Occupation and siege: an ugly end as Clover clearfells truth
- Author:
- Michael Gormly
- Posted:
- Thursday, 25 November 2010
Residents last week occupied the groundsman’s cottage at Rushcutters Bay Tennis Courts, determined to stop Council from demolishing it.
Courts manager Rory Miles, after a long battle with Council to keep the position, had moved out of the house after living it it for the best part of 25 years. He was poised at the last stages of signing, with great reluctance, a punishing new contract Council had crafted – one of three completely different contracts he had to grapple with in a year..
The doomed cottage is a 1938 modernist/deco building, one that Surry Hills stylistas would kill to live in and fill with their retro furniture. It was pretty run-down, obviously already suffering ‘demolition by neglect’ from its Council landlord. The inside was scattered with bits and pieces of detritus left over from someone else’s life.
Bizarrely, Council was claiming that Mr Miles had no right to live in the tiny two-bedroom cottage, that it was only “storage space”. Amazing then that someone could manage an illegal squat there for 25 years, paying rent, and that Council’s Plan of Management (1999) described it as “residential”. Strange that this “storage space” had a functioning kitchen, bathroom and laundry, and nothing stored in it.
Here I go again criticising Council, ‘Fox News’ style according to my critics in the letters column. But how am I supposed to take Council’s nonsense seriously? They say one thing. The facts, and their own documents, say the opposite. I understand how Clover Moore’s supporters might be upset about such criticism, but honestly, do you want me to parrot straight-out lies in the interests of ‘balance’?
When I ask for comment and in response our local governors, po-faced, simply lie and lie again, what is a journalist supposed to do? Apart from anything else it’s an insult to the intelligence.
Specifically, I had asked them to explain why they were evicting and demolishing when Council’s own Plan of Management recommends keeping a cottage there for obvious security reasons — the occupants are ‘de-facto rangers’ guarding the heritage wooden grandstand over the road.
And I noted: “Also a small majority – but still a majority – of residents opposed the demolition after feedback from Council’s roadshow ‘consultation’ events.”
Council’s reply, typically, simply ignored these knotty points, instead quoting CEO Monica Barone’s non-answer:
“The old building – which has no heritage significance – will provide space for three brand new tennis courts whilst also increasing open public space, in place of two courts that now require upgrading,” she said.
Now, ignoring the debatable bit about the heritage significance, and ignoring that the park upgrade will NOT increase the number of tennis courts as implied, the essential problem with this statement is that demolition of the cottage is NOT required to make space for a third court on that side of the road.
Yes, the dense, shady tree canopy and 76-seat café and lounge area are in the way of this relocated tennis court, but the house is not, as clearly seen in both Council’s current plan (which deletes the cottage) and in the 1999 Plan of Management (which includes it – see illustration below).
The extra tennis court would eliminate the driveway beside the cottage, but not the cottage, and there is plenty on room on the other side of the cottage for car parking.
Protester Dixie Coulton sent Council a series of questions, some noting that the tenants had not received the 60 days’ notice of eviction required under tenancy laws, and that the cottage had NOT had an individual heritage impact statement prepared as required by Council’s own Development Control Plan – an irregularity uncovered by heritage campaigner Andrew Woodhouse.
Typically, Council did not reply to these questions either, betraying an intellectual dishonesty that would have them thrown out of a court case or even a formal debate.
However when The Sydney Morning Herald posed the same questions, we are told Council replied that the occupation was costing them $8,000 a day. This is a bit rich coming from an outfit that is happy to demolish a house and yard worth well over $1 million on the open market.
Clearly money is no problem to this Council, which enjoys this year a Net Operating Surplus of $79.6 million and Net Assets of $4.3 billion. Indeed it can be argued that an $80m profit is money better left in the hands of an over-taxed community, and that too much money leads to reckless spending on misconceived projects.
Council’s media release also contained the de rigeur line: “In 2006, Council held an extensive community consultation process with local residents and stakeholder groups”.
This might fool an uninformed cadet journalist but it ignores the very point I had put to Council: that a majority of residents had opposed the demolition. So much for consultation.
At least in this case Council is playing it smarter than the similar occupation of Orphan School Creek in Forest Lodge, when police were called and a protester arrested. This time (perhaps because Clover Moore is in election campaign mode?) they are playing a waiting game, hoping that busy citizens with work commitments cannot maintain this siege.
Meanwhile as the trees come down, residents walking down Waratah Street are reeling with shock, one bursting into tears at the destruction.
The two cats who lived around the kiosk have evacuated, one nowhere to be seen while black-and-white Mustapha is hiding on the far side of the cottage.
When Council snuck past a lone protester and screwed the front door shut, they locked out Paul, a homeless man who had moved into the house. Protester Robyn Greaves says this is illegal as there is a due process necessary to evict a squatter.
Redevelopment is never pretty. But when it’s entirely unnecessary and misconceived, it’s downright ugly.
by Michael Gormly
The Force is with Clover - nice messages on green banners contrast with Council’s tree-felling
Plans from 1999 show the cottage and the courts co-existing as recommended
Café carnage - the scene at dusk after Day 1 of clearfelling
Dixie Coulton and her dogs somehow juggled a busy law practice with occupation and siege
Like this article? Register as a subscriber here. It's free! We'll keep you up to date with new stories on the site.
November 25th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
This is a biased rant composed of personal attacks and mock shock over decisions made years ago. You fail to mention that the whole Council, unanimously, on multiple occasions, over a number of years endorsed the current plans. See for example the DA considered publicly by Council in 2007: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2007/Committee/Planning/180607/070618_PDTC_ITEM03_ATTACHMENTA.PDF. Oh… and looking to get that link I turned up numerous fliers and reports on the Council’s website demonstrating years of consultation, consideration and planning. You might not agree, but this was a carefully considered decision to increase usable parkland at Rushcutters Bay and not some idea that popped out of thin air a few weeks ago, you know.
November 26th, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Accusations against Clover Moore, such as those levelled in your series of articles on this matter, are grossly unfair. The City of Sydney council is a democratically elected body currently comprised of representatives from the major political parties, the Greens and independents. The Council executive acts under the purview of the elected members and in accordance with the regulatory regimes governing its broad and complex range of responsibilities.
The consultation process for the redevelopment of Rushcutters Bay Park was thorough, inclusive, transparent and on the public record. It should be noted by your readers that decisions on the current development of Rushcutters Bay Park were unanimously endorsed by council. Any doubts over issues of probity or governance in the way council reaches decisions and implements them can be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of state and federal government watchdogs. It is the right of citizens to avail themselves of these avenues if they believe council has acted unlawfully or unfairly.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Miles and his wife have been required to move from their residence just as it is sad that some residents in Redfern reluctantly left their homes to make way for new developments on The Block. However, as I understand it, Mr. Miles has for many years been conducting a for profit business using public assets and will continue to do so as a result of his successful tender application. It is is only right and proper that any person in his position be asked to comply with laws and regulations that are there for the benefit of all citizens. I concede that at times this does not play well in the public domain and that, quite naturally, sympathies and passions will be aroused.
I certainly hope the changes currently underway result in a new era of prosperity for Mr. Miles, the tennis community and the many other local residents who will gain benefit from the improvement of public amenity at Rushcutters Bay Park.
The tone and content of your coverage of this issue smacks of a broader, orchestrated campaign against Clover Moore. I urge your newspaper to take a more balanced approach when reporting issue such as this. After all, balance and fairness in reporting are the cornerstones of quality journalism.
November 27th, 2010 @ 8:55 am
I think the new work is giving us a better well drained park that we can use all year round. Go Clover!
November 29th, 2010 @ 6:48 am
I note none of the previous comments actually addresses any of the substantive factual points made in the article, so the accusations of bias remain unsupported.
We know the consultation was a big roadshow. But, repeatedly, Council seems to do what it wanted in the first place regardless of the majority opinions of residents, making the ‘consultation’ a bit of a joke. More factual evidence on that in this week’s edition.
As for bias against Clover, it’s her name all over the green banners on the demolition site, as pictured. Are you saying she should get all the credit but none of the blame?
However in Clover’s defence, and councillors’: The pattern emerging as we delve into the actual documents is that Councillors are making decisions based on information that has been massaged almost beyond recognition on key points. See next edition for details.
Despite this, and speaking of massaging, much of the published material goes through Clover’s office long before we or other Councillors see it – and it is only the Lord Mayor who has any real power over the bureaucrats – so there lies a much greater degree of responsibility.
For the record, I am not biased against Clover Moore. In my view, under her leadership there have been and will be several major long-term improvements to the City which probably would not have happened had the state political machine gained control after the wholly undemocratic forced amalgamation in 2004. That, however, does not alter Council’s responsibility to act democratically and truthfully on other issues.
November 29th, 2010 @ 7:10 am
This Rushcutters Bay antic is just one of many of Clover “I want Moore”‘s sneaky underhanded grab for control of everything in Sydney. She cannot do two jobs yet has the hide and nerve of continuing to try to do so. Result: a large number of unfinished expensive projects that did not need to be done in the first place.
*sniff* do you smell thats the smell of change next elections. Makes a nice change from the smell of BS that has been lingering around Town Hall!
November 29th, 2010 @ 8:19 am
Boris Kelly writes that ‘The City of Sydney council is a democratically elected body currently comprised of representatives from the major political parties’ And to an extent this is so.
However, the majority of councillors are members of the so-called ‘Clover Moore Independent Party’ a group with no policies, no platform and only elected in the wake of Moore’s huge personal vote: by themselves they wouldn’t stand a chance.
And these members of the ‘Independent Party’ are independent as long as they vote with their Leader: if they go against her, woe betide them.
December 2nd, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
@John Newton writes:
“…the majority of councillors are members of the so-called ‘Clover Moore Independent Party’ a group with no policies, no platform and only elected in the wake of Moore’s huge personal vote: by themselves they wouldn’t stand a chance.”
Clover’s huge personal vote indicates the depth of support she has in the community. The Libs and ALP would want her gone but without anything like the resources available to those two monoliths, she manages to retain power. Why? Conviction, consultation and character.
@Michael Gormly writes:
“We know the consultation was a big roadshow. But, repeatedly, Council seems to do what it wanted in the first place regardless of the majority opinions of residents, making the ‘consultation’ a bit of a joke.”
Then perhaps you could propose a more rigorous and equitable model of consultation. What would have done differently? The essential point in the Miles case is the governance of public assets. How would you have handled this?
February 24th, 2011 @ 12:05 am
Boris Kelly.
The most important thing Clover Moore MP could have done was actually listen to the people. A majority wanted the Cottage retained. The Cottage could have been retained, despite the false assertions by Clover Moore MP that it was imperative that it be demolished. It only required some thinking outside the square to achieve the community wishes.
Instead, in order to defend her position of acting against the community wishes, she has engaged in a malicious misinformation campaign.
Surely her job is to find ways to implement the community’s wwishes, not to find excuses to justify acting against the community.