Plans, objections for Parramatta’s St John’s Anglican Cathedral development

Opponents of a historic Australian church’s bold high-rise development have savaged the project’s commercial ambitions but supporters say the plans are desperately needed.

Artist impressions of the St John's Cathedral redevelopment at Church St, Parramatta.

Opponents of a $400m proposal, set to feature two towers, an aged care centre, student accommodation, three auditoriums and a public square next to St John’s Anglican Cathedral at Parramatta, have expressed their frustrations at the parish’s role as developers.

At the Parramatta Local Planning Panel meeting on Wednesday, National Trust of Australia NSW’s Parramatta branch president Cheryl Bates said the church had declared its goal for the bold project was to provide better facilities and generate funds.

“This is an interesting concept to put forward when this planning decision needs to be considered using sound planning principles only,’’ she said.

“Don’t be misled — the church is a developer and should be treated as such.

“The church is building predominantly a commercial development to be sold to members of the public and not only for church parishioners.’’

A large part of the project depends on whether the 111-year-old parish hall is retained.

The council’s original plans supported delisting the building but the Planning Department wanted to retain it as part of the project, which proposes three auditoriums to house 1000 people, and 44,000sq m of office space for 4000 jobs.

Artist impressions of the St John's Anglican Cathedral redevelopment at Church St, Parramatta.

The department suggested any proposal to remove the hall should be assessed as part of another development application.

Ms Bates fears for the loss of heritage if the hall was bulldozed.

“Parramatta has seen a continuing demolition of heritage and why? For the convenience of developers,’’ she said.

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects landscape heritage group manager Annabel Murray said the development failed to consider the destructive impact on Centenary Square, “one of the oldest public squares in Australia”.

But historian and author Ian Grady backs plans and wants the hall demolished.

“The hall itself is an unimpressive structure and an ugly agglomeration of dark brick buildings attached to its rear,’ he said.

“As I see it, age alone is not sufficient to retain a building that was built to the plans of an unknown architect that conforms to no recognisable style, that does not fit in with its surroundings and which detracts from public space.’’

St John's Anglican Parish Hall has polarised opinion.

Parishioner and mum Veronica Hall said the church was lacking facilities such as baby change rooms.

“The current facilities are unfit for purpose, unwelcoming and, in parts, a safety and fire hazard,’’ she said.

“I don’t think it’s keeping with the times and does not represent the city of Parramatta well to residents or visitors.

“St John’s excels at community and would have grown even more in number but for the current physical limitations.’’

St John’s senior minister Bruce Morrison said the church hoped to attract national tenants to a “vibrant commercial hub” that “brings jobs closer to homes”.

After the meeting, he said, subject to approval, the development would enlist a partner but would not be drawn on how much the church would contribute to the development.

“Any project like this has to be done with a partner,’’ he said.

“There’s no way the church has this sort of money. We have not selected a partner at this stage.

“Contrary to public myth, the diocese does not have deep pockets.’’

Unprecedented’: Why majority oppose $400m church plans

The panel meeting follows an “unprecedented” number of submissions with the majority voicing their disapproval of the project earmarked to stand next to the historic 219-year-old sandstone cathedral.

The submissions comprised 59 per cent objecting to it, 40 per cent in support and one per cent neutral.

Feedback was received from 390 residents, individuals and community groups; eight public authorities, five developers, major landowners and planning consultants.

The objections cited concerns about the loss of Parramatta's heritage, open space and overdevelopment.

The National Trust NSW branch is against heritage loss while the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects criticised the project for “landscape architecture” not being adequately considered, stating the proposal would negatively impact nearby historic areas and the towers were inappropriate.

St John’s lofty plans include homes, office space and function arenas.

The council officers state it was addressing those concerns with a plan to build a slender tower and to add landscaping.

Walker Corporation, the developers behind Parramatta Square, raised concerns about heritage, saying the development for two towers was possible while retaining the heritage hall.

It also suggested improving the square so it would have a better connection with Parramatta Square.

But the council concluded public benefits would offset the loss of the hall.

Key reasons for supporting the project included improving the church’s use, benefiting the public, community, cultural and economic benefits and positive impacts for pedestrian safety and infrastructure.

The Anglican Church Property Trust owns the 12-allotment site spanning parts of Church, Macquarie and Hunter streets.

The planning proposal seeks to rezone some parts of the site and amend the height rules to allow a commercial tower on the northern site and a mixed use tower on the southern side.

Some of the council’s planning controls are recommended to be altered so the northern tower can be “well-proportioned, tall and slender”, which would also lessen the impact on St John’s Cathedral and Centenary Square.

The huge number of submissions meant the project had been delayed.

“The quantity and complexity of submissions received was unprecedented for a site-specific planning proposal in the Parramatta CBD …,’’ a council report read.

The Planning Department’s June 30 time frame to finalise the proposal was therefore “unachievable”.

The date was pushed back to August 30 before being finalised to November 30.

The panel will now announce its recommendation to the council, which will make a decision before sending it to the Planning Department.

If endorsed, the project will advance to the Planning Department which ultimately decides if the project gets a red or green light.