Residents outraged as ceiling and carpets stripped out of Coogee dwelling being assessed for heritage protection by Randwick City Council – 8th December 2018

Greens candidate for Coogee Lindsay Shurey has called on Labor candidate Marjorie O’Neill and Liberal candidate Bruce Notley-Smith to ask their party’s Randwick City Councillors to vote against an attempt to block heritage protection for some Coogee dwellings at this Tuesday’s Council meeting.

Horrified Coogee residents saw a work team start stripping out ceilings and carpets from 148 Brook Street Coogee at 8am (Sat. 8th Dec. 2018) just days before Randwick City Councillors vote on whether to proceed with seeking heritage protection for the dwelling.

The  call came after horrified residents rang Greens Councillor Murray Matson to alert him that workers had started removing ceilings and carpets from 148 Brook Street Coogee  at 8am this morning. The removals come just days before Randwick City Councillors vote on whether to continue with seeking heritage protection for the dwelling along with neighbouring properties.

Last month Randwick City Council resolved to seek State Government approval to put 148 Brook Street’s proposed heritage listing on public exhibition. But the decision has to be re-debated on Tuesday night because Liberal Councillors have lodged a ‘rescission motion’  against it.

Ms Shurey, who is also a Greens Councillor, has called on other Coogee candidates to not to support the attempted overturning of the protection decisions.

“I call on the Liberal and Labor candidates for Coogee to ask their party representatives on Randwick City Council not to support the rescission motions at Tuesday night’s meeting.”

Councillor Matson states that yesterday a private certifier advised residents by a letter box notified residents that he given approval for 148 Brook Street to be demolished in 14 days time. A developer now no longer needs to get Council approval to demolish existing dwellings if the proposal ticks all the boxes as ‘complying development’. He said this morning,

“Peoples wonder why I am trying get various Coogee dwellings heritage listed. But they don’t understand that these days all a developer has to do to bulldoze one of Coogee’s fine old homes is to get a private Principal Certifying Authority to tick it off as complying development. Then there is nothing that Council can do. But by getting these homes heritage protected I can force developers to submit an old style Development Application to Council’s Planning department where it will have to be properly assessed. I am fighting a rear guard action against the fast tracking of demolitions in Coogee.”

BACKGROUND

“The heritage study rates the heritage significance of the building as “contributory”. In view of this assessment, the property at No. 148 Brook Street is determined to be significant in terms of the historical and aesthetic criteria of the NSW Heritage Office guidelines for assessing heritage significance and therefore warrants local heritage listing. Historically, the property is associated with a significant historical phase being the Interwar period and expresses through its fabric, continuity in this historical process. Aesthetically, the property shows distinctive aesthetic qualities in its form/composition including its original architectural detail and internal layout thus exemplifying the Interwar architectural style exceptionally well.” (Director City Planning Report No. CP57/18 Subject: Heritage Study of properties in Dudley Street and Brook Street, Coogee.  Randwick City Council 2018)

Update on proposed heritage protection for older houses in Coogee – 28th November 2018

0

1 comment

    • Donna on December 8, 2018 at 2:59 pm
    • Reply

    This is a disgrace and obviously illegal if the police were able to put a stop to the removal of fixtures in the building. NSW Planning changes have gone too far in allowing developments to occur as long as they “comply”. This whole matter has not even been finalised and yet a demolishion order has been issued, utter disgrace and disregard to due process and legal considerations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.