St Paul’s Bankstown: Unholy Alliances? - Property, Power, and the Fight for a Sacred Space

Following on from our story of yesterday the fate of St Paul’s Anglican Church in Bankstown hangs in the balance, caught between the promise of affordable housing and the weight of its history, legal standing, and spiritual significance. The fight to preserve this landmark is not merely a matter of sentiment; it is a critical test of legal and moral obligations, challenging the very definition of a sacred trust. Recent events, including the failure of a crucial council motion, have only intensified the scrutiny on the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and its plans for the site.

At the heart of the legal battle lies the 1968 consecration document, a seemingly ceremonial text that carries profound legal implications. In this document, the Archbishop of Sydney, responding to a petition from the local minister and parishioners, formally and permanently dedicated the church building and its land to God and Divine Worship, setting it apart "for ever hereafter" from "all profane and common uses." This act, officially registered and sealed, establishes a binding commitment, a promise etched in time.

The consecration document raises key legal points: the permanent dedication of the property to religious use, the establishment of a trust relationship where the property is vested in the Church of England Property Trust Diocese of Sydney for the specific purpose of serving as a church for the Bankstown parish, and the reservation of ecclesiastical authority by the Archbishop, which does not override the fundamental purpose of the trust.

A significant legal precedent, Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [1995] QSC 334, offers a beacon of hope for those seeking to protect St Paul’s. This Queensland Supreme Court case involved St Barnabas’ Church, where the land was held "in trust for St Barnabas’ Church of England Ithaca Brisbane and to the use and for the purposes of the said Church." The Diocese sought to sell the property, arguing that the trust was for the general purposes of the Church in the area. The Court resoundingly rejected this argument, affirming that the trust was specifically for the benefit of the local congregation of St Barnabas’, not the diocese at large. The Court further held that the property could not be sold or repurposed unless the original purpose—serving the local congregation—was impossible to fulfill. This precedent underscores that trustees, such as the Diocese, cannot unilaterally alter the use of a property or sell it for expediency or broader church benefit; only if the original purpose is truly impossible can a change be considered under the "cy-près" doctrine.

Applying this precedent to St Paul’s Bankstown, the question arises: Is St Paul’s held on a similar trust? The consecration document, the petition from the local congregation, and the property’s vesting in the Property Trust all strongly suggest a trust for the specific purpose of serving as a church for the Bankstown parish. This raises a critical question: Can the Diocese redevelop or demolish St Paul’s? Based on the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane precedent, the answer is no, unless it is demonstrably impossible to continue using the property for its original purpose. Financial inconvenience, declining numbers, or a desire to use the land for other purposes, even for "affordable housing," do not, in themselves, render the original purpose impossible.

The courts have made it clear that "impossibility" means genuine impossibility, not merely inconvenience, cost, or a shift in diocesan priorities. The congregation’s willingness and ability to continue using the church is a highly relevant factor. Only if it is truly impossible to use the property for its original purpose can the Court approve a new use, and even then, the new use must be as close as possible to the original purpose.

In practical terms, this means that parishioners or community members could potentially seek an injunction or declaratory relief in the Supreme Court of NSW, arguing that the Diocese is acting outside the terms of the trust. The burden of proof would then fall on the Diocese to demonstrate that it is impossible to continue using St Paul’s as a church for the local congregation. The 1968 consecration document would serve as powerful evidence of the original intent and the trust’s purpose.

However, the battle to save St Paul’s has faced a recent setback, with Councillor Barbara Coorey’s motion at Council failing to pass last week. Despite this, the underlying issues of transparency, equity, and the future of sacred spaces remain as pressing as ever. The motion called on Council to disclose responses to heritage experts, table correspondence with the NSW Department of Planning, report on initiatives to preserve the church while allowing for alternative development proposals, seek an explanation from the Anglican Diocese regarding the contrasting approach to St Andrew’s Church at Lane Cove, express opposition to redevelopment proposals that do not retain St Paul’s, investigate whether St Paul’s classification as a Military Church offers further protection, and acknowledge the interment of two priests and a war veteran on the site. The failure of this motion leaves these critical questions unanswered, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the future of St Paul’s.

The contrast between the Diocese’s approach to St Paul’s and St Andrew’s Church in Lane Cove is particularly striking. At Lane Cove, the Anglican Diocese is collaborating with Traders in Purple to deliver a major redevelopment that retains St Andrew’s Church at its heart, incorporating an eight-storey mixed-use building, a 418-seat auditorium, apartments, retail space, and state-of-the-art ministry facilities. Yet, St Andrew’s does not possess the same level of heritage and military significance as St Paul’s. This begs the question: Why is the Diocese choosing to retain and build around St Andrew’s while proposing to demolish St Paul’s entirely?

The involvement of figures like George Geagea and Charles Daoud, the driving forces behind Traders in Purple, raises further concerns. Their business interests have repeatedly brushed up against controversy, including engaging former NSW planning minister Tony Kelly, who was later charged with misconduct in public office, as a consultant on major housing projects. Geagea's name has also surfaced in the context of ICAC investigations, with the Operation Ambrosia report revealing a false reference created for George Geagea as part of a broader pattern of document fabrication and corruption in the industry.

Moreover, the church’s alignment with figures like Rob Stokes, the former NSW Education Minister who recently appeared before ICAC as a witness in a corruption probe, raises eyebrows. Anglicare Sydney’s appointment of Stokes as Group Executive – Housing, given his public advocacy for redeveloping old churches as a solution to the housing crisis, is particularly questionable.

Beyond the legal and political complexities, St Paul’s holds deep military and spiritual significance. The ashes of two priests, including Father Thomas Lawrence, and a war veteran, James Tebbutt, are interred on the site. The church’s consecration petition explicitly dedicates the building "forever hereafter" to God and Divine Worship, separating it from "all profane and common uses." To demolish the church and disturb these remains would be, in the words of one parishioner, "a desecration."

The legal situation is not without hope. The consecration document, combined with the legal reasoning in Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane, provides a strong foundation to argue that the Diocese cannot lawfully demolish or redevelop St Paul’s for non-church purposes unless it is truly impossible to continue its use as a church. The courts have demonstrated a willingness to protect the intentions of the original trust and the rights of the local congregation. The fight to save St Paul’s is a test of values, a measure of how society honours its history, its veterans, and its sacred spaces. The community is watching, and the battle continues.

The Money Question: Is This Really Affordable Housing?

As the Diocese pushes for the redevelopment of St Paul’s, a glaring contradiction emerges: if, as the Bishop claims, there are no funds to repair the church roof, where will the millions come from to finance a major construction project? Anyone familiar with property development knows that banks and lenders typically require at least 50% equity for construction finance. For a project of this scale in Bankstown—where the median apartment price is now $555,000 and rising—this means the developer or church would need to contribute millions in upfront capital before a single brick is laid.

But the financial puzzle doesn’t end there. The Diocese and its partners claim the project will deliver “affordable housing.” Yet, by the standard legal definition, affordable housing means that rent or mortgage payments should not exceed 30% of a household’s gross income. For a new $550,000 unit, even with a 10% deposit, the monthly repayments at current interest rates would be nearly $3,000. That requires a household income of at least $9,800 a month—well above what most people in need of affordable housing, such as domestic violence survivors or low-income families, actually earn.

This raises uncomfortable questions: Who is this “affordable housing” really for? Is the church, as a registered charity, complying with its legal obligations under the ACNC to act in accordance with its charitable purposes? Or is this simply a profit-driven development dressed up in the language of social good?

If the Diocese cannot afford to maintain the church, how can it afford to build a multi-million dollar development? Where is the equity coming from, and who stands to benefit? And most importantly, does this project genuinely serve the people it claims to help—or is it just another example of profit taking precedence over purpose?

Adding to the confusion is the sequence of applications before Council. The Development Application (DA) for demolition has been lodged before any formal approval of the redevelopment itself, and before any evidence of construction funding has been provided. This “chicken and egg” approach raises further concerns: Why rush to demolish a sacred church before the community has seen concrete plans or proof that the promised affordable housing is even financially viable? Shouldn’t evidence of funding and a clear, approved development plan come before any irreversible action is taken?

These questions go to the heart of transparency and accountability. The community deserves to know: Is this process being driven by genuine need and proper planning, or by expediency and the interests of developers? Until these questions are answered, the fight for St Paul’s is not just about bricks and mortar—it’s about trust, integrity, and the future of Bankstown’s heritage.

Where is the Bishop in all of this? Where is the Rector? And where is the Archbishop? The silence from these key figures is deafening, and the lack of transparency is deeply troubling. Something smells here, and the community is determined to get to the bottom of it. We will continue to demand answers, scrutinise every deal, and fight for the truth until the full story of St Paul’s is brought to light, in the name of God Amen.