St John’s Anglican Church Darlinghurst: a deal with the devil?

BY ANDREW WOODHOUSE, President Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage and Residents’ Society 

The money-motivated Anglican Church of St John in Darlinghurst has been involved in some dubious dealingst with its attempts to squinch dollars from an adjoining car wash site fronting both Darlinghurst Road and Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, a site technically owned by the Anglican Church property trust. The church draws about $100,000 per annum rent but this isn’t enough it says. It wants more.

The most recently amended $17.5 million DA/2016/476, the third by this church for this site, was lodged last week before Sydney Council for a seven-storey hospital-type facility for 28 medical and psychiatric seniors patients/customers some of whom may be potentially homeless. Sydney Council is already compromised because it’s both the consent authority and a financial partner in the project, having handed over $1.5 million of ratepayers’ money to support the DA. It has a conflict of interest, a matter referred to the ICAC by our heritage society. It is proposed to be built by Hammond Care, council’s partner, with which the church also has a working relationship. It’s a cosy little ménage à trois.

Nobody knows how much more ratepayers’ money will be used to support the DA. Council refuses to say, hardly an exemplar of openness and accountability in local government.
It’s the third DA by this church for this site.

The first DA was opposed by Clover Moore as Member for Bligh, our local heritage society, the Darlinghurst Residents’ Action Group, The Greens Party, South Sydney Council planners and hundreds of local residents. It proposed a penthouse rectory on the church hall site and new apartments on the car wash site to raise money. The DA was flipped from the former South Sydney Council to the City of Sydney Council after a forced amalgamation. It was then opposed by Lucy Turnbull, Lord Mayor. The church was not happy and by-passed council to appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court direct.  The former Rector, Greg Thompson, argued from the court’s witness box under oath that St John’s good  works were an overriding important consideration whilst thundering and raining fire and brimstone from the pulpit against the heritage society, which was allegedly “against God’s work” as if he had he had the mind of God in his pocket.

Council offered to buy the car wash site for a park but a former Deputy Lord Mayor told me, “This is the most unchristian group I’ve ever met”.

The court agreed with us, locals and other professional experts and dismissed their mega-DA appeal: the church’s good works were irrelevant: this was a planning law matter it said, adding sharply: “If you can’t see a landmark building it ceases to be one”. Amen to that.

St John’s church was in debt and divided. I called for the Rector to resign, which he then did.

In this strong-arm wrestling match the score was heritage society 1, church 0.

Mr Thompson was then promoted to Bishop of Newcastle and was recently queried over paedophile acitivities in his parish under his watch. He admits he was offered an inducement to turn a blind eye to such activities.*

The church then sold its rectory for cash and moved the new Rector into an expensive rented, trendy Paddington home.

DA 2 was horrendous and also blocked significant views of the church and its spire from Victoria Street, the same principal issues as before. We were shown pre-DA plans and listed over a dozen objections in writing the next day including setbacks and overshadowing of significant heritage stained glass, but the church’s money-lust propelled it to deceptively claim we were supportive. Their designer said in a recorded meeting that” there will be no overshadowing of stained glass”. Plans showed the opposite. Was this a lie or just loose inventiveness with the facts?

However, Sydney Council and the NSW Heritage Council have rejected DA 2 with their “14 non-negotiable points” of contention including views to the church, setbacks and overshadowing of stained glass.

So the newly–amended DA 3 is another deal with the devil. But it shows an even higher, seven-storey building (including basements) with greater losses of views to the church from Victoria Street and overshadowing of precious, prized stained glass, still. If you can’t see or appreciate precious, prized stained glass from within an entombed church then all you have is a blackboard.

Their DA 3 supporting letter, dated 25th October 2016, page 12, admits: “ … the eastern transept windows are fully shadowed .. “, adding arrogantly as a two-fingered salute to heritage: “the Church explain[ed] that the social benefit [of its works] are … more important than  … a specific stained glass window.”

But this church doesn’t belong to any one group: we belong to it: it’s part of our common national heritage. They are crying in the wilderness.

DA 3 is like all its predecessors. It has three principal objections, location, location, location. It’s in the wrong spot, as our legal team correctly say, preparing another court appeal.

So the half-time score is heritage 2, Church 0.

This is The Word of the Lord, for now. Thanks be to God.