfortable for large parts of the year, especially when combined with the overshadowing. This is of particular concern during the cooler winter months when south-westerly and westerly cooler winds are prevalent, and during summer storms from the south and south-west.
Council should undertake both qualitative and quantitative assessment of environmental wind to guide the approved massing, height and final design of the proposed development.
Finally, if the proposed density and height changes are approved for this site, it will set a precedent for other developments in future. We don’t want Gladesville to end up dominated by overscale, overshadowing apartment towers that ruin the character and village feel of our suburb.
Desired outcomes are not guaranteed
It’s important to understand that this phase of the planning process is about Council getting the planning controls changed to allow the oversized development they propose. The images in the documents and on Council’s website are just hypotheticals at the moment. The actual plans for the designs of the buildings and open spaces come later when the developer lodges their Development Application.
However, there are some important broader design aspects that we think it is important for Council to be more instructive about to ensure good outcomes. This can be done by adding clauses into the Planning Proposal’s recommended changes to the Local Environment Plan (LEP), which is the legally binding planning instrument that the developer must adhere to.
Currently, the only real changes to the LEP that Council is proposing are to change the floor space ratio from the current 2.7:1 to 4:1 and the height from the current 34m up to 70m. The only other amendment is a clause that says the development needs to "adequately" reflect the new Development Control Plan (DCP). Here is the one paragraph outlining the proposed amendments to the LEP:
6.11 Development of Gladesville Site
(1) The object of this clause is to facilitate the development of the Gladesville Site, including
residential accommodation, retail and publicly accessible open space.
(2) This clause applies to land in Gladesville identified as “Area A” on the Key Sites Map.
(3) Development may exceed the maximum permissible height to an overall maximum of 70 metres in accordance with subclause (5).
(4) Development may exceed the maximum permissible floor space ratio to an overall maximum of 4:1 in accordance with subclause (5).
(5) Development consent must not be granted to development on the land unless the consent
authority is satisfied that the requirements of ‘Section 4.4 - Gladesville Village Centre’ of the Hunters Hill Development Control Plan have been adequately addressed.
This is not what was recommended in the Gyde Masterplan Study which has guided the Proposal. The Gyde study recommended including clauses to safeguard outcomes like minimum areas of public open space, minimum area for retail, etc. The following are the Gyde study's recommended amendments to the LEP for implementation of the Masterplan:
Council initially adopted these recommendations, but they have now dropped them in the current proposal in favour of the limited amendments shown in blue above. They say this is in response to the Gateway Determination condition that states:
"Provide further justification on the need for such a detailed local provision and to demonstrate that it won’t impact on the site’s ability to redevelop."
We believe Council should provide the justification for the detailed clauses rather than take them out to allow the developer more flexibility. These are the safeguards we have to ensure these important outcomes are delivered. The Department itself says that local provisions can be made to address matters that are relevant to the local area and may include:
"Defining local design objectives or neighbourhood character", and
"Other provisions that reflect the outcomes of local strategic planning and consultation."
Other provisions that could be added include :
- A provision to ensure NO overshadowing of Gladesville Public School
- A provision to include affordable housing
- A provision to ensure a percentage of street activation (shops, cafes, etc along street frontages) on
Cowell St and Flagstaff St (there is currently no provision for this in the DCP so they could be just blank
walls and loading zones).
- Design excellence criteria
Council needs to push back on the Department about this issue to ensure the design of the development achieves the outcomes the community wants. Other Councils regularly include such provisions for specific sites, so why shouldn't ours?
These are all specifics that relate to the Key Site. However, we think the best outcome for Gladesville would be to re-look at the whole town centre as per the previous Masterplan. See the Our vision of the town centre page.
Sterilisation of remaining blocks
The new Planning Proposal has carved out the Key Site from the previous Masterplan, so what impact does that have on the remaining blocks?
The new plan effectively ‘sterilises’ the other sites around it, leaving them too small to redevelop. In the case of the townhouses on Massey St, Council has downgraded their zoning from Mixed Use 1 (MU1) to Medium Density Residential (R3). The R3 zoning is more restrictive than MU1 in terms of what can be build there (e.g. not as likely to allow cafes and restaurants and the like).
The Council’s reasoning for the rezoning is “To provide improved urban transition between the site and adjoining developments and to reflect the scale of development permitted on adjoining residentially zoned areas.” To us it sounds a bit like a non-compete clause on the developer’s behalf.
The Key Site.