Hear the latest from on the Hill

Antisemitism - Cllr Tannous Sleiman brought a motion for a framework to combat antisemitism, but knocked back Islamophobia, and distinguishing between Judaism and Israel.

We all want to see antisemitic actions stopped, I worry however that conflating criticism of Netanyahu with antisemitism will not only exacerbate divisions, but fail to recognise the ‘spiritual catastrophe’ that faces Jewish people. As with America, we need to be able to recognise rising authoritarianism so we can resist it happening here.

Youth Programs - Despite Rev Michael’s plea for funding, and a council report for a $10,000 allocation to fund those programs, councillors voted instead to spend the money on other programs, yet to be determined. Why? I’ve asked it to come back in September before we turn our back permanently on the programs that were so passionately requested.

We have given Gladesville Occasional Child Care a license for 12 months but declined to even try and find a new home for them if needed.

The 2025 Community Grants Program was set out. I introduced a clause that any underspend can be kept back for later needs or similar programs. The panel was voted for - Ross nominated me, but the vote was unsurprisingly all Liberal panellists again.

Disposal of Land - Despite having denied any intent to sell land at the election, land sales continue to dominate the agendas. The new policy is marginally better, although still lacking the all-important why - the strategy or rationale driving sales - and how the sale proceeds will be used. Many properties have been discussed before and either rejected by the community, or are legacies of us not tidying up our own estate. I proposed that council update its statutory land register (last done in 2022 and regularise roads that it knows cannot be sold but hasn’t properly ‘opened’ as roads. This was voted down. This means you still can’t see a full list of the properties council owns, nor be sure that a local path or laneway that survives this review, or the next, will not come up again.

More significantly, our long term financial plan is underwater but we don’t have a concrete plan to fix it. No look at operational costs. No idea of the capital costs of big projects like the library. No plan to invest or ringfence land sales towards specific recurring costs. I have also twice been voted down on proposals to prepare an open space plan / walking path plan that would enable you to understand which of these parcels are actually ‘remnant’ vs needed. Which is why I see this as a neoliberal privatisation push, under the guise of something else. [Sneak peak to August: more properties proposed for sale - not even bothering to identify why they are ‘surplus’ anymore. A travesty, and contrary to the policy]

This was a low point in councillor behaviour. The losers when we play politics are not councillors, but the community.

I brought three motions to council:

1. Youth Programs - bringing Rev Armstrong’s plea to council to fund two programs worth $15,000 for young men and women’s self esteem. Speaking powerfully to the motion, he gave the awful example of having buried 5 youths this year as a reason to act. I proposed to set aside $15,000, engage with the relevant Head of Welfare at HHHS to vet the programs, and then explore the potential for a permanent youth officer. While there was much anguished sympathy, when it came to finances, things grew wobbly. Cllr Prieston replaced this with her own motion with no amount committed and less focused engagement with schools. While I am relieved the outcome provides a path forward, tho’ I struggle to understand why $15,000 to reduce low self esteem and suicide - a key issue in Hunters Hill - is ‘a lot of money’, but giving $15,450 of unbudgeted money in item 4.12 to trim trees drew not a whisper of complaint.

2. I raised the serious deficiency in IP&R consultation with council and asked for council to commit to 4 page summaries of key documents it puts up to us and the community in the future. This was voted down without much discussion other than Cllr Kassab asking if this was the only way of addressing the issue (bonus: it isn’t - there are many excellent models and I listed a few. We do none of these).

3. A motion for an open space plan, again, so we understand what our strategic asks are of public land. Precipitated by the Woolwich Marina which again provides no public through access, and the upcoming negotiations with TfNSW over Wandella Ave, this would deliver on the LSPS Green Grid walks and give guidance to council on future decisions. In keeping with removing ‘transparency’ from the Community Strategic Plan, this was not even debated before being voted down by the Liberal block.

The Woolwich Marina petition was brought to council, which has now gathered over 600 signatures. The petition was accepted and council’s commitment to opposing the marina reiterated - a rare moment where all councillors were united.

The IP&R suite was adopted, despite the flaws with consultation set out above. Only 3 submissions were received apart from councillors. The documents were barely altered. This means, among other things, that transparency is no longer an objective of council, that the Delivery Program now includes a Museum upgrade, picket fence for Boronia Park and other expenses. Concern over the lack of funding envelopes for major capital works was queried by a speaker (expert in project management and government contracts), and Cllrs Williams and I, given council’s $3m overspend on Boronia Park Grandstand and operational losses it incurs by discounting the football club’s rent. These concerns were dismissed. Cllr Virgara made the particular point that former Councillor Sanderson would not support selling the Lloyd Avenue Road Reserve to fund legal battles (even though our legal budget this year is about $300k lower than previous years). He did not. This raises, for me, a different question. Is Tatyana Virgara considering selling the Lloyd Avenue road reserve? Why? Does it not provide a necessary public good in, say, providing access for the people of Lloyd Avenue?

The budget and Long Term Financial Plan was also in the session - this shows a negative and declining cashflow for council over the next 10 years, with no plan to fix it. I queried why we would approve a ‘plan for failure’ and have been given an undertaking we will workshop the LTFP to come up with a plan to balance our books. I am discouraged however that other councillors were dismissive of (1) reducing costs, and (2) increasing contributions [say, from developers], focusing solely on selling land to buy investments. I have a fine book on neoliberalism I can lend anyone perplexed by this thinking.

We voted ourselves a maximum fee of $23,220 for councillors and $50,650 for the Mayor. This adds about $40k of the operational losses. While we were about to pass this in block, I flagged this little inconsistency in our financial acumen, resulting in a comedy where Julia Prieston brought it out of block to oppose it, no-one seconded it, then Prieston supporting the motion to get it passed. Tatyana then opposed the motion to make some future point. The motion, of course, passed easily.

This was a fairly uneventful council session as the key items were confidential papers (8.1 and 8.2).

Note the budget paper (4.2) shows operational losses due to the deferred sale of Vernon St (for unknown reasons). I queried the materiality of a one-off sale to ‘operational’ matters, but as this is a permissible accounting treatment, it and other sales will continue to be counted as ‘operations’. Note that while we can do so, the money received is not set aside by council for operations or investments that would contribute to recurring income, and the majority have no appetite to do so.

General Manager Recruitment

Despite repeat assurances to Councillor Williams that the General Manager appointment panel had been properly constituted, we came out of 8.2 acknowledging it had not been done and calling for nominations of the third panellist (Mayor and Deputy being automatic). As is consistent with nearly all key committees, the Liberal party voted one of their own on, making three, rather than giving voice to the other 45% of the community.

This meeting was extraordinary because it was required to place the IP&R on exhibition for finalisation before 30 June.

Also extraordinary was the level of change to the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Plan and Operational Plan that has occurred under the Mayor and council staff with only 1 post-it note workshop with councillors on what ideas we thought were good. The second session promised where council would actually present their strategic needs and gaps, and budgets, never eventuated. Detailed analysis by myself and Councillor Williams was swept aside as a matter for consideration post-exhibition.

I am at a loss, having spoken to other councils and checked other websites, to understand just how little community and councillor consultation has been done in Hunters Hill.

Unless I am missing meetings (other councillors spoke of their 'blood sweat and tears’ over the documents, despite making no substantive comments in council session) I cannot understand how the documents reflect the community’s wishes. The document does not even align to the LSPS.

One particular concern is our operational expenses. To balance the budget, anyone with financial literacy would know we need to review both our spending and our income. Road spending, for example, is much higher in Hunters Hill than other LGAs per km of roads. I raised this with the previous GM (and the solution of an asset-condition contract like TfNSW) again in this session.

Post-meeting note: The consultation process was flawed - and I brought this recurring issue of improper consultation through the council portal to council in a motion on 23 June. To the extent that consultation did not meet council’s own Engagement Strategy, it may not pass the requirements of the Act and Regs.

Gladesville Master Plan - We learned something today (other than that Cllr Virgara now calls herself an economist). Despite not a single speaker - for or against - supporting the planning proposal in its current form - not even the owner of the site, who thinks as written it will be unfeasible - and despite the LPP advice explicitly asking for a wider master plan to be prepared, we are proceeding to lodge with DPHI on the Gladesville Master Plan Planning Proposal in its current (400 p) form - buildings up to 70m high (that’s 23 stories, but the concept illustrates 12 - 19), an FSR of 4:1, potential overshadowing of Gladesville Public School, lots of car parking (about 250 more than you need).

Why is council so insistent on going to the Department before public consultation with you, the community? When has the majority shown - on Vernon, on Fairland Hall - that consultation will sway their minds? A disappointing result.

I put a motion to go to public exhibition before lodging with the Department, so that we could prepare a better, wider, more amenable proposal that (in the words of a speaker, a professional Town Planner in support, “was not like something a regional council would do”). I did it as a professional urban designer with 20 years experience. I pointed out major flaws in the feasibility - to the value of over $18m. Unfortunately, to bowdlerise Thatcher, “these Liberals aren’t for turning”. More on Gladesville to come.

Urban Forest Strategy - My motion to get a report on tree pruning and an Urban Forester was rejected, and then the matters the report would have covered agonised over in questions a few items later. Fortunately, my previous motion to have actions for the Urban Forest Strategy listed resulted in a good list, and they were passed.

Questions I have asked question on notice on where we are regarding engaging with TfNSW on the Integrated Transport Strategy, and with the Harbour Trust on Alfred St.

Our Sustainability Policy and Net Zero Plan came to council for endorsement. Unusually, Cllr Tannous-Sleiman (the chair of the Sustainability Strategy) proposed not to adopt the Sustainability Policy, disputing the psychosocial hazard that climate change represents. The motion was defeated and Cllr Williams and I brought back the original motion, which passed unanimously.

The Urban Forest Strategy was passed by council. I brought an amendment, seconded by Cllr Williams to bring a short-term action plan to next council to support it, which was passed.

A Boat Trailer Parking Policy trial was passed in December - this policy has itself been superseded by the state government Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act 2021, so the policy has been repealed. The changes to signage can still be made.

A list of DAs was brought to council - once again a DA on a heritage item was determined without CAP referral, despite 2.4.6 of the DCP requiring it. The DA was rejected and is going to court - hopefully the heritage officer’s report is sufficient to defend the appeal.

Briefings included advancing the Gladesville planning proposal - unfortunately without the lower height option required by the 2021 motion, and with an FSR of 4:1 and height of 19 storeys. The PP then went to the Local Planning Panel who requested this be considered as part of the whole of Gladesville Town Centre (Blocks 1 - 4). Public benefit on the site is limited to public open space - the feasibility assessment explicitly excludes affordable housing assessment. The matter will come back to council next meeting. While everyone wants to see change on the site, it is a shame to see that after 4 years the proposal has not addressed previous exhibition comments on height, and has other flaws (oversupply of parking etc).

We also received a letter from DPHI advising all councils with capacity over 500 homes will now be monitored. This currently excludes Hunters Hill LGA whose target is below 500. With the current Planning Proposal, this is likely to change.

Council is progressing mandatory food recycling in partnership with Lane Cove Council as ‘Food Only’ recycling.

Council voted to continue to pursue an old LEP and DCP update despite the current proposal having been rejected by the Department of Planning, needing legal advice and the upzoning of much of our LGA recently under the Low-Mid Rise Housing SEPP (2025) which requires a rethink of the DCP and changes to Gladesville town centre. The heritage controls on the North Ward, one of the few ways council can influence quality in the upzoned area, is set to be removed by a majority vote to proceed.

Council will progress with detail design for a raised crossing outside Hunters Hill Public School and new crossings at Hunters Hill Village and Woolwich Village to make it safer to cross the street, and calm traffic. More work will be done on bike route HH1 (Alexandra-Woolwich Road) in the meantime.

More significant trees were added, except some Camphor Laurels and gums proposed. To me, too many gums are not protected and then cut down or poisoned under the guise of safety - these are native endemic trees and we cannot edit them out of the landscape. A related issue of improving ‘good’ tree pruning (to avoid people going around the process) was raised and I will bring a motion to have this reviewed next meeting.

A new developer contribution plan was approved - this is capped at 1% of the cost of development, so I moved a successful motion for Council to look at a proper (s7.11) levy for Gladesville.

Development approval reporting shows a haphazard approach to tree replacement. CAP has not yet met this year, despite a prominent Heritage Item receiving approval for external works (in only 6 weeks!)

The draft signage policy was withdrawn

Given the General Manager’s resignation, an acting GM was appointed, Nicholas Tobin. Cllr Williams and I would have preferred this time was used as an opportunity to allow current staff to take acting roles with ‘higher duties’ pay instead, for their development, but we were not successful.

Council's last session of 2024 was a 4 hour marathon session.  As befits a marathon, council raced to a decision on a number of items that, in my view, could have done with deferral for greater deliberation and advice.  Nevertheless the outcomes of this meeting were as follows:

Mayoral Minutes: Up to $25,000 was awarded to Hunters Hill Historical Society to develop design concepts for a combined Town Hall, Museum and Art Gallery from existing operational funds.  A further $5,500 of the unspent Community Grants budget was allocated to Villa Maria for flagpoles, and to the Hunters Hill Historical Society for a bust of Piguenit.

Noteworthy: There is some inconsistency with previously concerns about operational deficit used, for example, in the 25 November meeting.  The grants to Hunters Hill Historical Society, totalling nearly $30,000, do not obviously not urgently address the urgent need identified in the report to address "mould, poor ventilation and lighting, high humidity, worn out carpet, limited volunteers and no long-term storage space" (p3). 

The concept is to take into account the whole building, not just the museum, and the adequacy of $25,000 for a design concept is unclear - councillors were assured the amount would not be exceeded, but not the quality of such a result.  I flagged the amount is likely to be inadequate for a good design (by way of comparison, Randwick council's concept design for the 1906 Maroubra Surf Lifesaving building has a budget of over $1m).

The outcome of the Fairland Hall independent hearing were tabled to council.  Clr Williams proposed that, consistent with the independent planner's report and council's own initial (stated) intent, the Fairland Hall Planning Proposal be amended to take account of the independent planner's recommendation (#2), to subdivide and reclassify only the part of the site intended for sale.  All three speakers against full reclassification all supported this option.  This win-win was supported by 3 councillors (Williams, Lane and Virgara), but lost on the Mayor's casting vote.  Instead the original planning proposal to reclassify the entire site was endorsed, and it will now be sent to the NSW Government for determination.

Noteworthy: A specific recommendation of the independent planner for Fairland Hall was "consider the viewpoints and issues raised in the verbal and written submissions outlined in Section 5 when making the decision...".  Of her recommendations, none were to proceed with the original planning proposal - rather recommendations were to subdivide, hold a new hearing on partial reclassification, and to use proceeds to upgrade Fairland Hall.  Failing this, she recommended a lease or license arrangement be explored.

Council heard a number of speakers against the sale of Vernon Street and the other remnant land parcels.  The speed with which Vernon Street is being sold continues to be of great concern on the community, in the absence of crucial steps including, for example, consideration of all the issues required by the Disposal of Land Policy, and a valuation.  Heather Armstrong (former Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) flagged significant process issues of concern both as a community member and from her professional viewpoint (although, as she affirmed, not formal legal advice).  A number of speakers flagged that council did not seem to have, at any stage, addressed the substance of the submissions which were overwhelmingly opposed.  I flagged to my fellow councillors my research into former motions showed a clear intent to  maintain public access on the foreshore throughout its history, both private and public, and urged councillors to defer so such a caveat could be considered as a condition of sale.  My rescission motion on the basis of over 200 objections (now over 230) and process issues was rejected as out of order.  As a result council voted to dispose of the land, albeit using the open tendering method for Vernon Street. 

Noteworthy: Thank you everyone who signed the petition.  Public Notice will now be served - any prospective buyers should come forward once notice is published if they wish to be involved in the process.

What constitutes public opinion remains a challenge in these matters.  I take the view that council must take consultation on its face - if 60 object of 60, this is 100% of the community opposed.  Clr Tannous-Sleiman in this meeting articulated the view that consultation must be taken on the basis of the whole electorate - so 60 or 200 of 10,000 electors was only 1-2% objections.  In my view this sets an unreasonably high threshold for the public to meet in order to get council to hear their voice.  By comparison, only 500 petitioners to NSW parliament get a Ministerial response.  10,000 petitioners (1.8% of NSW electors) get set down for debate (in effect, a citizen-led Notice of Motion).  My concern remains that council as a whole (both in reports and debate) are similarly dismissive of objections in favour of a 'silent majority' of imagined supporters.  Vernon Street, Fairland Hall and 1A Gale Street (below) all seem to reflect this, in the face of actual objection.

The reclassification of 1A Gale Street from SP2 land to R2 (low density residential) with relevant controls was approved by a majority of council.  Clr Williams flagged one significant issue - that after Gateway Determination (8 July 2024) but before this meeting council received a letter (dated 15 December 2024) from the Executive Director of the Harbour Trust, the adjacent landholder (and part of the Commonwealth government) advising they had not been correctly notified and that they raised concerns.  While Clr Williams proposed this be dealt with (say, by contacting the Federal government or referring it back to Gateway), council instead voted to proceed.

Community members of Committees of Council were appointed.  I objected to two nominations, one for views inconsistent with the values of the relevant committee and one for having brought the council into disrepute, but these arguments were rejected. 

The CAP community representation was expanded to a pool of 3 - Simon Frame (also on 2 other committees), Felicity McCaffery and Arthur Conigrave. Lucy Creagh was endorsed for the National Trust, and Robert Moore for the Institute of Architects. 

Noteworthy: The National Trust and AIA appointees remain the only two members of CAP with relevant formal qualifications, and the committee remains the smallest on council.

Council has endorsed the draft Urban Forest Management Strategy for public exhibition.  I have asked, and council agreed, for a report on bushland and waterways in parallel to be prepared. The policy, while excellent and covering both urban and bushland settings, does not provide any detail on the management of bushland (non-urban) canopy.

Council will develop a boat trailer parking policy, including a trial of parking restrictions for Gladesville Road, Mary Street and Durham Street.

The draft Environmental Sustainability Policy and New Zero Implementation Plan were endorsed for public exhibition.

The Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy was adopted.

The Development Consent Unit was abolished, as being defunct.  I have asked the Director of Planning for feedback on what other councils do to hear multiple objectors below the threshold of the LPP, and he will revert to a later meeting with a report.

The Council after a marathon 1.5hr session with multiple speakers against the motion and over 60 written objections voted to declare 16C Vernon St surplus land and direct officers to prepare the case for sale. No strategy was presented to justify the sale, the consultation report merely declaring the objections "not sustained". Various issues were raised with objectors, in some cases what could be characterised as an attack. Ultimately the substantive issue about why public land should be sold was answered only in the negative (ie 'should not have been bought', 'did not feel safe', 'would be too costly to make DDA accessible...')

Noteworthy: The Office of Local Government wrote to HHC before the session asking for all papers relating to the proposal as well as an explanation about how the community's overwhelming concerns will be mitigated.

Following the vote, the adjacent land on the unmade part of Serpentine Road has now been cleared and cleaned up for sale (and is thus more accessible than ever before).

Council further reduced the Rugby club fees in consideration of a reduced licence area, from $23,000 to $3,000. While the baseline fee reduction was proportionate, the very low fee reflects the fact that the fee also was, and remains, in consideration of $964,000 given by the club for the Boronia Park facility.

Noteworthy: The $964,000 was a capital contribution which will now be repaid through these operational losses over 20 years. Council currently has only one negative financial indicator - operational losses.

The Integrated Transport Strategy was passed unanimously by council. This document, championed by former councillor Jim Anderson, current councillor Marc Lane and the now dissolved Movement and Transport Committee, sets out strategies and actions to help council advocate for better public and active transport in the future.

Next Steps: Council must fill the vacancy for Director of Transport as, with the dissolution of MTAC, it currently has no transport expertise to take these matters forward.

This was the first ordinary meeting of the new council, comprised for the first time in Hunters Hill’s history of a party majority, with 4 Liberal and 2 independent councillors and the Mayor.

The Committees of council were reduced to 8, with the (re-)abolition of the Movement and Transport Committee. The MTAC is replaced by the LTC (a statutory technical committee of two politicians, a police officer and a road safety officer), the Director of Infrastructure (vacant) and a twice-annual briefing to council.

Noteworthy: Roads are one of HHC's highest spend categories, with $3.6m spent on roads last year, excluding contractor and consultant fees.

The Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) was reduced to 5 members, being 2 councillors (Mayor Miles and Cllr Virgara), a member of the AIA, the National Trust and a community representative. The omission of the Hunters Hill Trust (a CAP member for over 50 years), as well as heritage planning and landscape experts, was not explained.

Noteworthy: The CAP is now the smallest committee of council, yet is the only committee with a formal role under the DCP.

The remaining committees range from 7 to 15 members. Independent councillors are represented on only 2 internal committees, a ratio of 1:6 independents to Liberals, despite receiving 4:6 of the vote.

Next Steps: There will be a public call for community representatives on Committees, and a diversity of views is essential. Please consider applying where you have the relevant expertise.