PERRONE and CITY OF STIRLING
[2017] WASAT 1
•28 NOVEMBER 2016
PERRONE and CITY OF STIRLING [2017] WASAT 1
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2017] WASAT 1 | |
| 05/01/2017 | |||
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:121/2016 | 13 SEPTEMBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | MS R MOORE (MEMBER) | 28/11/16 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review allowed Respondent's decision set aside and demolition approval granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MONICA PERRONE MICHAEL PERRONE CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Demolition refusal Heritage Protection Area of Menora Character Retention Guidelines Austerity Cottage architectural style |
Legislation: | City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 6.6.1, cl 6.6.3, cl 10.2 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Sch 2 cl 67 Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) |
Case References: | French and City of Stirling [2012] WASAT 25 Paz and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 157 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 31 March 2016 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing house at No 26 (Lot 83) Holmfirth Street, Menora is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted subject to the following conditions:,(a) The applicant shall provide sketch plans of the existing structure, including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and photographic recording of the existing residence and surrounding site, prior to the commencement of any demolition works, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Stirling's Local Planning Scheme No 3. |
Summary | This matter involved an application for development approval to demolish the existing dwelling at No 26 Holmfirth Street, Menora. The City of Stirling refused the application because it considered demolition to be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Menora which is a Special Control Area under the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3.,It was common ground that the existing dwelling was not constructed from 1960 onward and there was no argument put forward by the applicant that the dwelling was structurally unsound. The main areas of disagreement were in relation to whether the character of the building and its setting contributed to the character of the Menora Heritage Protection Area and the Holmfirth Street streetscape, and whether the dwelling was a typical or intact example of a specific architectural style or building type.,The Tribunal found that the existing dwelling did not make a positive contribution to the cultural heritage significance of Menora, even though it was relatively intact and demonstrated some influences of the PostWar Austerity architectural style. This is because its unusual form, which includes a large front setback to the main building line (approximately 11 metres), a further setback of approximately 9 metres to the front door, and a hipped roof that is pitched with its ridge perpendicular to the street, combined with its location within a street with a limited number of similar styled dwellings, meant that its contribution to both the Holmfirth Street streetscape and the Menora Heritage Protection Area was considered to be neutral.,The Tribunal was satisfied that demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site would not be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Menora and therefore warranted approval. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : PERRONE and CITY OF STIRLING [2017] WASAT 1 MEMBER : MS R MOORE (MEMBER) HEARD : 13 SEPTEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2016 PUBLISHED : 5 JANUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : DR 121 of 2016 BETWEEN : MONICA PERRONE
- MICHAEL PERRONE
Applicants
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Demolition refusal Heritage Protection Area of Menora Character Retention Guidelines Austerity Cottage architectural style
Legislation:
City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 6.6.1, cl 6.6.3, cl 10.2
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA), Sch 2 cl 67
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Result:
Application for review allowed
Respondent's decision set aside and demolition approval granted
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
This matter involved an application for development approval to demolish the existing dwelling at No 26 Holmfirth Street, Menora. The City of Stirling refused the application because it considered demolition to be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Menora which is a Special Control Area under the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3.
It was common ground that the existing dwelling was not constructed from 1960 onward and there was no argument put forward by the applicant that the dwelling was structurally unsound. The main areas of disagreement were in relation to whether the character of the building and its setting contributed to the character of the Menora Heritage Protection Area and the Holmfirth Street streetscape, and whether the dwelling was a typical or intact example of a specific architectural style or building type.
The Tribunal found that the existing dwelling did not make a positive contribution to the cultural heritage significance of Menora, even though it was relatively intact and demonstrated some influences of the PostWar Austerity architectural style. This is because its unusual form, which includes a large front setback to the main building line (approximately 11 metres), a further setback of approximately 9 metres to the front door, and a hipped roof that is pitched with its ridge perpendicular to the street, combined with its location within a street with a limited number of similar styled dwellings, meant that its contribution to both the Holmfirth Street streetscape and the Menora Heritage Protection Area was considered to be neutral.
The Tribunal was satisfied that demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site would not be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Menora and therefore warranted approval.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr J Algeri
Respondent : Ms L Tynan
Solicitors:
Applicants : Altus Planning & Appeals
Respondent : City of Stirling
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
French and City of Stirling [2012] WASAT 25
Paz and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 157
Introduction
1 These proceedings involve an application brought by Mr & Mrs Perrone (applicants), pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), for review of the decision of the City of Stirling (City or respondent) made on 31 March 2016 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No 26 (Lot 83) Holmfirth Street, Menora (site or subject site), because it considered demolition to be contrary to the requirements of the City's Local Planning Policy 3.1 Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood (Character Retention Guidelines) for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area of the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3 or Scheme).
2 The matter was referred to mediation and as a result the respondent was invited to reconsider its original decision on or before 8 July 2016. The planning officer report to the Council Meeting held on 5 July 2016 recommended approval of the development application and included a heritage assessment of the property by TPG Consultants which found that 'the subject dwelling makes a neutral contribution to the character of the Menora Heritage Protection Area and in this instance the proposed demolition will not impact adversely on the heritage significance of the area'.
3 Despite this, the Council resolved at its meeting on 5 July 2016 to reaffirm its decision made on 31 March 2016 as the Council Committee was of the view that the reason for the original decision was still valid.
Site and locality
4 The subject site is approximately 766m² in area and is located on the northeastern side of Holmfirth Street between Rothsay Crescent and Melrose Crescent, opposite Alexander Park. The Tribunal had the benefit of a view of the site and this section of Holmfirth Street in the company of the parties and their representatives on the morning of the hearing.
5 This section of Holmfirth Street appears to contain nine out of 11 original dwellings that, according to drainage plumbing diagrams, were constructed between 1937 and 1956. The existing single storey brick rendered dwelling on the subject site is one of those 11 original dwellings and is thought to have been constructed circa 1956. The dwelling is set back approximately 11 metres from the street boundary and is described by the respondent as characteristic of the Austerity Cottage architectural style with: timber casement windows; a low pitched hip roof with cement roof tiles; minimal ornamentation; a front setback area with an expansive open garden with mature plantings; and no front fence. There are four other examples on Holmfirth Street of this style of cottage which are dated from 1948 to 1956.
Planning framework
6 The site has a residential density coding of R10 under LPS 3 and is located in a Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area.
7 Clause 6.6.1 of LPS 3 sets out the objectives for the Heritage Protection Area as follows:
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 into the existing streetscape;
d) To maintain and improve existing street trees, grass verges and front gardens; and
e) To retain mature trees wherever possible.
8 Clause 6.6.3 of LPS 3 states that all development shall conform with these objectives and the City's Character Retention Guidelines.
9 Clause 10.2 of LPS 3 sets out the matters the respondent is to have regard to when considering an application for planning approval. As discussed in a number of recent Tribunal decisions, cl 10.2 of LPS 3 is considered to be replaced by cl 67 of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes in Sch 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) which sets out the following relevant matters to be considered:
(a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;
(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;
…
(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area;
…
(k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance;
(l) the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which the development is located[.]
10 Also of relevance to this review is State Planning Policy No 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5). SPP 3.5 applies to places and areas of significance at both a State and local level.
11 Clause 6.2 of SPP 3.5 says that heritage areas are designated under local planning schemes. The clause states that a heritage area should always be designated on the basis of a clear statement of significance and a clear identification of the significant physical fabric in the area and that, in designating a heritage area, the local government is required to adopt a local planning policy that sets out the objectives and guidelines for conserving the significant heritage fabric of the area.
12 The subject site is located within the Menora Heritage Protection Area and the Menora Heritage Protection Area is relevantly a heritage protection area for the purposes of SPP 3.5. The Character Retention Guidelines are an adopted planning policy under the City's Scheme and contain a clear statement of significance for the Menora area.
13 Clause 6.6 of SPP 3.5 sets out principles for development control in heritage areas and states that the weight given to heritage as a consideration will vary, depending on the degree of significance of a place or area, and relevant economic, social or environmental factors that may apply.
14 Specifically in relation to demolition of a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area), cl 6.6 of SPP 3.5 states:
• … Demolition of a local heritage place should be avoided wherever possible, although there will be circumstances where demolition is justified. The onus rests with the applicant to provide a clear justification for it.
• Demolition approval should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition, or because a building has been neglected. Consideration of a demolition proposal should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.
Issue for determination
15 The single issue for determination in this matter is whether demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site would be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area of LPS 3.
16 The key of objectives of the Character Retention Guidelines are to:
• Ensure the retention of buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s where the architectural style of the building is generally intact;
• Ensure that new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings, carports, garages and front fences are in keeping with the heritage character of the area, respects the scale and proportions of surrounding buildings, and are designed to fit into the existing streetscape;
• Maintain and improve existing street trees, grass verges and front gardens;
• Retain mature trees wherever possible; and
• Provide a framework for the assessment of development applications in line with the above points.
17 As stated earlier, the subject site is located in the Menora Heritage Protection Area. The Character Retention Guidelines identify the significance of the area and describe its streetscapes and traditional Menora houses as follows:
2.2.3 Significance
Menora is an area of exceptional significance
Menora is a very significant, substantially intact residential area planned on Garden Suburb planning principles. It is characterised by landscaped parks and streets with open grassed verges and mature trees. The curved road layout provides attractive vistas to parks and streets. The area is characterised by large homes from the 1930s to the 1960s, many of high architectural quality, set in attractive established gardens which are generally landscaped to compliment the design of the house. There are a number of fine examples of a range of architectural styles including InterWar Californian Bungalow and Functionalist and houses with elements of Spanish Mission styles.
The area has aesthetic, historic and social significance for the following reasons:
• Distinctive road and subdivision pattern;
• Excellent examples of housing generally from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s including examples of InterWar Californian Bungalow, Functionalist, Spanish Mission and Mediterranean styles;
• Street design including general street layout, landscaped public open spaces, wide verges and street trees;
• Garden layout, design and quality;
• Good example of the implementation of Garden Suburb planning principles in Perth; and
• Historic associations with the Jewish community in Perth.
2.2.4 Menora Streetscapes
The road pattern in Menora varies markedly from the pattern of the adjacent Mount Lawley area, which is based on a rectangular grid. The road pattern of Menora is based on Garden Suburb town planning principles and comprises a series of crescents incorporating a series of small parks. The basis of these principles is that the suburb is designed as a whole community with a focus around a shopping or community centre and where residential lots are designed with access to areas of public open space. Street blocks are subdivided into a series of residential lots with approximately equal street frontages. Residential lots are around 840 to 1000 square metres in area with some variation and irregularity in block size as a result of the circular street pattern. The area contains some internal park areas at the backs of houses which is characteristic of Garden Suburb planning and rare, but not unique, in the context of metropolitan Perth. The subdivision pattern remains substantially as originally planned with no amalgamation or subdivision of original lots[.]
The area comprises mainly single and double storey residences with the traditional pattern of one house to each lot. Houses are set back an equal distance from the street however setbacks vary throughout the area and are quite large in some cases. Generally the area is characterised by low masonry fences or an absence of front fences and the front garden extending to the pavement or into the street verge with no pavements in a few cases. Public and private landscape areas are integral to the character of the area. Front gardens are generally informal in design with a predominance of exotic plantings and lawn. Street trees are planted at regular intervals throughout the area. Houses were generally constructed with a single crossover and provision for parking one car. Over time larger double carports and garages have been introduced. Generally these can be accommodated without appearing intrusive as the lot frontages are wide.
2.2.5 Traditional Menora Houses
Houses in Menora were constructed predominantly in the period 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Generally houses are single storey, although there are some larger twostorey homes throughout the area, and architectural styles reflect the period of construction. Examples of housing styles include InterWar Spanish Mission, Functionalist and California Bungalow. There are a number of fine residences in the InterWar Functionalist style which are rare in the context of metropolitan Perth.
18 The Character Retention Guidelines continue by providing a brief description of different architectural styles in Menora and include the following:
• Inter-War California Bungalow - circa 1915 to 1940;
• Inter-War Spanish Mission - circa 1915 to 1940;
• Inter-War Functionalist - circa 1915 to 1940; and
• Austerity Cottage - late 1940s and 1950s.
19 The existing dwelling on the subject site was constructed in the 1950s. According to Landgate it was constructed in 1959 but according to drainage plumbing diagrams it appears to have been constructed circa 1956. The City considers the existing dwelling to be an Austerity Cottage. The Character Retention Guidelines describe the style of Austerity Cottage as follows:
Austerity Cottage - Late 1940s and 1950s
In the immediate Post-World War II period, new construction was impeded by financial limitations, material shortages and building restrictions, which governed the size and also the style of housing. Materials such as timber, bricks, tiles and glass remained in short supply for a number of years. However, Australians were encouraged to have large families to populate the country, and this, together with the steady flow of immigrants, resulted in a great demand for housing.
The lack of materials and rising costs resulted in a reduction in ornamentation, the simplification of elements such as chimneys and the reductions of verandahs to small porches.
Many of the houses in the Menora area that were constructed after the Second World War continued to exhibit characteristics of the inter war styles prevalent in the area, albeit in a more simplified form.
The 'Post War Austerity' was defined as one common architectural form of the time. In the eastern states of Australia this was a basic fibro clad bungalow with a touch of streamlined modernism. In Western Australia the same style was constructed in brick and is found in the areas of Inglewood and Menora that were first developed in the late 1940s and during the 1950s.
Residences built in this style are usually free-standing, single storey set on suburban blocks, generally with no front fence, but occasionally with a very low one, and a front lawn with few plantings (refer Figure 12).
20 Figure 12 of the Character Retention Guidelines is an illustration of a typical Austerity Cottage with the following notes:
• Face or rendered brick on limestone footings;
• Simple gable over the front projecting room;
• Low-pitched hipped roof with clay or cement tiles;
• Flat porch awning, sometimes curved at the corner, generally with simple metal posts;
• Typical boxed in eaves;
• Timber or steel window frames; and
• A symmetrical double frontage cottage form with small front porch.
21 Part 3 of the Character Retention Guidelines addresses the demolition of buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas with the stated objective of retaining and conserving traditional buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas, particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s. Part 3 says that applicants wishing to demolish a building within the Heritage Protection Area are required to apply for planning approval and should include written justification addressing the following points as well as any further justification that may be relevant:
a) Provide evidence that the building was constructed from 1960 onward;
b) Detail why the building is no longer an intact example of its architectural style, addressing its form, scale, materials and detailing;
c) Detail (with written documented evidence provided by an independent expert) why the building is structurally unsafe and irredeemable, and the conservation of the building is not viable (NB: property owners are responsible for the maintenance of their assets, and allowing a property to fall into disrepair will not facilitate an approval for demolition). Only where the building has been identified as an 'intrusive' or 'neutral' place (buildings of more recent design), consideration can be given to varying this requirement[.]
22 The Character Retention Guidelines also state that prior to the approval of any demolition in a Heritage Protection Area, the City may require a heritage assessment by a 'heritage/architectural professional' to be carried out to assist the City in its determination of an application and whether the written justification provided by the applicant is accurate and in accordance with the objectives of the guidelines.
23 Two heritage assessments were provided to the Council for consideration in this matter: one was prepared by Ms Laura Gray, a heritage and conservation consultant with Heritage Intelligence, on behalf of the applicant; the other was prepared by TPG Town Planning Group, the City's heritage consultants.
24 Ms Gray also gave evidence during the Tribunal hearing as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant. It was her opinion that the existing dwelling on the subject site is 'relatively intact' and shows 'some influence of Postwar Austerity architectural style, although it does not typify that style'. She was also of the view that when assessed against the State Heritage Office criteria for local places, the existing dwelling 'is deemed to be of no cultural heritage significance'. Ms Gray's response to the Character Retention Guidelines' key objectives was as follows:
…
• 26 Holmfirth Street, Menora is a relatively intact residence that demonstrates some influences of the Postwar Austerity style of architecture, although it is not necessarily representative of that period due to some of the design and detail elements.
• 26 Holmfirth Street, Menora does not contribute to the consistency of the more dominant Interwar bungalow character of the streetscape to the southeast, and is further impacted by the immediate proximity of the intrusive former kindergarten facility and informal car park, directly opposite.
• There are no significant mature trees on the site except a palm tree that has been relocated to the site in recent years.
25 Ms Gray's heritage assessment addressed the Character Retention Guidelines in more detail and concluded that although the subject site 'shows some influence of Postwar Austerity architectural style, it does not typify that style … It is inconsistent in the predominantly Interwar streetscape and makes no contribution to the exceptional significance of the Menora Heritage Area'.
26 The TPG heritage assessment stated the following in relation to the heritage significance of the subject building:
The dwelling, which was built c.1959 with some characteristics of the Austerity Cottage style, makes a neutral contribution to the heritage significance of Menora. Its form and detailing are somewhat incongruous with other Austerity Cottages in the broader area limiting its contribution to the [Heritage Protection Areas (HPAs)].
27 The TPG heritage assessment addressed the demolition criteria in the Character Retention Guidelines and found that:
Whilst the dwelling does not satisfy the above criteria it is noted that the dwelling is not a good or even typical example of this style. It has an unusual form, which does not embrace the generally compact form of the Austerity Cottage and does not readily connect with the street given its front door is located approximately 9 metres behind the main building line. It is completely devoid of any detail such as a front porch and is an anomaly amongst its neighbours most of which appear to have been built in the Interwar period and display greater characteristics of their relative styles.
Given the above, it is considered that the demolition of the subject place will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the HPA.
28 The planning officer's recommendation for the reconsideration by the City in July 2016 was for the demolition application to be approved with the following condition:
The applicant shall provide sketch plans of the existing structure, including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and photographic recording of the existing residence and surrounding site, prior to the commencement of any demolition works, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Stirling's Local Planning Scheme No 3.
29 Notwithstanding these two heritage assessments and a planning officer report recommending approval of the demolition application, the City of Stirling Council resolved, at its meeting on 5 July 2016, to reaffirm its original decision to refuse the demolition of the building on the subject site.
30 It is common ground that the dwelling was not constructed from 1960 onward and there was no argument put forward by the applicant that the dwelling was structurally unsound. The main areas of disagreement between the parties are in relation to whether the character of the dwelling and its setting contribute to the character of the Menora Heritage Protection Area and to the Holmfirth Street streetscape, and whether the dwelling is a typical or intact example of a specific architectural style or building type.
31 In their statement of issues, facts and contentions the City contends that:
• the architectural style of the building is substantially intact;
• there are four other properties in Holmfirth Street with similar footprints, front setback areas, hipped roofs and minimal ornamentation;
• there is no requirement for PostWWII buildings to be of high architectural styles as they were constructed during a time of limited materials: French and City of Stirling [2012] WASAT 25 (French);
• Ms Gray's assessment of the building against the State Heritage Office criteria was as an individual place not a place within a heritage area which must meet an extra criterion: 'it demonstrates a unified or cohesive physical form in the public realm with an identifiable aesthetic, historic or social theme associated with a particular period or periods of development';
• the subject property has a street setback of approximately 11 metres containing an open garden area which is consistent with neighbouring properties, and not common in areas outside of the heritage area, is single storey, and has similar features to Austerity Cottages common in the Menora Heritage area such as timber casement windows, a low pitched hip roof and reduced ornamentation; and
• with reference to the State Heritage Office grading of the level of significance of a place within a heritage area, 'the subject property has some/moderate contribution therefore contributes to the significance of the heritage area, hence conservation of the place is desirable'.
32 Mr Stephen Carrick, a heritage architect, appeared on behalf of the City at the final hearing. Mr Carrick prepared a written witness statement with attachments which included:
• a plumbing diagram for the subject site dated 11 December 1956;
• photographs of the subject site and its immediate neighbours;
• a streetscape contribution diagram; and
• an aerial of site and immediate precinct.
33 The Tribunal and the parties used Mr Carrick's 'streetscape contribution diagram' to identify the houses viewed on the site view. There were a few inconsistencies but in general the diagram was helpful in identifying those properties in Holmfirth Street (between Alexander Drive and Tweed Crescent) that make a positive, neutral or negative contribution to the streetscape. Mr Carrick identified the subject site as making a positive contribution to the streetscape.
34 From the site view there appear to be four other buildings that are considered to be Austerity Cottages (Nos 16, 57, 60 and 62) in Holmfirth Street. Mr Carrick considered Nos 16, 60 and 62 to make a neutral contribution to the streetscape and No 57 to make a positive contribution. No 57 Holmfirth Street is currently undergoing significant alterations and additions to the rear of the property.
35 It was Mr Carrick's opinion that the subject property is of some cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:
• It demonstrates characteristics of the Post War Austerity architectural style[;]
• It demonstrates aesthetic, historic and social cultural heritage values of the Post war period[; and]
• It positively contributes to the Holmfirth Street streetscape and the Menora Heritage Protection Area.
36 Mr Carrick was of the opinion that the subject site retains its overall circa 1956 form and is of some cultural heritage significance as an example of a PostWar Austerity place as it has features that are characteristic of the PostWar Austerity architectural style: it is free standing; single storey; has no front fence; has a front lawn with few plantings; is face and rendered brick on limestone footings; has a low pitched hipped roof with cement roof tiles, boxed in eaves; and timber window frames.
37 It was Mr Carrick's view that the subject property makes a positive contribution to the streetscape of Holmfirth Street and the broader Menora Heritage Protection Area because 'Holmfirth Street retains a high percentage of places and spaces that positively contribute to the streetscape and to the broader Menora Heritage Protection Area … [and the] places that positively contribute are from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s periods and illustrate the architectural styles from the Interwar and Postwar periods'.
38 The Tribunal also had the benefit of expert evidence from Mr Joe Algeri, a town planner with Altus Planning and Appeals. It was Mr Algeri's view that the construction date of a building should be used as a guide but not be determinative of whether or not it should be retained and that matters such as style, character, condition and impact on the streetscape should have a greater bearing.
39 In consideration of this matter, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Gray and finds that the dwelling on the subject property does not make a positive contribution to the cultural heritage significance of Menora. The Tribunal agrees with Mr Carrick that the existing dwelling is relatively intact and demonstrates some influences of the PostWar Austerity architectural style, but finds that its unusual form (which includes a large front setback to the main building line and a further setback of approximately 9 metres to the front door as well as a hipped roof that is pitched longways) combined with its location within a street with a limited number of similar styled dwellings, means that its contribution to both the Holmfirth Street streetscape and the Menora Heritage Protection Area is considered to be neutral. Mr Carrick has indicated on his 'streetscape contribution diagram' that the three other unrenovated austere cottages in the street (Nos 16, 60 and 62) make a neutral contribution to the streetscape but the dwelling on the subject site makes a positive contribution. The Tribunal is not persuaded that this is the case.
40 Both parties referred to previous Tribunal decisions, the most relevant being French. In French, the Tribunal affirmed the City of Stirling's decision to refuse development approval for the demolition of a dwelling in Graham Road, Menora. The Tribunal found that the existing dwelling was significant as an intact austere economical PostWWII building that reflected the form, scale, character and materials of buildings constructed during a time of austerity. The Tribunal also found that the dwelling was located within a substantially intact streetscape, immediately adjacent to a dwelling of similar form, scale and materials and that it would be feasible to adapt or modify the building while still maintaining its significance in the streetscape. The Tribunal therefore determined that demolition of the dwelling did not satisfy the demolition objectives of the Character Retention Guidelines or the broader planning framework which included LPS 3 and SPP 3.5.
41 The Tribunal is satisfied that the facts in this case can be differentiated from those in French. In this case, the Tribunal has found that the subject dwelling makes a neutral contribution to the streetscape for the reasons above. It is also worth noting that the lengthways alignment of the hipped roof and the large front setbacks to the main building line and the front door will make it difficult to adapt or modify the building while still maintaining its streetscape character. Finally, the Tribunal agrees with the TPG heritage assessment that found that the form and detailing of the subject dwelling 'are somewhat incongruous with other Austerity Cottages in the broader area limiting its contribution to the HPAs … [and] that demolition of the subject place will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the HPA.'
42 The Tribunal does not agree with the City's contention that a replacement building can only make a neutral contribution to a heritage protection area and certainly there was no expert evidence presented on this point. The Tribunal also disagrees with the contention that the planning framework provides that only buildings constructed from 1960 onwards can be demolished. The Tribunal considers the construction date of a building located within a Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area to be an important consideration but not a defining consideration.
43 It is worth noting that in French at [58], the Tribunal agreed with the applicant's contention that regardless of whether the Character Retention Guidelines apply to buildings constructed after 1950, the relevant planning framework 'does not preclude demolition of buildings constructed before or after 1950'. In French at [59] the Tribunal quotes Paz and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 157 at [65] and [66] as follows:
The objective of the Guidelines to 'retain and conserve original buildings … particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s' in the HPA creates a general presumption in favour of retaining such buildings.
However, such a policy aspiration is not, and cannot be, determinative of the matter. The weight given to heritage requirements of the Guidelines needs to be considered within the broader context of orderly and proper planning and in response to the relevant provisions of LPS 3 which the respondent, or the Tribunal in its place, needs to consider.
44 In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site will not be contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Menora and the development application warrants approval.
Orders
For the reasons given above the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 31 March 2016 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing house at No 26 (Lot 83) Holmfirth Street, Menora is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall provide sketch plans of the existing structure, including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and photographic recording of the existing residence and surrounding site, prior to the commencement of any demolition works, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Stirling's Local Planning Scheme No 3.
I certify that this and the preceding [44] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS R MOORE, MEMBER
0
2
3