The house in one of Maitland’s oldest sections at 83 Church Street has been recommended for demolition. If approved, heritage conservationist Chris Richards says it will break a long-standing precedent for council.

“In the past when buildings in Maitland’s heritage zones have been recommended for demolition, it has invariably been on a run down property that has been substantially modified over the years, but this time it’s different,” Mr Richards said. “This property is original, in good restorable order and in a conservation zone.”

“If this goes ahead developers will be rubbing their hands in glee. It’s the first tree in the rainforest.”

In contrast to Mr Richards’ view, the council report stated “there have been many changes made to the building over time” and the building was not of a high heritage calibre.

Tuesday’s motion is to demolish the building and metal shed and construct commercial premises and four residential units.

At the same time, it has been widely accepted that the city needs more people and dwellings in the inner city to help rejuvenate area.

The Church Street property is owned by developer Peter Sarroff, but The Mercury’s attempts to contact him were unsuccessful.

“I can categorically say that this is the very first time in Maitland’s history that an original building, in good restorable order and in a conservation zone, has been allowed to be recommended for demolition,” Mr Richards said. “It will set a very dangerous precedent.”

The site is not listed under the Maitland Local Environmental Plan as an item of heritage significance. However, the house is located in a heritage precinct where a streetscape was formed to protect the original buildings and their subdivisions.

Mr Richards, who has a master’s degree in heritage conservation, estimated 60 to 70 per cent of original buildings still remained within the zone, most of which have had little modifications since being built. 

“There are many problems with this,” he said. “It is not just a simple knockdown.

“What is proposed is totally unsympathetic with the rest of the street. It would ruin the streetscape which can not only depreciate the value of the surrounding houses, but open the floodgates for future demolitions.​

“Local residents are very concerned. I think they would be far more accepting if the front of the property were to remain intact to retain the streetscape, with the development taking place behind it – not just knock it down.”