Bankstown's Battle: The Fight to Save St Paul’s Anglican Church

In the heart of Bankstown, a storm is raging over the fate of St Paul’s Anglican Church—a building that stands as a testament to the suburb’s history, community spirit, and architectural legacy. The battle lines are drawn between those who see the church as a sacred and irreplaceable landmark, and those who view it as a development opportunity in a city desperate for affordable housing.

St Paul’s is not just another old building. Its story is woven into the very fabric of Bankstown. The land was purchased in 1914, and the church was built in stages, brick by brick, through the Depression and post-war years. Every addition, every plaque, every stained-glass window tells a story of community fundraising, volunteer labour, and deep local attachment. The ashes of parishioners rest in its gardens; the names of local families are etched into its very walls.

Heritage experts like Dr Sue Rosen and Dr Roy Lumby have made the case for St Paul’s as a site of genuine historical, social, and architectural significance. Dr Rosen, who authored Bankstown’s Bi-Centennial history, has argued that St Paul’s is a rare and intact example of Interwar and Post-War ecclesiastical architecture, with both stages designed by the renowned Norman McPherson. This continuity of design, confirmed by new evidence including foundation stones and contemporary news articles, gives the church a unique place in Sydney’s architectural landscape.

Dr Roy Lumby, another respected heritage consultant, has also highlighted the church’s “museum-like” quality—its interior filled with memorials, donated furniture, and objects that document the lives and contributions of generations of Bankstown residents. The church, he argues, is a living record of the community’s multicultural history and resilience.

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has chosen to side with developers. Their argument? The church is too expensive to maintain, and the land could be better used for a high-rise development that includes “affordable housing.” But let’s be honest: this is about money. The Diocese, a not-for-profit organisation, is prepared to bulldoze its own congregation’s history for a quick financial fix. Many parishioners feel betrayed, abandoned by an institution that is supposed to serve them, not sell them out.

The Diocese of Sydney has argued that St. Paul's requires extensive and costly roof repairs, making its continued operation financially unsustainable. Based on this assessment, the Diocese has actively pursued redevelopment options and, according to reports, has discouraged the local council from fully considering the church's heritage value, citing the prohibitive cost of these repairs as a primary reason for its unviability. This approach has raised concerns that the Diocese is prioritizing financial considerations over the preservation of a potentially significant heritage asset.

The Canterbury-Bankstown Council is the battleground for this fight. Some councillors, like Barbara Coorey, have stood up for heritage and community, insisting that Bankstown’s character should not be sacrificed for more towers. But the council’s leadership is now in the hands of Mayor Bilal El-Hayek—a Lebanese-born Muslim, and the first Muslim to hold the mayoralty of one of Australia’s largest local governments.

Let’s not mince words: the optics are complicated. On one side, you have a Christian minister at the state level pushing for heritage protection. On the other, a Muslim mayor presiding over a council that has so far refused to list the church, despite expert advice and community pleas. Is this a conflict of interest? Not in the legal sense. But it does raise questions about representation, priorities, and the messy realities of multicultural politics in modern Australia.

No one denies that Bankstown needs more affordable housing. The waiting lists are long, the rents are high, and the community is diverse and growing. But does that justify erasing a century of history? The Faith Housing Alliance and the Diocese argue that heritage listing would “sterilize” the site and block 139 new social and affordable homes. Yet, as Dr Rosen and Dr Lumby point out, heritage listing does not mean freezing a site in time. It means development must respect and incorporate what is valuable—something that is done successfully in cities around the world.

The campaign to save St Paul’s has been long and fraught. In 2015, Dr Sue Rosen’s assessment for Bankstown Council recommended heritage listing, supported by a peer review from Geoff Ashley and the Council’s own Heritage Advisory Committee. But the Anglican Church, through its consultants, objected—arguing that heritage status would block future development. In 2016, the Council voted against listing, swayed by the Diocese’s objections and the lure of redevelopment.

Since then, the evidence for heritage value has only grown stronger. In 2022, Heritage NSW advised the Council to reconsider, noting the church’s “clear range of local heritage values” and the strong community attachment. Yet, the Council has not acted.

Meanwhile, the Faith Housing Alliance and the Diocese have lobbied hard against heritage listing, arguing that it would prevent urgently needed social and affordable housing. Their submission to the state government claims that the site is “poorly utilised” and that redevelopment is supported by the majority of the congregation—a claim hotly disputed by the Save St Paul’s group.

The issue reached the floor of the NSW Parliament, where Tania Mihailuk, MLC, asked the Minister for Heritage why an Interim Heritage Order had not been granted for St Paul’s. The Minister’s response was telling: Heritage NSW’s preliminary assessment found the church “unlikely to meet the threshold for State heritage significance,” and that local council support was necessary for a heritage listing. In other words, the state government is passing the buck back to the local council—despite clear evidence and community advocacy.

Legal precedents

Legal precedents offer a glimmer of hope for St. Paul's. The Queensland Supreme Court case of Re Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334 provides a compelling example of a congregation successfully challenging the broader church's attempt to repurpose property. In that case, the court ruled that the trust was for the benefit of the local congregation of St. Barnabas' Anglican Church, not for the general purposes of the diocese, and prevented the sale of the property. This case speaks to the importance of the original trust documents and the intentions of the settlors, emphasizing that church property held on trust for a specific congregation cannot be sold or repurposed by the wider church authority unless the original purpose is impossible to fulfill. It also highlights the court's role in protecting the interests of the congregation and ensuring that the property continues to serve its intended purpose.

While the High Court case of Attorney-General (NSW) v Grant [1976]  generally establishes that church properties are held in trust by the diocese or denominational body, not the local congregation, this does not grant the Diocese absolute authority. Legally, the Diocese of Sydney likely has the power to decide the fate of St Paul's, even against the wishes of local parishioners, as long as they act within the bounds of the trust and for the broader purposes of the Anglican Church. Therefore, while the community's voice is vital, the legal power rests with the Diocese, making a strong legal and ethical argument all the more crucial. However, this power is not without limits. As demonstrated in the Queensland Supreme Court case of Re Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334, a congregation can successfully challenge the broader church's decision if it can be shown that the property was specifically intended for the benefit of the local congregation and that the original purpose of the trust can still be fulfilled. This highlights the importance of examining the specific trust documents and historical context surrounding St. Paul's to determine the extent of the Diocese's authority.

The case of Flower & Samios Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [1993] NSWLEC 92 provides a crucial legal precedent for the fight to save St Paul's. In that case, the Land and Environment Court recognized the importance of balancing development needs with heritage preservation, even when a church sought to redevelop its own land. The court overrode the church's plans to demolish a heritage-significant Presbytery, finding that its historical and architectural value outweighed the desire for more aged care units. This case demonstrates that heritage listing does not necessarily "sterilize" a site, and that the court has the power to impose conditions to protect heritage values, even against the wishes of the property owner. Just as the court in Flower & Samios ensured that community benefits were achieved in a way that respected heritage, the same approach can and should be applied to St Paul's.

Another relevant case is Save Little Manly Beach Foreshore Incorporated v Manly Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 156. In this case, a community group successfully restrained a council from selling public land, on the basis that it was classified as "community land" under the Local Government Act 1993 and subject to a trust for a public purpose. The court found that the council's attempts to reclassify the land as "operational" were invalid and restrained the council from selling the land. This case is a strong precedent for community groups seeking to prevent the sale or redevelopment of public or community land, especially where heritage, public use, or trust issues are involved.   

In Millers Point Community Assoc. Inc v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92 "The Sirius case", the Land and Environment Court clarified that "undue financial hardship" requires detailed evidence of repair costs, exploration of alternatives, and a balancing of costs against heritage value. If the Anglican Church claims that roof repairs are too expensive, they must provide verifiable evidence and demonstrate that all funding options have been exhausted. The cost of repairs, even if substantial, cannot justify demolition if St. Paul's has significant heritage value, and the Church's overall financial position must be considered to determine if the hardship is truly "undue." 

Recent investigative reporting (The Klaxon, April 2022) has revealed that the Sydney Anglican Church is far from financially “dire.” In fact, it has booked tens of millions in profits from property revaluations and holds assets worth billions, while shifting liabilities and claiming hardship in its aged care arm. The Sirius case makes clear that “undue financial hardship” must be genuine and substantiated. In the case of St Paul’s, the Church’s own financial position demonstrates it has the capacity to fund necessary repairs, such as a new roof, and cannot lawfully rely on claims of hardship to justify demolition or redevelopment. The community and public interest demand that heritage and social responsibilities are prioritized over profit.

For those fighting to save St Paul’s, the legal avenues are limited but not exhausted:
Judicial Review: If there is evidence that the Council or Minister failed to follow proper process, acted unreasonably, or ignored relevant evidence, a judicial review in the Land and Environment Court could be pursued. This would not decide the merits of heritage listing, but could force a reconsideration if the process was flawed.

Injunction in the Supreme Court: If demolition or sale is imminent, seeking an injunction from the Supreme Court could temporarily halt any action, providing time for further legal proceedings or negotiation. This is the same approach used in Re Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334, where parishioners challenged the Diocese’s authority to deal with church property. To obtain an injunction, the Save St Paul’s group would need to show a serious question to be tried (such as a breach of trust or improper administration) and that the balance of convenience favors preserving the church until the matter is resolved.

New Heritage Assessment: The community can commission independent heritage experts to provide updated reports, strengthening the case for listing and putting pressure on the Council.

Public Advocacy: Continued media attention, petitions, and public rallies can keep the issue in the spotlight and pressure decision-makers.

Political Lobbying: Engaging with state MPs, especially those on the crossbench or in the upper house, can help build political support for intervention.

The fight is not over. The Save St Paul’s Alliance and its supporters must:
Keep building the evidence base—with new expert reports, community testimonials, and historical research.

Hold the Council and Diocese accountable—demand transparency, public consultation, and ethical decision-making.

Explore every legal and political avenue—from judicial review to direct appeals to the Minister and Parliament.

Mobilise the community—because in the end, it’s public pressure that often tips the scales.

St Paul’s is more than bricks and mortar. It’s a living symbol of Bankstown’s past, present, and future. The bulldozers haven’t arrived yet. There’s still time to save St Paul’s—but only if enough people care to fight for it, and only if our leaders are willing to listen.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. The author is an Anglican with publications on theology, law, and civil rights.