Mr. Shane St Reynolds Level 1/457 - 459 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills, NSW , 2010 tips@thegoodnewsblog.org 1 June 2025 General Manager Canterbury Bankstown City Council PO Box 8 Bankstown NSW 1885 Mayor Bilal El - Hayek Email: Bilal.el - hayek@cbcity.nsw.gov.au Re: Objection to Demolition Application DA - 438/2025 – St Paul’s Anglican Church, 459 Chapel Road, Bankstown , NSW, 2200 Dear General Manager, Councillors, and Mayor El - Hayek, I write to you as a concerned member of the community, editor of TheGoodNewsBlog.org, and an Anglican with a deep commitment to preserving our shared heritage and sacred spaces. I hereby formally object to the Development Application DA - 438/2025 proposing the demolition of St Paul’s Anglican Church, a site of profound historical, spiritual, and community significance. Following the recent Current AZair story, TheGoodNewsBlog.org , a leading Christian publication in Australia, has seen a significant increas e in readership of our articles detailing the plight of St Paul's Anglican Church 1 This heightened public engagement speaks to the deep concern within the community regarding the potential loss of this significant heritage site. We remain committed to providing comprehensive coverage of this ongoing story, ensuring that all developments are brought to the attention of the public. Historical and Heritage Significance St Paul’s Church, established on land purchased in 1914 and consecrated in 1968, stands as a living testament to Bankstown’s rich cultural and spiritual history. Multiple heritage assessments — including those by Sue Rosen & Associates, Dr Roy Lumby, and GML Heritage — have consistently aZirmed the church’s local heritage significance and recommended heritage protection. The church’s architectural integrity, memorials, and the interment of parishioners and war veterans on site underscore its irreplaceable valu e. Despite this, the Canterbury Bankstown Council has repeatedly declined to list St Paul’s as a heritage site, influenced by the Anglican Diocese’s objections and redevelopment interests. This disregard for expert advice and community sentiment is deeply tro ubling. Legal Grounds for Objection and Potential Action 1 Reynolds, S. S. (2025, May). St Paul’s Bankstown: Heritage, housing, and the battle for Sydney’s soul . The Good News Blog. https://www.thegoodnewsblog.org/2025/05/st - pauls - bankstown - heritage - housing - and.html and Reynolds, S. S. (2025, May). St Paul’s Bankstown: Unholy alliances. The Good News Blog. https://www.thegoodnewsblog.org/2025/05/st - pauls - bankstown - unholy - alliances.html TheGoodNewsBlog.org. (2025, June 1). St Paul’s Bankstown: A decade - long heritage battle https://www.thegoodnewsblog.org/2025/06/st - pauls - bankstown - decade - long - heritage.html The 1968 consecration document legally dedicates the property “for ever hereafter” to God and Divine Worship, establishing a trust for the benefit of the local congregation. This trust imposes binding obligations on the Diocese and Council to preserve the church’s religious and community purpose. The Queensland Supreme Court case Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334 2 is directly applicable. In that case, the Court ruled that church property held on trust for a local congregation cannot be sold or repurposed unless it is genuinely impossible to fulfill the original trust purpose. The Diocese must demonstrate a genuine impossibility to fulfill the original trust purpose and has not provided suZicient evidence to prove that maintaining St Paul's for its original purpose is truly impossible. Alternative solutions proposed by the community and heritage experts, which could allow the church to co ntinue serving its original purpose, have not been adequately considered. The Court emphasized that trustees cannot alter the terms of a charitable trust simply because of changing circumstances or diocesan preferences. Financial inconvenience or diocesan priorities do not justify demolition or redevelopment. The case highlights that the trust is specifically for the congregation “for the time being” of the church, meaning the property must continue to serve the religious worship and spiritual purposes of t he current congregation, not be diverted to other uses or parishes without proper legal authority. The Court rejected arguments that the trust could be construed broadly for the entire diocese or parish, aZirming that the trust is tied to the specific con gregation and its ongoing use of the property. In light of these serious legal and ethical concerns, I have written to Archbishop Kanishka RaZel yesterday , urging him to seek directions from the NSW Supreme Court regarding the Diocese's authority to proc eed with the demolition or redevelopment of St Paul's. This step is crucial to ensure compliance with trust law and to protect the community's interests. Further, the Flower & Samios Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [1993] NSWLEC 92 3 decision aZirms that heritage value can override development desires, even when the property owner is a church. The Court can impose conditions to protect heritage assets, demonstrating that heritage listing does not “sterilize” a site but ensures respec tful development. The Save Little Manly Beach Foreshore Inc v Manly Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 156 4 case reinforces community rights to protect land held in trust for public or community purposes, a principle that should extend to St Paul’s. Finally, the Millers Point Community Assoc. Inc v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92 5 (“Sirius case”) clarifies that claims of “undue financial hardship” must be substantiated with detailed evidence. The Diocese’s claims of unaZordable roof repairs must be rigorously scrutinized, especially given its substantial assets and property holdin gs. The Council has a legal duty to act impartially and to properly consider all relevant information, including 2 Supreme Court of Queensland. (1995, December 14). Re Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/1995/334.html 3 Stein, P. L. (1993). Flower & Samios Pty Limited v. Mosman Municipal Council [1993] NSWLEC 92. Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/1993/92.html 4 Biscoe, J. (2013). Save Little Manly Beach Foreshore Incorporated v Manly Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 156. Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2013/156.html 5 Molesworth, A. J. (2017). Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92. Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2017/92.html heritage assessments, community submissions, and legal advice. If the Council is perceived to have been unduly influenced by the Anglican Diocese’s interests or to have disregarded expert advice, it could be challenged for failing to fulfill this dut y. The Canterbury - Bankstown Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2023 6 , provides a framework for managing potential heritage. While St Paul's is not currently a listed heritage item, Clause 5.10 requires the Council to consider the potential impact of any proposed development, including demolition, on the heritage significan ce of the site and its setting. This necessitates a thorough assessment to determine whether the building warrants heritage protection. Furthermore, the LEP explicitly addresses demolition. Clause 2.7 states unequivocally that "Demolition requires development consent." This means the Council cannot approve the demolition of St Paul's without a valid development application and a thorough assessment of its potential impac ts. Clause 5.10, while titled "Heritage conservation," directly applies to demolition. Subclause 5.10(2)(a) requires development consent for "demolishing... a heritage item" or "a building... within a heritage conservation area." As St Paul's possesses potential heritage significance, the Council is obligated to conduct a comprehensive asses sment under Clause 5.10 before considering the demolition application. Clause 5.10(4) mandates that the Council consider the impact of the proposed demolition on the heritage significance of the item or area befor e granting consent. This requirement applie s r egardless of whether a formal heritage management document has been prepared. It is crucial to recognize that demolition is an irreversible act. Once St Paul's is demolished, any potential heritage value will be lost forever. This speaks to again the critical importance of a thorough and impartial assessment before any decision is made on the demolition application. The principles established in cases such as Bowen v Woollahra Council [2008] NSWLEC 1320 7 and Williams v Ku - ring - gai Council [2007] NSWLEC 378 8 emphasize the critical importance of thoroughly assessing heritage significance and exploring all viable alternatives to demolition. Given St Paul’s Anglican Church’s historical and community significance, demolition should only be considered as an absolu te last resort. The Council is therefore obligated to commission an independent expert heritage assessment to fully evaluate the church’s potential heritage value before making any decision. The absence of such a new, independent assessment by Canterbury - B ankstown Council prior to considering the demolition application constitutes a potential breach of Clause 5.10 of the Local Environmental Plan While the 2024 GML Heritage report is relevant, it does not satisfy the requirement for a comprehensive and up - t o - date evaluation of the church’s heritage significance. This procedural deficiency undermines the validity of any decision to approve or consider demolition. If the Council approves the demolition, it could be subject to judicial review in the NSW Land and Environment Court or the Supreme Court. The grounds for review could include and not limited to, Breach of trust , f ailure to properly consider heritage significance , f ailure to comply with the LEP and u nreasonableness or procedural unfairness 9 6 Parliamentary Counsel's OZice. (2025, April 26). Canterbury - Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2023 (Current version). NSW Legislation Website. Retrieved June 1, 2025, from https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi - 2023 - 0336 7 Bowen v Woollahra Council, [2008] NSWLEC 1320 (Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, 7 August 2008). https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549f92a33004262463af50f8 8 Williams v Ku - ring - gai Council, [2007] NSWLEC 378 (Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, 6 June 2007). https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549f8eb33004262463ae60bb 9 7 Minister for Aboriginal A_airs v Peko - Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 establishes that decision - makers must consider all relevant material before exercising statutory powers, and failure to do so may render Council’s Previous Recognition of Heritage Significance It is important to recall that in 2015, Bankstown City Council commissioned a detailed heritage assessment of St Paul’s Anglican Church, which concluded that the site is locally significant and recommended the immediate placement of an Interim Heritage Ord er to protect it. This recommendation was based on the church meeting all seven NSW Heritage OZice criteria, including historical, aesthetic, social, and rarity values. The Council’s own report acknowledged the church’s high degree of integrity and its importance as a landmark in Bankstown Specifically, the assessment identified that the church complex met all seven heritage assessment criteria, including historical significance, historical association, aesthetic significance, social significance, technical/research significance, rarity, and representativeness The current demolition proposal starkly contradicts this earlier expert advice and Council position, raising serious questions about consistency and due process. Furthermore, in April 2016, Banks town City Council formally considered a motion to heritage list St Paul’s Anglican Church as part of the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 . The motion, which included delegating authority to prepare and submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment, was narrowly defeated by a casting vote. This decision halted the heritage listing process despite clear recognition of the church’s local significance and the need for p rotection. It is also important to note that the Bankstown Heritage Committee, which is constituted to advise Council on heritage matters, provided in - principle support for the proposed listing of St Paul’s Anglican Church as a heritage item at its meeting on April 13, 2016 The Council report for the April 26, 2016, meeting explicitly stated that the "preferred option" was to list St Paul's Anglican Church as a heritage item (local significance) in Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 , based on the heritage assessments and peer review The community’s strong opposition to the demolition is evidenced by petitions, public submissions, and ongoing advocacy by local groups and parishioners. Preserving St Paul’s is not only about protecting bricks and mortar but also about sustaining the soci al fabric and identity of Bankstown. Heritage conservation aligns with principles of environmental sustainability by reducing demolition waste and preserving embodied energy. It also supports social sustainability by maintaining places of shared memory and cultural continuity. Concerns Regarding Process and Transparency The demolition application was lodged before any formal approval or funding evidence for redevelopment, raising serious questions about procedural fairness and transparency. The community deserves full disclosure of financial plans, heritage assessments, and alternative proposals that preserve St Paul’s. This is particularly concerning given the Council's previous "preferred option" to list the church as a heritage item, and the Heritage Committee's support for that listing. Call to Action I urge the Council and Mayor El - Hayek to: • Reject the demolition application DA - 438/2025. • Initiate or support a heritage listing process consistent with expert recommendations. decisions invalid. This principle supports the requirement that the Council properly consider heritage and community concerns before approving demolition • Engage transparently with the community and heritage bodies. • Recognize the binding legal trust established by the 1968 consecration. • Consider the legal precedents cited, which strongly support preservation. Failure to act responsibly may compel community members to seek judicial review or injunctions in the NSW Land and Environment Court or Supreme Court to protect St Paul’s. Such legal action would argue that demolition violates the trust, heritage laws, and community rights. The fight to save St Paul’s is not merely about bricks and mortar; it is about honouring our history, respecting sacred trusts, and upholding justice. I trust the Council will act with wisdom, integrity, and respect for the community it serves. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Please be advised that, in the event community members are compelled to take legal action to protect St Paul's, this letter may be relied upon in any future proceedings concerning the issue of costs. We anticipate a substantive response outlining t he Council's position. Yours sincerely, Shane St Reynolds Editor TheGoodNewsBlog.org Direct: 0411178214 Email: tips@thegoodnewsblog.org Author of: Revitalizing Christianity: The Theology of Peter Lewis (2024), with a foreword by the Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG Faithfulness in service: The evolution of Anglican doctrine and civil rights in Australia: A legal and theological analysis of the Faithfulness in Service code (2025).