15-07-2025
Grand Western Lodge and Blayney Council's $60,000 footpath battle
The owner of a historic building and a New South Wales council are in a bitter dispute over a footpath, which has already cost ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars, and there is no end in sight.
Retired investment banker Ian Gillings has threatened legal action against Blayney Shire Council in the state's Central West over its plan to fix a dilapidated footpath outside his business in Millthorpe, near Orange.
Mr Gillings purchased the run-down 1901 Grand Western Lodge on Victoria Street at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and spent more than two years renovating the federation-era property into accommodation for miners.
But he is not happy with the state of a bitumen pavement footpath that straddles the state heritage-listed building's wrap-around balcony.
Mr Gillings has likened the footpath to a poorly maintained country road, filled with potholes and water damage.
"The footpath is in dangerous and is in bad repair," he said.
As part of its broader Millthorpe Village Masterplan, the council plans to fix the footpath with asphalt, which Mr Gillings opposes.
He alleges the material would worsen water damage in the building, by allowing water to penetrate the cellar, and is not aesthetically appropriate for the heritage.
"I don't want my building to fall apart," he said.
Instead, he wants to replace it with bluestone, a more porous and durable product that matches the kerbs and guttering in the heritage conservation area.
Mr Gillings has even offered to foot the entire estimated $80,000 bill and sign a 99-year guarantee to cover maintenance and costs associated with it.
"It doesn't work like that from our risk perspective nor our insurance and liability," Blayney Shire Council's general manager Mark Dicker said.
"We need to have a fit-for-purpose product not a Rolls Royce product, particularly when heritage advice doesn't agree with it."
Council's heritage advisor and Heritage NSW have given the green light to its existing plans to replace the asphalt path with like-for-like, in line with rest of the village.
Its independent engineering advice found the proposed renewal works would not change the conditions that have resulted in rising damp in the lodge.
But a report by Calare Civil, hired by Mr Gillings, found the bluestone pavers would be the "best practice approach".
"The permeable pavers along with their dark colouring will promote escape of soil moisture through evaporation as opposed to directing water up the building walls," the report said.
When council said no to Mr Gillings's offer, he commenced legal proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court in April.
They have since been discontinued after the council agreed to temporarily pause the planned upgrade.
It means the footpath will remain in its poor state for now.
"It is the most incomprehensible thing ever," Mr Gillings said.
"I have no idea why they'd want to waste money in court rather than just say, 'Fine, we'll take your money.'"
The council estimated the legal proceedings could cost up to $150,000 and that money remains set aside if they recommence.
"Noone wins going to court; that's a last resort from us," Mr Dicker said.
"This has quite frankly wasted over $30,000 of money plus numerous hours of staff time."
Mr Gillings also said it had so far cost him $30,000 in legal fees.
Mr Gillings said the footpath stoush was the latest hurdle he had faced since purchasing the building, which had a tainted reputation.
The lodge gained the unfavourable title "house of horrors" after stories about its previous owner's treatment of discharged psychiatric patients who lived in the hotel-turned-private boarding house emerged in the early 2000s.
A class action resulted in a payout of more than $4 million to approximately 50 claimants.
In spite of its history, Mr Gillings saw a business opportunity in re-opening the lodge and has no plans of backing down in the stoush with the council.
"The moment they give me notice that they're doing it [fixing the path with asphalt] they'll be in the Land and Environment Court."
