Kangaroo Point residents battle of development of Thornton St property

ON a constrained peninsula, just across the river from Brisbane’s bustling business district, residents have been fighting to save the area’s history from redevelopment.

Katharine Baynham is among a group of residents protesting plans to redevelop a property with a heritage-listed building on it in Kangaroo Point. Picture: Jamie Hanson

• Jonathan Sri leads Kangaroo Point heritage protest
• Brisbane owner unknowingly buys into character house controversy
• Queensland’s heritage protection rules need an overhaul

ON KANGAROO Point’s constrained peninsula, just across the river from Brisbane’s bustling business district, residents have been fighting to save the area’s history from redevelopment.

The affluent inner-city suburb, bordered by the river on either side, has become ground zero for the debate about balancing history with a growing need for greater density as an increasing number of unit towers dot the suburb’s skyline.

In the latest salvo, Katharine Baynham has been helping to lead protests against plans to redevelop a Thornton St property that has been home to a former water police building for more than 100 years.

“People who aren’t usually activists feel the development is just wrong,” Ms Baynham said. “It’s wrong for the size of the development; it’s wrong in its design; it’s just not appropriate for the area.”

The old water police residence is at the centre of a battle to protect heritage buildings in Kangaroo Point. Picture: Jamie Hanson

The owners have submitted plans to council that would see a Federation-era building, built in 1901, moved further down the property to make way for a 16-storey development.

Ms Baynham said the 730sq m block was too small to accommodate both buildings. A building next door has already suffered a similar fate.

“No matter which way you look at it, you can’t make the block any bigger,” she said.

Council is expected to make a decision on the application in the new year. But Ms Baynham warned that the angry residents would consider court action if the proposal were approved.

The owner could not be contacted for comment.