REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING, MONDAY 12 FEB

We were honoured to have the support of Fr Terry Purcell and Mark Blackman of St Benedicts, which gave us the freedom to talk about the twin DAs. Many others turned up (and several were turned away) as the doorman didn't realise SH was part of another item. Thanks all! Today's 'SMH' wrote a news note saying it looked like the heritage listing would be passed. However some key changes in the item listing were noted (by Phillip Black) which favoured the developer and the Vice Chancellor of the Sydney UND Campus, Peter Glasson delivered a letter asking for an amendment which would allow UND to demolish 25% of the church (as 'intrusive').

Below are summaries of the key issues and a copy of our Motion on Notice.

Council at its August 2004 meeting agreed to maintain the process of regular

Housekeeping amendments¹ to the South Sydney LEP.

To protect the SH site from a DA while the LEP is prepared and advertised,

Council must prepare a one-off DCP as it has done with the Abbey and Wayside Chapel site.

Sacred Heart site is classified as 'Zone No 5- Special Uses'. The controlsin the LEP permit any kind of development subject to argument over "impact¹.

The developer wants a 25% demolition of the church and a 5 storey (plus 2) effectively a 7 storey building. The planner says this DA envelope is permissible.

Last Thursday the L&E court upheld a developer¹s appeal against City Council on the Old Automatic Telephone Exchange site in Darlinghurst.

The judgement makes it clear that the ³good intentions² of local heritage

listings, conservation areas and DCP design guidelines have no weight

against Local Environment Plan.

Nor does a Masterplan prepared by a developer (proposed by some councillors)

give any real protection, it is an inventory of the developer¹s intentions

which are known.

Thanks to all who attended last night (and those who were turned away) - if

we hadn't the developer would have their amendment enabling a 25% demolition

of the church and our Motion on Notice would not have been discussed.

Best wishes,

Jo (93316621)

======================================

Re: Protecting Sacred Heart Church Darlinghurst

I've placed this motion on Motions on Notice for Monday 21. We're hopeful

that the ALP and Greens clrs will speak to it:

1. MOTION ON NOTICE

That Council makes a Housekeeping amendment¹ to South Sydney LEP to provide for a heritage conservation area over Sacred Heart Site.

This amendment should introduce controls as per the recommendations of The Archdiocese of Sydney¹s own Conservation Policy prepared by Godden Mackay Logan (December 2003) which argues that:

Adaptation (10.3.10. p.140) :No adaptation should be permitted which will have a major adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Sacred Heart Church Site or on surrounding heritage items

Setting and Curtilage (10.3.11. p.140­141): A minimum curtilage for the Sacred Heart Site is the current parcel of land upon which it stands, less the site of the presbytery added in the 1970s.

* The setting of the Sacred Heat Church site is defined as the site

curtilage, the visual catchment and the key views to the site from within

the visual catchment (figure 8.1).

* No new structures or landscape elements should be permitted on the Sacred Heart Site that would impact on the setting of heritage buildings on site or upon key views to the site from within the visual catchment of the site, in particular the views to the site along Oxford Street.

* No new structures or landscape elements should be erected in the vicinity

of Sacred Heart Church site which would impact on the setting of the Sacred

Heart Church site and views to and from the Sacred Heart Church site.

New Site Development (10.13.12):The potential for new development is particularly defined by the need to retain an appropriate setting for the church and hall and to retain key views to these buildings from within the visual catchment of the site.

Opportunities for adaptive reuse of existing buildings and new structures

have been identified. These are:

* The removal of the presbytery building and its replacement with a building

of similar scale and height not attached to the school hall building;

* A two-level building on the corner of Oxford and Victoria Streets

separated from the apse of the church. The two-level height is determined by the twin constraints of an appropriately scaled new building on this corner and the need to have a low building on this corner to ensure retained views to the church chancel and apse.

No new structures or landscape elements should be permitted wichi will have major adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Sacred Heart Church site or on heritage buildings within the vicinity of the site.

That a one-off Development Control Plan is prepared expeditiously to protect the site while the LEP amendment process is undertaken. The Sacred Heart Church DCP should incorporate all of the above from the Conservation Plan and also, the recommendations of the St Johns Church Darlinghurst Land and Environment Court judgement about potential new development appropriate to heritage church sites.

2. Re: SSLEP ŒAmendment 9¹:

See: discussion amendment was made after lobbying by Archdiocese (CoSC

14.2.05, pp.511-512). This is in accordance with the conservation

recommendations of the Godden Mackay Logan SHC Report for the Trustees of the Archdiocese of Sydney (December 2003).

Sacred Heart Rescue Coalition congratulates council officers for finally

getting Amendment 9² to see the light of day after 4 long years.

However, we¹re deeply concerned that a local heritage listing for Sacred

Heart Church Darlinghurst, is not enough protection.

Sacred Heart site is in Zone No 5- Special Uses. The controls in the LEP

permit any kind of development subject to argument over Œimpact¹.

The developer wants a 25% demolition of the church and to build an new 7

storey building. They also want to demolish the presbytery and build a 5

storey building. The city planner says this DA envelope is permissible under

the current planning laws.

PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH HERITAGE

Last Thursday the Land and Environment Court upheld a developer¹s appeal

against City Council on the Old Automatic Telephone Exchange site in

Darlinghurst. showing behind the pole centre of photo.

The judgement makes it clear that the ³good intentions² of local heritage

listings, conservation areas and DCP guidelines have no weight against the

legislative instrument the Local Environment Plan.

The Telephone Exchange is in Barcom Avenue Heritage Conservation Area; the

DA was 50% over the height and 100% over the Floor Space Ratio.

But neither heritage nor design ³guidelines² were protection.

CLOVER MOORE MUST ACT

The Lord Mayor has publicly stated that the 18 metre height limit in the

Darlinghurst is " a maximum, not the starting point for negotiations".

But her claims are not enshrined in the Local Environment Plan (LEP), and so

this argument carried no weight in the court.

The height of the approved building on the Telephone Exchange is 27 metres.

THE INFAMOUS SOUTH SYDNEY PLAN

South Sydney Council, resolved in 1998 that the area along the top of

Darlinghurst ridge ­ along Victoria Street and Darlinghurst Road, between

Burton Street and Kings Cross ­ would not be protected by the heritage

controls of the LEP. The zoning in much of this area was intensified.

Developers were quick to act.

Council won against the developer¹s appeal on its St Johns Church decision

but St Johns is on the national estate register. Even with this level of

heritage protection, we¹re playing Russian roulette with heritage in court

unless the LEP is changed.

1. Approve a spot-re-zoning for a new Development Control Plan; and

2. Change the LEP to place a Heritage Conservation Area on Darlinghurst;

The Archdiocese of Sydney¹s own heritage report by Godden Mackay Logan

(December 2003) argues that:

· Any new structure on the corner of Oxford and Victoria Street must not

exceed 2-levels and must be separated from the church;

· The two-level height is determined by the need to have a low building

to ensure retained views to the church chancel and apse.

We humbly submit that council move to urgently incorporate the Archdiocese¹s

report into a DCP and begin the LEP amendment for Darlinghurst ridge.