Council downgrades cottage heritage from ‘high’ to ‘nil’
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
