History lost in best-laid plans

Dear Lord Mayor,

I feel it important to make a comment regarding the decision by Council to approve the Jenner House development. You may not wish to read this critical opinion but I hope you have not completely lost contact with the principles and values which you previously espoused, and which I, and many in the community, admired and supported.

History and heritage will be the losers of this decision, firstly by the retraction of the decisions made in 2007 and secondly by the lack of restrictions placed on the developer.  You have aligned yourself with people whose only intent is to make profit and sadly, you will ultimately be measured by this involvement. No amount of rhetoric can cloud the fact that the design principles which your Council imposed on this DA have been cynically dismissed or ignored.  One can hardly have any confidence that the developer (who a year ago you criticised for wishing to subdivide the property into three blocks and overdevelop the site while destroying its heritage significance) will not be emboldened by the complete lack of guidelines or restrictions attached to the approval.  In every previous decision by Council (including that of the previous Mayor) regarding development applications for Jenner the matter of a road down the southern boundary was seen as unsuitable both from heritage and amenity aspects. It has been clear to everyone that this access would allow for ultimate further destruction of the eastern garden and exacerbate overdevelopment potential.  The appalling public gloating behaviour of the owners since the decision reflects the fact that they believe a green light has been given to them to extend their development ambitions.

I note Chris Harris’s plea to you that you be vigilant in overseeing the matter of the fate of the Eastern Gardens in the new Landscape Management Plan.  I also ask that you remember your constituents when the Plan (which will reflect only the developer’s view of history and significance) is ready to be approved.

I would finally point out that the community has behaved with extraordinary integrity in this whole matter. We have concentrated on the heritage issues and spent funds to ensure our opinion was independent and authoritative. We have expressed our legitimate concerns regarding the protection of a heritage property and no statement or fact we have made regarding the developers’ plans and documentation has ever been refuted. The impression given during the Council meeting that the developer and owner were really the good guys and the community were being unreasonable is discourteous, particularly given the obfuscation that attended the handling of this development application.   Sadly, there seems no authority in this State that recognises history as being more important than the developers’ right to alter for profit. Many of us thought you were the last bastion of heritage protection in this city, but sadly that now appears to have been wishful thinking.

Dr Peter Sheridan AM BDS MDS FICD, Sydney