Background
Way Ming appealed the City of Sydney’s refusal of a development application for 768 and 770-772 George Street, Haymarket. The proposal involved consolidating the sites, demolishing the building at 768 George Street and part of the locally heritage-listed GIO Building at 770-772 George Street, and constructing a 13-storey mixed-use development.
The GIO Building is a seven-storey Inter-War Chicagoesque building, including its interiors. The proposal included a six-storey addition above it, extensive structural works, demolition of most of its northern wall, and hotel use within the retained building. The appeal proceeded after statutory conciliation did not resolve the dispute.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner O’Neill dismissed the appeal and refused the development application. Although the Court accepted that the heritage inventory sheet was not determinative, the heritage impact material was adequate, and hotel conversion could be an acceptable adaptive reuse, the proposed demolition of the northern façade was unjustified and unacceptable.
More importantly, the Court found that the proposed glazed vertical addition would dominate and overwhelm the GIO Building. Its minimal setbacks from George and Barlow Streets did not create meaningful visual separation, and its bulk, form and materiality diminished the heritage item’s prominence and the fine-grained character of the Haymarket/Chinatown Special Character Area. The proposal therefore caused unacceptable heritage impacts and failed the Sydney LEP’s design-excellence requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A heritage inventory sheet is a useful starting point, but must not be applied rigidly where its generic provisions conflict with site-specific assessment.
- Adaptive reuse of a heritage building may be acceptable, but does not justify unjustified loss of significant fabric or an overbearing addition.
- Minimal setbacks and extensive glazing can prevent an addition from being visually subservient to a heritage item and defeat design-excellence requirements.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that compliance with broad LEP height and floor-space controls does not establish that a proposal is acceptable in a heritage setting. Contextual DCP controls and the impact on a heritage item’s form, setting and streetscape can be decisive.
For redevelopment of prominent heritage buildings, proponents must show that additions preserve the item’s visual pre-eminence and provide a genuinely sympathetic relationship in scale, setback, form and materials.