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 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 70m (up to 24 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 in March/April 2026 we finally got to have our say on a proposal that had moved in a direction we were not expecting. See Community feedback has been ignored - again for results of the public exhibition.
Community feedback has been ignored - again
The results of the community consultation on the Planning Proposal showed unequivocally that the vast majority (82%) of the 674 submissions received were opposed to the development, largely because of the density and height (from which most other problems, such as traffic and overshadowing, arise). Another 12% supported it with conditions – mostly that is was made smaller or that infrastructure upgrades be assured before approval. Only 6% supported the Proposal. This community feedback has been ignored, with Council approving their proposed increase in FSR to 4:1 and height to 70m. This disregard for the community’s concerns has been an ongoing issue in the history of the development of the Masterplan, as detailed in the section above.
Council failed to genuinely investigate lower height options as promised
Community consultation on the previous Masterplan in 2021 identified a preference for ‘Option 1’ out of the 4 options presented for Key Site, which had an FSR of 3:1 and a building height of 15 stories. The feedback also showed the community thought that even 15 stories was too high. In a Council Meeting on 18 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 happened.
Instead, in 2023, Council started working on the current site-specific Planning Proposal with a recommended FSR of 4:1 and a height of 70m – without consulting or involving the community.
In March-April this year, the community finally got a chance to have their say on the Proposal. And the outcome of the community consultation could not have been clearer – the vast majority wanted a smaller scale, lower height development.
The most obvious way to address these concerns would have been to investigate lower density and height options. Or, if an FSR of 4:1 is truly a non-negotiable parameter required to achieve economic feasibility, as Council kept insisting, to at least investigate options with an FSR of 4:1 but with lower building heights and smaller areas of publicly accessibly open space.
Many submissions, including ours, called for Council to investigate lower height options as previously promised. A resident at the Community Information Session specifically asked the General Manager, Nick Tobin, if it was possible to have a lower height development retaining the 4:1 FSR, and he said yes, and that Council could show the community that. Council never did this.
The one lower height option that was modelled was a 6-10 story scheme which Council knew would not be economically feasible. We accept that might have been a necessary exercise to demonstrate to the community members who said they would prefer something that height that it was not possible. But other realistic options with slightly lower FSR, or the 4:1 FSR with, for example, 15-story towers and smaller publicly accessible open spaces, were never investigated.
Not only does this show a lack of due diligence, it is an insult to the community who should have been presented with genuine lower height options as promised, instead of the all-or-nothing 70m height recommendation.
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 increased to an FSR of 4:1 and height of 70m, the developer can then apply directly to the NSW Government for the bonus, which could result in 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.
There is also the possibility that if the DPHI approves the new height and density controls for the site, the developer will then apply to the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) for State Significant Development status. The newly approved density and height become the new baseline for negotiations for further uplift, so there is no knowing how high the towers might end up if that happens.
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 were critical issues that needed to be thoroughly assessed before putting their Proposal on public exhibition so the community could understand the impacts of the development . Council did not do this – the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) provided in the exhibited Planning Proposal was outdated and inadequate, as both the Department of Planning and Transport for NSW had 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 before the Proposal went on exhibition.
Another condition of the Gateway Determination was that Council update the TIA to provide detail of the increase in traffic generation before exhibition. Transport for NSW also requested this be done. Council did not do 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.”
Again, Council did not do this before exhibition.
The only information regarding public transport in the planning proposal said 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 was 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.
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 a 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 exhibited Proposal provided 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 have been undertaken.
Updates to the Traffic Impact Assessment post exhibition
SIDRA modelling (traffic impact analysis) – done after the exhibition of the Proposal – predicted future traffic queues over 1km long at the intersection of Victoria Rd and Cowell St when this development was included. This should have been a massive red flag to Council that the development is too large with insufficient traffic mitigation measures.
It is also critical that this development not be seen in isolation when considering supporting infrastructure like roads and public transport. There are over 2500 new apartments planned or under construction along Victoria Road between Top Ryde and Gladesville. Without the benefit of a Metro line, future and current Gladesville residents will be relying on bus services which are already at capacity, or adding to the traffic on Victoria Road which is already one of the most congested roads in Sydney
The true extent of possible overshadowing
The overshadowing diagrams shown in Council’s Planning Proposal presented just one possible scenario – their “preferred option” of two 19-story towers. But the height they actually proposed (and have now approved) was 70m, which would allow buildings of possibly 24 stories. And if the DPHI approves that new height and the developer then applies for the 30% bonus uplift by including affordable housing, the height could end up at 91m.
To show you just how far the overshadowing from buildings of those heights would extend, we have made two videos using images created in the ShadeMap App, one for 70m and one for 91m (see below). Note that we have placed just one tower where the current Coles shopping centre is, but in reality the two proposed towers could be anywhere on the site, so the overshadowing would be slightly different. It is impossible to present the exact overshadowing without knowing where the towers will be (Council’s own diagrams suffer from the same problem), but the reach of the overshadowing is clear to see.
The overshadowing of the Gladesville Public School playground is of particular concern. The DPHI asked Council to provide further analysis of the full extent of overshadowing of the School, but Council only provided analysis from 9am (with 19-story towers) even though the kids would be playing before school before 9am and the OOSH starts at 7 am.
With towers of 70m 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, again even with only 19-story towers, not the possible 24-story towers.
Here are the videos - note that they are slow to start so please keep watching!
Other problems caused by excessive height
Besides overshadowing, the proposed apartment towers of up to 70 m high (or possibly up to 91 m with 30% affordable housing uplift), cause multiple other problems for the community.
Impacts on visual amenity, privacy, heritage, solar panels and precedent setting
Tall towers 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.
Many of the residents whose houses will be overshadowed have made significant investments in solar panels and batteries for renewable electricity generation. Overshadowing reduces the output of these systems, meaning those residents will need to rely more heavily on power from the grid. That not only means increased costs for those residents and money wasted on their investment, it means more non-renewable energy will be used instead or renewable at a time when we should be using as much renewable energy as possible.
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.
Wind tunnel effects
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 have undertake both qualitative and quantitative assessment of environmental wind to guide the approved massing, height and final design of the proposed development. They did not do this.
Accuracy of the Economic and Feasibility Study
When questioned on why they were proposing such a large increase in FSR and height for the development, Council 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 argued was 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 were some flawed assumptions in the feasibility study that led 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 was the expected sale price of the residential apartments. The study based 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 were 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 provided 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 thought the Economic and Feasibility Study modelling should have be re-visited and sensitivities in end sale values of 10% and 15% 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.