| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : GRAYDON and CITY OF STIRLING [2013] WASAT 103 MEMBER : MR J ADDERLEY (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 20 JUNE 2013 DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : DR 8 of 2013 BETWEEN : ROBERT GRAYDON ANNA GRAYDON
Applicants
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords: Town planning Development application Refusal of additions to dwelling in Heritage Protection Area Planning scheme and policy objectives Heritage character of area Scale, bulk, height and articulation of additions Stylistic appropriateness of bay window Architectural language, materials and finishes Where proposal should be viewed from in relation to assessment of compatibility with heritage character of area Application of heritage protection development control guidelines to frontages of corner lot
(Page 2)
Legislation: City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Result: Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent affirmed
Summary of Tribunal's decision: This is a review of the respondent's decision to refuse development approval of additions to a dwelling situated in a residential Heritage Protection Area in Mount Lawley.
The respondent refused the proposal on grounds that it was contrary to the intent and requirements of the Heritage Protection Area.
The Tribunal found that the proposed substantial upper floor addition to the dwelling was both visually prominent and of a scale, bulk and height that was incompatible with the prevailing heritage character of the area and therefore noncompliant with the objectives of the respondent's Heritage Protection Area and Development Control Guidelines.
The application for review was therefore dismissed and the respondent's decision of refusal was affirmed.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicants : Ms S Bransby (Acting as Agent)
Respondent : Mr D Martinovich (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicants : N/A
Respondent : City of Stirling
(Page 3)
<SolicitorList Name1="N/A", Type1="Applicants", Name2="N/A", Type2="Applicants", Name3="City of Stirling", Type3="Respondent",>
<CounselList Name1="Ms S Bransby (Acting as Agent)", Type1="Applicants", Name2="Ms S Bransby (Acting as Agent)", Type2="Applicants", Name3="Mr D Martinovich (Acting as Agent)", Type3="Respondent",>
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 This is a review of the decision of the City of Stirling (City or respondent) not to grant planning approval for proposed additions to a dwelling situated at No 45 (Lot 759) Woodroyd Street, Mount Lawley (lot, land or site). 2 The application for the proposed additions was submitted to the respondent by Mr and Mrs Graydon (applicants) on 5 June 2012. 3 Amended plans of the proposal were submitted to the respondent dated 22 November 2012. 4 The respondent issued its decision of refusal of planning approval on 17 December 2012. 5 The applicants lodged an application for review of the respondent's decision with the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 7 January 2013. 6 In the course of mediation, by order of the Tribunal, the applicants were given leave to modify the proposal by substituting further amended plans dated 14 March 2013. These are the plans now the subject of this review.
The proposed development and its context 7 The proposed development comprises ground floor and upper floor additions to a two storey brick and tile dwelling located on a rectangular corner lot which has a 20 metre frontage to Woodroyd Street and a 50 metre frontage to South View Road. 8 The additions are mostly located towards the southern end of the lot, away from the Woodroyd Street end which is substantially occupied by the original residence and later extensions. 9 The purpose of the development is to provide for two additional bedrooms, a bathroom, a dining area, a verandah and an 'alfresco' courtyard on the ground level. A 'games' room is to be constructed at the upper level, over the existing garage facing South View Road. New 'bay' windows are proposed in the course of some minor modification of the existing upper floor bedrooms associated with earlier additions to the original residence. (Page 5)
10 The immediate locality is residential and mostly characterised by single dwellings on generously sized housing lots. The area is well established and features substantial homes, pleasant gardens and a leafy streetscape.
Statutory and policy instruments 11 The land is zoned Residential R12.5 under the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3). 12 Under LPS 3 the land is situated within the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area. 13 Objectives of the Heritage Protection Area include (inter alia): a) To ensure the conservation and retention of buildings within the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s where the architectural style of the building is generally intact. b) To ensure the retention of existing buildings referred to in a) above to maintain the existing character of the streetscape. c) To ensure that new buildings (where permitted), alterations, additions to existing buildings, carports, garages and front fences are in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respect the scale and proportions of surrounding buildings, and are designed to fit the existing streetscape. 14 Under the auspices of LPS 3 the respondent has adopted Character Retention Guidelines (Guidelines) associated with the Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood Heritage Protection Area. These Guidelines were revised in December 2012. 15 The land the subject of this review lies within the Mount Lawley sector of the Heritage Protection Area. 16 The heritage significance of the Mount Lawley area is described as 'a rare example in Perth of a substantially intact residential area from the first decades of the twentieth century'. 17 It is further described as having 'aesthetic, historic, social and scientific significance' for reasons (inter alia) including the presence of (Page 6)
'examples of Federation bungalow, Queen Anne, Arts and Crafts and Californian bungalow architectural styles'. 18 In the context of additions to existing buildings, the Guidelines aim to: • retain the original building with minimum alterations; • ensure that conservation works retain and enhance the original character of the building; and • ensure that new additions to existing buildings must reflect the heritage character of the area and the style of the existing building. The Guidelines further prescribe that: • no additions to the existing building shall occur within the front setback area unless restoring an original feature in the original architectural style (for example, a verandah); • any additions to the side shall be set back a minimum of 2 metres from the front of the existing building; and • second storey additions shall be located to the rear of the original building ridgeline, or a minimum of 4 metres from the predominant building line of the front of the original building, whichever is the lesser. 19 A revision of the Guidelines, adopted by the respondent in October 2012, modifies the wording of the preceding text in the following manner: • retain the traditional house with minimum alterations; • conservation works should retain and enhance the original character of the house; • new additions to traditional houses must reflect the heritage character of the area and the style of the traditional house; • no additions to the traditional house shall occur within the front setback area, unless restoring an original feature in the original architectural style (for example, a verandah); (Page 7)
20 The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (Codes) provide definitions of 'Primary street' and 'Secondary street'. A primary street is described as being '[u]nless otherwise designated by the local government, the sole or principal public road that provides access to the major entry (front door) to the dwelling'.
The respondent's decision 21 The respondent refused the application for planning approval on the basis that the proposed additions (specifically the games room above the existing garage and the bay window to bedroom 2) are contrary to the intent and requirements of the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area and the City's Guidelines (Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood) of LPS 3.
The issues to be addressed 22 The issue to be addressed is whether it is reasonable, in accordance with orderly and proper planning, that the proposed additions to the residence should be approved. In this regard the Tribunal should consider whether or not particular aspects of the proposed development, particularly the games room above the garage and the bay window to bedroom 2, would unreasonably compromise the respondent's objectives for the Heritage Protection Area and the relevant Residential Development Provisions of the Guidelines for Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood.
The respondent's argument 23 The respondent argued that the proposed games room above the garage facing South View Road and the proposed bay window to bedroom 2, also facing South View Road, are both inconsistent with the character of the original Federation style dwelling, the local streetscape and the heritage character of the area. The proposed development should therefore not be approved. (Page 8)
24 Ms Nerida Moredoundt, a qualified and experienced architect specialising in heritage assessment, gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. 25 Ms Moredoundt advised the Tribunal that, because the site is a corner lot, both street frontages are important when considering heritage impact. South View Road was always historically important and today serves as the primary access to the dwelling. 26 In assessing the proposal, Ms Moredoundt contended that the primary objective of the Guidelines was to ensure that the heritage character of the area is protected. In so doing, the impact of the proposal should be considered in relation to the traditional characteristics of the original house and the impact of the development on both street frontages. 27 Ms Moredoundt explained that the Guidelines provide clear guidance in respect of appropriate setback of additions for dwellings on lots that have a single street frontage. It can also be reasonably inferred that the provisions of the Guidelines which provide that new dwellings 'shall follow the established street setback, for both primary and secondary streets irrespective of the relevant R Code street setback', that the importance of both street frontages should similarly apply to the consideration of additions to existing dwellings on corner lots. 28 On the question of the proposed bay window to bedroom 2, Ms Moredoundt acknowledged that bay windows were a stylistic feature of traditional houses in the locality, including the original house on the subject lot. 29 The heritage character of the area has, however, been defined by single storey Federation and Interwar houses particularly characterised by sweeping or dominant roof forms which are uninterrupted by dormer or bay windows above the ground floor. The intention of the Guidelines, according to Ms Moredoundt, is to retain this single storey appearance from the street. The proposed bay window to bedroom 2 serves, however, to reinforce the inappropriate dominance of the previously added upper floor and therefore compounds a negative impact on the streetscape. 30 In respect of the proposed games room above the garage, Ms Moredoundt observed that the resultant scale and bulk of this addition would not respect the form of the traditional houses of the area. (Page 9)
31 Ms Moredoundt advised that the proposed games room addition above the garage would not meet the provisions of the Guidelines in relation to appropriate setback and design considerations. 32 Responding to questioning, Ms Moredoundt advised that she was unaware that the local government had made any special decision as to whether Woodroyd Street or South View Road should be designated as the primary street in this case. 33 Ms Moredoundt accepted that the corner lots along South View Road had been developed with lesser setbacks onto South View Road than onto frontages facing the cross roads.
The applicants' argument 34 The applicants argued that the proposed additions are in keeping with the heritage character of the locality, meet the intent of the Guidelines and should therefore be approved. 35 Ms Larissa Watson, a qualified architect with extensive experience in heritage and conservation, gave evidence on behalf of the applicants. 36 Ms Watson advised that, while the original house on the land addressed the corner, the primary frontage was Woodroyd Street as evidenced by the greater setback to Woodroyd Street, the original bay window facing Woodroyd Street and the original formal entry leading to the Woodroyd Street verandah. The secondary frontage was to South View Road as evidenced by the reduced setback to that street. 37 Ms Watson agreed that the primary objective of the Guidelines is to protect the heritage character of the Heritage Protection Area and that the impact of the proposal must be considered in relation to the traditional characteristics of the original house, the heritage character of the area and the impact on both street frontages. It is the intent of the Guidelines, in relation to setbacks and predominant building lines, to preserve the original single storey streetscape appearance to the traditional primary street, principally by encouraging new development behind the original roof ridgeline and behind the predominant building line of the traditional house. According to Ms Watson, it is not, however, appropriate that the Guidelines should apply primary setback restrictions in the case of corner lots to both street frontages. To do so would be prejudicial to the circumstance of corner lots. (Page 10)
38 On the subject of the proposed bay window, Ms Watson was of the view that the Guidelines encouraged all new windows visible to the street, regardless of floor level, to be designed in a manner sympathetic to the scale, proportions, vertical emphasis and materials of other traditional windows within the Heritage Protection Area. There should be a design consistency between the traditional built form and the new addition. 39 Ms Watson advised that bay windows were a stylistic feature of the original house and of the architectural style of traditional houses in the locality. The proposed upper level bay window is, therefore, in keeping with the original house, its later additions and the heritage character of the locality. This aspect of the proposal therefore complies with the intent of the Guidelines. 40 Referring to the impact of the proposed games room, Ms Watson contended that the most significant view of the single storey form of the original house is from the corner of South View Road and Woodroyd Street. This view of the house is entirely preserved, unobstructed by the proposed games room addition, and is therefore in keeping with the intent of the guidelines. 41 According to Ms Watson, the apparent bulk and scale of the games room addition is appropriately ameliorated by: • its setback behind the building line; • the difference in height of the eaves line of the new addition and that of the kitchen and verandah elements; • the articulation provided by the separation in height and form of the proposed addition and the existing upper level additions; and • the proposed architectural language, materials and finishes. 42 In response to questioning, Ms Watson affirmed her opinion that the most important view of the property for the purposes of heritage conservation was from the corner of South View Road and Woodroyd Street, notwithstanding the present orientation of the dwelling with its front door directly addressing South View Road.
(Page 11)
Draft conditions of approval 43 Draft conditions of approval were prepared by the respondent. 44 The conditions were agreed between the parties.
Site view 45 A visit to the site was undertaken on the afternoon of the hearing with particular emphasis on appreciating the views of the dwelling from local street vantage points and the context of other dwellings in the neighbourhood.
Analysis 46 The applicants' argument is substantially reliant on the proposition that the essential heritage character of the dwelling on the land should be perceived from the corner of the streets and that, from this perspective, the proposed additions would be largely obscured and would not compromise the traditional heritage character of the original building. 47 So far as the secondary and less important perception of the dwelling from South View Road is concerned, the design and detail of the proposed additions, according to the applicants, is sufficiently sympathetic to the expected heritage character of the area to warrant its acceptability. 48 The respondent's argument, on the other hand, appears to be based on a reading of the dwelling from a broader perspective. The high degree of visibility of the proposed additions viewed from South View Road, and their prominence, bulk and incompatibility with the scale and character of the original single storey building, renders them, in the opinion of the respondent, in conflict with the heritage qualities of the traditional house and that of the surrounding locality. 49 The Tribunal finds both arguments well made, and seeks a resolution by considering a number of questions that arise. 50 Firstly, what is a reasonable understanding and description of the heritage character of the area? 51 Ms Watson described the South View Road and Woodroyd Street area as a mix of traditional, modified traditional houses (including a moderate number with upper storey additions) and some more recent dwellings. She described the locality as a moderately intact circa 1920s to 1940s streetscape. (Page 12)
52 Ms Moredoundt advised that traditional Interwar houses comprising single storey brick dwellings with dominant, pitched tile roofs, set in gardens with low front fences, make up the majority of the surrounding streetscape. There are some nontraditional houses that are an intrusive element on the heritage character of the area. 53 The Tribunal benefited from photographs of the relevant streetscapes of the area provided by the witnesses, and from a viewing of the locality from vantage points along South View Road and Woodroyd Street. 54 It is apparent from this evidence that the character of the area is indeed well defined and, despite some anomalies, constitutes an attractive and cohesive manifestation of Interwar and Federation architectural styles. Many of the houses in the area are of a single storey foreground with dominating roof profiles. Where upper floor additions have occurred they have generally been setback to avoid compromise of the foreground roof profile. 55 How should the Tribunal compare the proposed development of the land to this defined character of the area? Should it be with a view of the development perceived from the street corner, as suggested by the applicants, whereby the key elements of the original traditional building are not obscured or compromised, and otherwise, the proposed upper floor additions are designed to compliment the architectural language of the traditional building? Or should the proposed development be observed more broadly from vantage points along South View Road, and its impact thereon be the determining criterion? 56 The Tribunal is uncomfortable with the perhaps arcane notion that the visual impact of the proposed development should be observed from a certain or limited vantage point, because that was the traditional 'address' of the house, and that other vantage points are of lesser significance. It is of course true that the corner view is important in reading the original disposition of the house and relationships with the extensions, but, in the Tribunal's opinion, it is the more commonly experienced view from the length of the South View Road frontage of the land that dominates and defines the character of the development. The limited vision of the development from the corner is an unreasonably confined appreciation of any impact on the streetscape. It is the total presence that needs to be appraised and compared with that of the prevailing character of the area. In this regard the Tribunal prefers the respondent's position on this question and notes that the importance of this frontage, associated with (Page 13)
the major entry of the house, is affirmed by the definition of what constitutes a primary street in the Codes. 57 It follows, then, that appraisal of the opposing arguments as to the compatibility of the proposed additions with the defined character of the area needs to be considered by the Tribunal. In this regard, the Tribunal is influenced by its previously stated acceptance that the character of the proposed development is going to be largely determined by its presentation to South View Road. 58 The applicants' argument in relation to the proposed games room addition is that the apparent bulk and scale of the structure is sufficiently ameliorated by its setback and design treatments in relation to height variation, roof line articulation and exercise of coordinating architectural language, materials and finishes. 59 It is apparent, though, to the Tribunal, that the height and bulk of the proposed games room addition will significantly add to and compound the perception of the dwelling as a large, two storey edifice dominating South View Road. This dominance is further exaggerated by the natural elevation of the land. Such a dominating presence would, in the Tribunal's view, be at odds with the prevailing character of the street which otherwise mostly exhibits single storey frontages and sweeping roof lines associated with, and characteristic of, traditional Interwar housing. 60 This brings into question whether there is an unfair burden borne by a corner lot in any obligation to comply with the respondent's Heritage Protection Area Objectives and Development Control Guidelines. The Tribunal notes that the respondent's Guidelines are clear as to the expected treatment of conventional lots and the setbacks appropriate for additions. The treatment of additions on corner lots, however, is not prescribed and, accordingly, there is an unfortunate uncertainty of expectations. This should, in the Tribunal's opinion, be addressed by the respondent as a matter of some urgency. 61 It is not the Tribunal's expectation that the Guidelines' setbacks for additions for conventional lots should apply without variation to both the frontages of corner lots; rather, that a formula, perhaps proportionally reflecting the need for appropriate setbacks for additions applicable to each frontage, should be prescribed in the Guidelines. This would eliminate the present uncertainty around development of corner lots. (Page 14)
62 The Tribunal is, however, of the opinion that the present proposal for the games room above the garage, which manifests such a dominating height, scale and bulk at a very minimal setback, would be unlikely to comply with any reasonably based formula for acceptable setback and design control of additions on a corner lot that might be anticipated in the Guidelines. 63 Turning to the question of the proposed upper level bay window facing South View Road, the Tribunal is less inclined to support the respondent's oppositional argument for the following reasons: • The proposal is a relatively minor modification of an existing window. • The respondent has accepted similar modification of other upper level windows facing the back garden and Woodroyd Street. • The type of window is accepted by both parties as a stylistic feature of traditional houses of the locality. • The window does not add significantly to any perceived incongruity with the heritage character of the existing upper level extensions to the dwelling. 64 However, notwithstanding any potential acceptability of the proposed bay window, the Tribunal considers that this aspect is a relatively minor element of the overall development application. It does not, of itself, counter or offset the unacceptability of the development application in its present form which, for reasons set out above, otherwise unreasonably compromises the objectives of the Heritage Protection Area.
Conclusion 65 Based on the preceding analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the application for review of the respondent's decision to refuse the development application for additions to the dwelling situated at No 45 (Lot 759) Woodroyd Street, Mount Lawley should be dismissed.
Order 66 The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders: 1. The application for review is dismissed. (Page 15)
2. The decision of the respondent made on 17 December 2012 to refuse development approval for additions to the dwelling at No 45 (Lot 759) Woodroyd Street, Mount Lawley is affirmed. |