Council downgrades cottage heritage from ‘high’ to ‘nil’
- Author:
- Michael Gormly
- Posted:
- Thursday, 2 December 2010
The City’s intention to demolish the Caretaker’s cottage at Rushcutters Bay tennis courts has received a major setback based on its heritage assessments.
The 2001 Conservation Management Plan, obtained from Council by protesters, classed the cottage as having the highest level of social significance, and recommended it stay. Council documents show the cottage was designed by Albert Smillie, Council’s chief architect who also designed St James Station and the Victoria Park swimming pool, a fact not mentioned in recent Council information about its plans for the cottage and tennis courts.
But Council in 2007, intending to demolish the cottage, requested a re-assessment which, on architectural grounds alone, said it had no heritage significance.
This view has been asserted repeatedly by senior Council staff defending the demolition, which has been delayed by the occupation of the cottage by protesters.
But a 2007 report to Council from City Plan Heritage says:
“There is an anomaly in the assessments carried out on the building. lt is understood that the 2000 Conservation Management Plan prepared by Wayne McPhee and Associates assessed the dwelling as being of high significance. McPhee and Associates were asked to re-evaluate their assessment and in January 2007, a visual inspection of the property was carried out and a Heritage Assessment Report prepared, making amendments to the CMP.”
Protester Jo Holder commented: “This instruction is very disturbing. It suggests that council officers will bend proper process to enforce their plans onto communities. It also makes a mockery of any process of ‘consultation’ with impacted communities.”
Heritage campaigner Andrew Woodhouse put it more strongly, saying: “Councillors have been misled by its planning department and should re-consider the proposed demolition.”
“Council has ignored heritage reports about historic and social significance it doesn’t want, and has wrongly relied on architectural reviews which are factually wrong and lack integrity, to justify demolition.”
The revised 2007 Heritage Assessment by McPhee and Associates says the cottage had “almost nil architectural embellishment or exterior decorative finishes,” although it also notes its austerity housing vintage, from a modernist period where embellishment was deliberately absent.
Attached to the report is an invoice to Council headed “For professional services in accordance with your instructions.” The dollar figures have been blanked out.
The assessment downgrade did not refute the original assessment, which was based on social and historical significance.
“We say their original historical and social significance assessments therefore still stand,” said Mr Woodhouse.
Council has not replied to questions about this.
Councillor Chris Harris on Monday night put a notice of motion for next week’s Council meeting that the demolition be delayed pending further investigation.
by Michael Gormly
The disputed cottage, an example of postwar ‘austerity housing’
The Cottage (1) shown with an ‘a’ level heritage value, the same as (2) the Grandstand in Council’s 2001 Conservation Management Plan
Like this article? Register as a subscriber here. It's free! We'll keep you up to date with new stories on the site.
December 2nd, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Posting this on behalf of Andrew Woodhouse (due to computer complications):
We recommended Council:
– investigate the value of this building in its context, and
– consider the merits of retaining this cottage.
We ask this for four reasons. We say:
1 Some of Council’s previous investigations have been inadequate.
2 It is reasonable to suggest Councillors may have been mislead about plans presented to them.
3 The public has been mislead about the value of the cottage and the need for demolition.
4 Council’s previous DA consents are therefore based on incorrect or inadequate information. Re-examination and lodgement of amended DA would be in the public interest.
Inadequate previous investigations
The former South Sydney Councils’ Plan of Management [POM], page 61, shows a proposal for three tennis courts on the southern park side adjacent to the cottage [see article plan].
This indicates there is room for these courts as well as the cottage. There is, we suggest, no physical need for demolition in space terms: retaining the cottage will not adversely tennis players’ enjoyment of games.
The initial McPhee and Stedinger Heritage Assessment states unequivocally the cottage is an inchoate part of the heritage-listed park and has high levels of historical and social significance – classification (a).
This report supports retention of the cottage in situ and conservation works to it.
However, as a result of direct intervention and a request by council’s park design team, one of the two authors was requested to alter the initial findings, downgrading the cottage to classification (d) – no contributory value – but based on its architectural significances only.
This reassessment:
1 was not written with the support of the other author
2 was not based on a previous error of judgement
3 was not based on new information, and importantly
4 only referred to an assessment of the cottage’s architectural, rather than its historical and social significance.
This letter does not affect the initial assessment of the site’s historical or social significance we say.
The letter therefore does not alter its overall significance and is cannot be a basis on which staff or council should rely for demolition.
Further report by a Ms Binns assesses the cottage as having no significance. This report has very little credibility.
Its author is not a registered NSW Planning Heritage Consultant in either archictural or building conservation work. She seems to be an architect. He report is fundamentally flawed as it does not refer to accepted heritage criteria, makes no social or historical assessment of the site, and misunderstands the crucial importance of intactness of any item, suggesting intactnes is irrelevant.
In fact, there can be no heritage significance of any item unless it is intact – because it would then fail to exist.
Her report admits the building is intact and interesting but dismisses its significance partly on the grounds it lacks “embellishment”, something inherent to all post-war austerity designs.
It does not refer adequately to McPhee and Stedinger’s report.
It confirms a sceptical view that council staff engage in ‘report-shopping’: paying or reports which will justify their own plans.
In our view, Binns’s report cannot be a reliable basis on which to justify demolition and shoudl be set aside.
Councillors mislead about plans
Plans presented to councillors state the cottage needs to be removed.
However, council’s own POM, page 61, refutes this view. The POM also comments it can be adpatively re-used and used by a caretaker, its intended and original use.
Public mislead
Recent media reports by council staff state the cottage needs to be demolished for three new courts and that the the cottage has no heritage significance.
Media reports are not 100% reliable but language imprints reality.
In any event, these statements are not absolutely correct.
Only one new, additional court is proposed: the other two will be re-surfaced and re-aligned.
The need to demolish the cottage has little foundation in fact: there is room enough for both the cottage and new courts.
In addition, council has not followed its own Heritage Development Control Plan [DCP], section 1.13.
ref: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/documents/PlansAndPolicies/DevelopmentControlPlans/ApprovedHeritageDCP2006.pdf
Section 1.13 requires a Demolition report, Pest Report, Structural Engineer’s report and a Heritage Impact Statement, rather than merely a superficial architectural assessment as provided by Binns.
Section 1.13 states clearly:
“The demolition of heritage items and contributory buildings or building elements within heritage conservation areas or heritage streetscapes is not supported.”
A Heritage Impact Statement is defined by the NSW Heritage Office. It must include an examination and anlaysis of both historical, social, archaeological, landscape and architectural significance with acknowledgement and analysis and description of any proposals, followed by a detailed look at their impacts.
This procedure has not occurred.
It gives the impression council is by-passing its own DCP and failing to implement the objectives of the EP & Act section 5, to encourage community participation in decision making.
Additionally, many people sincerely believe council’s extensive and expnsive community consultation process would and should have enables them to have a genuine and well-received input into the design and decision-making process.
During this process there were more people who wanted the cottage to remain than those who wanted it demolished. These people now rightly feel ignored.
The ‘top-down’ planning process has not been adequate and left lingering resentment in those who believe council should have more regards for ratepyers who are funding the project.
Previous consents
There have been previous DA emendments to this Rushcutters Bay Park project for the kiosk.
Conclusions
In view of all these facts now ccoming to light, there is ample room and ample justification for councillors to re-consider more carefully its position and any concomitant community impacts of demolition. The cottage is estimated to be worth over $1 million, including land, and could be used for affordable housing or community uses or as a caretaker’s cottage.
We therefore recommend:
– A detailed site specific Heritage Impact Statement be prepared by a recognised, fully qualified Heritage Consultant who is not an architect. None of the previous consultants be engaged.
– An independent review of the need for amended DA be undertaken by a Panel of Experts.
– Such reports and results be on public exhibition for 28 days for public comment.
– Proposed demolition of 5 Waratah Street be postponed in the public interest so councillors can be completely satisfied the cottage cannot be retained.
Thank you
Andrew Woodhouse
President
Potts Point and King Cross Heritage Conservation Society
Saving our past for the future
Ph 0415 949 506
email: heritageandconservation@hotmail.com
———————————————————-