Occupation and siege: an ugly end as Clover clearfells truth
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
