PLUNKETT and SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE
[2015] WASAT 62
•3 JUNE 2015
PLUNKETT and SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE [2015] WASAT 62
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 62 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:78/2014 | 10 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 30 JANUARY 2015 | |
| Coram: | MS R MOORE (MEMBER) | 3/06/15 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for review dismissed Decision of respondent affirmed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARCUS PLUNKETT PAMELA PLUNKETT SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Demolition of existing Category 2 heritage listed dwelling Federation Queen Anne bungalow constructed circa 19001910 Proposed new two storey (plus basement) dwelling New dwelling to be located forward of existing dwelling Existing dwelling part of cultural group of heritage listed dwellings |
Legislation: | Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA), s 45 Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241, s 241(1), s 252(1), Pt 3 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, cl 5.3.5 Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 1.6, cl 4.9, cl 5.1, cl 6.3.2 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31 |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | On the application heard on 10 November 2014 and 30 January 2015 before Member Rebecca Moore, it is on 3 June 2015 ordered that:,1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision of the respondent to refuse development approval for the demolition of an heritage listed dwelling and the construction of a two storey replacement dwelling at No 58 (Lot 147) The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove is affirmed. |
Summary | This matter involved an application for review of the Shire of Peppermint Grove's decision to refuse development approval for the demolition of an existing heritage listed dwelling and the construction of a two storey (plus basement) replacement dwelling at No 58 The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove.,The existing dwelling is a Federation Queen Anne Bungalow constructed circa 1900-1910 and is listed on the Shire of Peppermint Grove's Municipal Heritage Inventory 1999 with a Category 2 Management Level. The proposed replacement dwelling is two storeys (plus a basement) with rendered masonry walls and a pitched terracotta tiled roof, located approximately 7 metres forward of the existing dwelling.,Of primary concern to the Shire of Peppermint Grove was whether the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of the replacement dwelling would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and amenity of the locality as a consequence of the impact on the cultural heritage significance of the area and the streetscape. ,The applicants argued that approval should be granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling because of its reduced heritage significance resulting from past changes; and that approval should be granted for the proposed replacement dwelling because it was constructed out of similar materials as the adjoining dwellings and, while located forward of the existing dwelling, still maintained a significant front setback well in excess of that required by the Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3. It was also argued that the proposed replacement dwelling was appropriate in the context of recent and proposed changes to the streetscape character.,The Tribunal found that the existing dwelling was part of a cultural group of four heritage listed dwellings, three of which are listed as Category 1 Management Level. The Tribunal determined that under the current State and local planning framework, any replacement dwelling needed to respect the adjoining heritage listed properties in terms of location, scale, form and materials. In this case, the Tribunal found that the proposed replacement dwelling would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the cultural group and the streetscape character of The Esplanade.,The application for review was therefore dismissed and the decision of the Shire of Peppermint Grove to refuse development approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of the proposed two storey replacement dwelling was affirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : PLUNKETT and SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE [2015] WASAT 62 MEMBER : MS R MOORE (MEMBER) HEARD : 10 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 30 JANUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : DR 78 of 2014 BETWEEN : MARCUS PLUNKETT
- PAMELA PLUNKETT
Applicants
AND
SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Demolition of existing Category 2 heritage listed dwelling Federation Queen Anne bungalow constructed circa 19001910 Proposed new two storey (plus basement) dwelling New dwelling to be located forward of existing dwelling Existing dwelling part of cultural group of heritage listed dwellings
Legislation:
Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA), s 45
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241, s 241(1), s 252(1), Pt 3
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, cl 5.3.5
Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 1.6, cl 4.9, cl 5.1, cl 6.3.2
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Result:
Application for review dismissed
Decision of respondent affirmed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
This matter involved an application for review of the Shire of Peppermint Grove's decision to refuse development approval for the demolition of an existing heritage listed dwelling and the construction of a two storey (plus basement) replacement dwelling at No 58 The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove.
The existing dwelling is a Federation Queen Anne Bungalow constructed circa 1900-1910 and is listed on the Shire of Peppermint Grove's Municipal Heritage Inventory 1999 with a Category 2 Management Level. The proposed replacement dwelling is two storeys (plus a basement) with rendered masonry walls and a pitched terracotta tiled roof, located approximately 7 metres forward of the existing dwelling.
Of primary concern to the Shire of Peppermint Grove was whether the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of the replacement dwelling would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and amenity of the locality as a consequence of the impact on the cultural heritage significance of the area and the streetscape.
The applicants argued that approval should be granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling because of its reduced heritage significance resulting from past changes; and that approval should be granted for the proposed replacement dwelling because it was constructed out of similar materials as the adjoining dwellings and, while located forward of the existing dwelling, still maintained a significant front setback well in excess of that required by the Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3. It was also argued that the proposed replacement dwelling was appropriate in the context of recent and proposed changes to the streetscape character.
The Tribunal found that the existing dwelling was part of a cultural group of four heritage listed dwellings, three of which are listed as Category 1 Management Level. The Tribunal determined that under the current State and local planning framework, any replacement dwelling needed to respect the adjoining heritage listed properties in terms of location, scale, form and materials. In this case, the Tribunal found that the proposed replacement dwelling would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the cultural group and the streetscape character of The Esplanade.
The application for review was therefore dismissed and the decision of the Shire of Peppermint Grove to refuse development approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of the proposed two storey replacement dwelling was affirmed.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr M Hardy
Respondent : Mr C Slarke
Solicitors:
Applicants : Hardy Bowen
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 These proceedings involve an application brought by Mr and Mrs Plunkett (applicants), pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act2005 (WA) (PD Act), for review of the decision of the Shire of Peppermint Grove (Shire or respondent) to refuse development approval for the demolition of an heritage listed dwelling and the construction of a two storey replacement dwelling at No 58 (Lot 147) The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove (site).
Site and locality
2 The subject site has an area of 2,278m2 and is located on the western side of The Esplanade in Peppermint Grove. The site contains an existing single storey brick and tile dwelling and has significant views of the river foreshore and Freshwater Bay. The existing dwelling is a Federation Queen Anne Bungalow constructed circa 1900-1910. The site is on the Shire's Municipal Heritage Inventory 1999 (MHI) with a Category 2 Management Level.
3 To the south of the site is No 59 Keane Street and No 60 The Esplanade. The dwelling on No 59 Keane Street is on the Shire's MHI with a Category 1 Management Level. No 59 Keane Street is a brick and terracotta tiled Federation Arts and Crafts Bungalow constructed circa 1900. According to the Place Record Form from the MHI, it was originally built as No 60 The Esplanade for the Evans family and subsequently subdivided into two lots, with a new dwelling being built in front of the original dwelling. That dwelling has recently been demolished and replaced with garaging (with garden above) to be used in association with No 59 Keane Street. The respondent provided the Tribunal with a certificate of title indicating that these lots are still separate lots but are now on a single title. The result of the redevelopment is that No 59 Keane Street is now visible from both Keane Street and The Esplanade, and the two lots present as a single residence.
4 To the north of the site is No 56 The Esplanade which is a double lot with an overall width of 40.24 metres and a total area of 4,081m2. This property is also on the Shire's MHI with a Category 1 Management Level. The existing dwelling is a limestone and terracotta tiled Federation Bungalow constructed circa 1900. It is currently undergoing substantial alterations and additions which include the removal of two large pine trees in the front setback area.
5 Further to the north is No 52 The Esplanade (originally two lots), also on the Shire's MHI with a Category 1 Management Level. The MHI Place Record Form describes this place as a limestone and terracotta tiled Federation Queen Anne Bungalow constructed circa 1900. Apparently the crenellated porte cochere and the southern half of the residence were constructed at a later date.
Planning framework
6 The site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Residential with a density coding of R10 under the Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3 or Scheme).
7 The Scheme objective stated in cl 1.6 of TPS 3 is 'to maintain and to encourage a high quality of environment'.
8 Clause 4.9 of TPS 3 contains miscellaneous provisions and relevantly includes the following:
4.9.1 All buildings shall be set back from lot boundaries, including the street alignment, and from each other so as to:
a) preserve the amenity of the area; and
b) maintain adequate standards of privacy, daylighting, sunshine and safety on the site and in relation to the adjoining lot or lots.
4.9.2 For the purposes of clause 4.9.1 the setting back of building in accordance with the foregoing provisions of Part V of this Scheme Text shall be deemed to provide adequate privacy and daylighting on the site of the development, but in determining an application for approval to commence development the Council may vary these requirements after taking into consideration the following matters:
a) any unusual conditions including any relationship of the shape of the lot to the size and shape of any adjoining lot or lots or right-of-ways;
b) the desirability of protecting the amenity of adjoining lots, having regard to the development, zoning and use of such lots;
c) any additional provisions as set out in the Uniform Building By-laws;
d) the relative ground levels of the lot and adjoining lots providing that where any doubt exists as to the natural or existing ground levels, this shall be determined by the Council; and
e) where adequate standards of daylighting, sunshine, privacy and amenity may be satisfied by a lesser or greater setback.
4.9.3 Notwithstanding the specific provisions of this Scheme Text in considering a proposed development the Council may have regard to and may impose conditions relating to the following:
a) the need for limitation of height and location of buildings to preserve or enhance views;
b) the need for preservation of existing trees or areas or buildings of architectural or historical interest;
c) the choice of building materials and finishes where these relate to the preservation of local character and the amenity of the area generally;
d) the dispersal of building bulk into two or more separate buildings on a lot in order to minimise the effect of building bulk;
e) an increase in building setbacks where the adjoining land is controlled under a different zoning or residential code in order to ensure adequate protection for adjoining residents; and
f) the location and orientation of a building or buildings on a lot in order to achieve higher standards of daylighting, sunshine or privacy or to avoid visual monotony in the street scene as a whole.
a) to facilitate the conservation of places of heritage value;
b) to ensure as far as possible that development occurs with due regard to heritage values and in harmony with it.
10 Clause 5.1.2 of TPS 3 provides for the establishment of 'a Heritage List of building, objects, structures and places considered by the Council to be of heritage significance and worth of conservation'. The Shire's MHI prepared under s 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA) is considered to be the 'Heritage List' for the purposes of this clause.
11 Clause 5.1.3 of TPS 3 provides for the designation of heritage precincts. There was discussion during the hearing about the possibility of creating a heritage precinct which would include the subject site and neighbouring sites. There is no material evidence before the Tribunal regarding this and it should be noted that the subject site is not located within a designated heritage precinct in accordance with this clause.
12 Clause 5.1.6 of TPS 3 enables the Shire to vary any Scheme provision where it considers it desirable to facilitate the conservation of a place, area, building object or structure of heritage value.
13 Clause 6.3.2 of TPS 3 refers to the determination of applications and relevantly provides the following:
The Council having regard to any matter which it is required by the Scheme to consider, to the purpose for which the land is reserved, zoned or approved for use under the Scheme, to the purpose for which land in the locality is used, and to the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality, may refuse to approve any application for planning consent or may grant its approval unconditionally or subject to conditions as it thinks fit.
14 State Planning Policy 3.5 - Historic HeritageConservation (SPP 3.5) is an approved statement of planning policy prepared under Pt 3 of the PD Act to which the Tribunal is required to have due regard under s 241(1) of the PD Act.
15 The objectives of SPP 3.5 are:
• To conserve places and areas of historic heritage significance.
• To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places and areas.
• To ensure that heritage significance at both the State and local levels is given due weight in planning decision-making.
• To provide improved certainty to landowners and the community about the planning processes for heritage identification, conservation and protection.
16 Clause 6.5 of SPP 3.5 provides relevant considerations for development assessment which include the conservation and protection of places on Scheme heritage lists and whether the proposed development will adversely affect the significance of any heritage place, including any adverse effect resulting from the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed development. There are also specific matters that local governments should have regard to for demolition affecting a heritage place, which are:
• The level of heritage significance of the place, based on a relevant heritage assessment.
• Measures proposed to conserve the heritage significance of the place and its setting.
• The structural condition of the place, and whether the place is reasonably capable of conservation.
• Whether the place is capable of adaptation to a new use which will enable its retention and conservation.
17 Clause 6.6 of SPP 3.5 sets out development control principles that should be applied in considering planning applications in relation to a heritage listed place 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.
18 In regard to demolition of a heritage place, clause 6.6 of SPP 3.5 also states that demolition should be avoided wherever possible and that consideration of demolition 'should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places'.
19 Also relevant to the consideration of this application are the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2013) (Codes), in particular clause 5.3.5 which relates to vehicular access.
The proposed development
20 The proposed development is the demolition of the existing Federation Queen Anne single storey dwelling on the site and the construction of a replacement two storey (plus basement) dwelling with a pitched terracotta tiled roof and rendered masonry walls. The new dwelling is located approximately 7 metres forward of the existing dwelling.
21 The elevations indicate various arched elements, columns, balconies, terraces and distinctive balustrades. From the eastern elevation, the dwelling sits above a large basement with vehicular access from The Esplanade. The basement has a front setback of approximately 27 metres with a terrace above. The ground floor of the dwelling is asymmetrical in plan with a setback of approximately 36 metres (measured at the centre line of the lot). The northern section of the dwelling is set back a further 6 metres. The difficulty in measuring the front setbacks results from the angled front (eastern) boundary which follows the line of The Esplanade, which in turn follows the curve of Freshwater Bay. The upper floor of the new dwelling is similar in plan form to the ground floor, with open balconies located above the colonnaded verandahs below.
22 The basement carpark is accessed by a driveway off The Esplanade. There is also a small gatehouse located forward of the dwelling on the southern side of the site.
Shire's decision
23 On 25 March 2014, the respondent resolved to refuse planning approval for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and the construction of a replacement two storey dwelling on the site.
24 Following mediation, and in accordance with s 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the respondent reconsidered a revised proposal on 24 June 2014 and refused to grant planning approval for the following reasons:
1. The position of the new dwelling is contrary to 4.9.3(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 as the location of the replacement dwelling would detract from views to the adjacent heritage listed dwellings.
2. The choice of materials and finishes for the proposed replacement dwellings are contrary to 4.9.3(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 by virtue of not preserving the local character and amenity of the area generally.
3. The proposed replacement dwelling does not '…recognise by its position…' the heritage value of the adjoining residence and precinct and thereby would detract from the heritage values and high visual amenity of the precinct created by the 'four sisters'.
4. On-site vehicle parking is contrary to Part 5.3 of the R-Codes in not providing vehicle access via the abutting right-of-way on the western boundary of the subject site.
Discussion of the issues
25 The respondent identified the following three issues as arising for determination in this matter:
1) Will the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and proposed replacement development have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and amenity of the locality as a consequence of the impact on the cultural heritage significance of the development area and the streetscape?
2) Will the position and front setback of the proposed development have an adverse effect on the character or amenity of the locality and adjoining heritage listed properties?
3) Does the proposed development conform to cl 5.3.5 P5 of the Codes?
- The Tribunal is of the view that the first two issues are interrelated and can be addressed together. The third issue relates to the appropriateness of allowing vehicular access from The Esplanade when there is a right of way to the rear of the site.
26 The final hearing of this matter commenced with a view of the site on the morning of 4 November 2014. The hearing was then adjourned to 10 November 2014 but the respondent's expert planning witness could not participate due to ill health. The Tribunal heard the parties' opening statements and the expert heritage evidence. Both parties had legal representation in these proceedings. Mr Michael Hardy appeared on behalf of the applicants and Mr Craig Slarke appeared on behalf of the respondent.
27 Unfortunately, the respondent's original planning witness remained ill and unable to participate in any future hearings. The parties agreed that Mr Stephen Allerding, a planning consultant, could give expert planning evidence on behalf of the respondent at the hearing on 30 January 2015. Mr Michael Swift, also a planning consultant, gave evidence for the applicants.
28 The Tribunal also had the benefit of expert evidence from two heritage architects: Mr Ronald Bodycoat gave evidence for the applicant and Mr Philip Griffiths gave evidence for the respondent. Mr Bodycoat and Mr Griffiths usefully prepared a written joint statement identifying the matters on which they agreed, those on which they disagreed, and the reasons for their disagreement.
29 Their disagreement focused on three areas: the context within which the subject site and existing dwelling sits; the impact of the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling; and the acceptability of the proposed replacement dwelling.
30 As stated earlier, the subject site is on the Shire's MHI with a Category 2 Management Level. The objective of the MHI is 'to maintain the character and atmosphere of Peppermint Grove through the quality of streetscape'. Category 2 is defined as:
Buildings which also contribute to the character and atmosphere of Peppermint Grove. These buildings may be altered or extended in a manner which recognises and retains some original features or which may be demolished, but the replacement building should recognise by its position the adjoining residence and precinct. The owner to provide an archival record for any building demolished under this category and the Shire to provide a plaque for inclusion in the adjoining footpath to recognise the cultural significance of the property.
31 The Place Record Form for the site contains the following assessments:
Historical
The place appears to have been constructed for A Y Glyde, one of the public servants who were amongst the first stage residents in the suburb's development. The house was built by Mark Chapman, one of … Peppermint Grove's more notable builders of the period. The Gordons have been long term residents, since 1960, and continue the tradition of medical residents in the suburb.
Aesthetic
The place is a very pleasing example of its time, with finely considered proportions and details.
Technical
The residence is a finely considered example of its style and period. Externally the place retains a high level of integrity.
Environmental
Cultural Group
The place forms a cultural group with 59 Keane Street, The Evans Family Home, and No[s] 52 and 56 The Esplanade.
Townscape Area
The place forms a part of a townscape precinct at the lower end of The Esplanade and Manners Hill Park.
Rarity
Few bungalows retain the level of integrity that this residence retains[.]
Representativeness
The place is highly representative of its style and period and could be considered as an exemplar.
32 The statement of significance for the site is as follows:
The single storey brick, with rendered bands, timber and tiled residence, in the Federation Queen Anne style, has cultural significance because:
- it is [a] fine example of a Federation Queen Anne bungalow, worthy of being considered an exemplar;
- it has historical association with A Y Glyde, Mark Chapman and Douglas Gordon, each of them being prominent citizens of Peppermint Grove;
- it forms part of a cultural group.
33 Mr Bodycoat and Mr Griffiths agreed that there have been changes to both the interior and exterior of the existing dwelling and that it 'has been expanded south at the house frontage and west behind the principal rooms, reducing its intrinsic heritage value'. The Tribunal has been provided with a floor plan indicating these changes.
34 In terms of site context, Mr Bodycoat and Mr Griffiths had differing opinions as to whether the subject place is part of a cultural group of four properties as identified in the Place Record Forms. It was Mr Bodycoat's opinion that No 59 Keane Street does not form a legitimate part of the group because 'although it is visually apparent from The Esplanade to a degree, it doesn't have the same relationship to the other three houses in the group and should be seen to be a house in Keane Street, particularly since the new fence is a very strong element visually and physically, and the extension of the garden to the east in a sense separates the house from The Esplanade to a substantial degree'. Further, 'it's the way the house is located and has always been identified as its principal frontage in Keane Street'.
35 Mr Griffiths expressed the view that as the house was originally conceived to address the river and No 59 Keane Street has a long elevation with its principal rooms facing the river, it is not fair to discount a place because of its street address which he believed was an accident of history.
36 The Tribunal prefers Mr Griffiths' opinion that the subject site and the existing dwelling on it form part of a cultural group of four heritage listed dwellings which include No 59 Keane Street and Nos 58, 56, and 52 The Esplanade. The Place Record Form for each of these heritage listed dwellings states that they each form part of a cultural group. While it is agreed that these four properties have differences in architectural style and levels of intactness, the Tribunal agrees with Mr Griffiths that they relate to each other in 'time and materiality'.
37 The visual impact of this cultural group of dwellings has been significantly improved by the recent redevelopment of the lot previously identified as No 60 The Esplanade. While both Mr Bodycoat and Mr Griffiths expressed concern about the new masonry fence to this property, it was evident on the site view that the four properties are visually prominent when viewed from many different locations along Keane Street, The Esplanade and the river foreshore.
38 With regard to demolition of the existing dwelling, it was common ground that buildings on the MHI with a Category 2 Management Level may be demolished 'but the replacement building should recognise by its position the adjoining residence and precinct'.
39 Mr Bodycoat did not object to the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling, whereas Mr Griffiths was concerned that demolition would impact upon the heritage significance of the cultural group.
40 In Mr Griffiths' email dated 17 December 2013, he advised the Shire that on examination from the property boundary, 'the place on its own is of marginal cultural heritage value, but that its relationship to the group … is significant' and that 'this relationship contributes to the setting and significance of the group as a whole'.
41 During the hearing, Mr Griffiths was generally in agreement with Mr Bodycoat in regard to the heritage significance of the existing dwelling, and stated that if the building was to be considered in isolation from its context, its heritage values would not be sufficient to justify refusing demolition approval.
42 It is the Tribunal's view that consideration of the demolition of the existing dwelling is intrinsically linked to consideration of the acceptability of the proposed replacement dwelling. One of the objectives of SPP 3.5 is to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. In this case, the existing dwelling forms part of a cultural group of four heritage listed properties; three of these dwellings have a Category 1 Management Level.
43 The definition of Category 1 is as follows:
Buildings, which due to their character create the atmosphere of Peppermint Grove, therefore should be retained, but may be altered and extended in a manner which is both discrete and sympathetic to the original fabric and character so that a significant proportion of the original building is retained and from the street the additions are seen to be a continuation of the same fabric and character.
44 Mr Bodycoat said that the proposed new dwelling should be assessed in the context of what has been allowed in the entire Shire, not just in the isolation of this group of three or four houses, and that a new house on the site of the existing house, which itself has been changed, is potentially acceptable. He was of the view that the proposed dwelling is an acceptable replacement.
45 Mr Griffiths disagreed and described the existing dwelling as modest compared to its neighbours, and well set back. He was of the view that the proposed replacement dwelling would have a 'huge' impact on its setting as 'it is a very heavily conceived and designed building in comparison to the delicacy of its neighbours'. He believed that if the existing dwelling was allowed to be demolished, he would expect a design that was more responsive to its context and not such a jarring contrast.
46 Mr Griffiths and Mr Bodycoat both agreed that the proposed two storey replacement dwelling on the subject site would change the streetscape vista by 'masking or obliterating from view' No 59 Keane Street at points along The Esplanade. Mr Bodycoat agreed that the four properties are experienced sequentially visually as a related group when walking or driving along this section of The Esplanade, but he also stated that the two houses closest to Irvine Street 'have potentially a negative impact on the three houses that form the group'.
47 In relation to setback, form and materials of the new building, Mr Bodycoat was of the view that the proposed dwelling has a pitched terracotta tiled roof with porticos/verandahs at the front, and light coloured masonry which is comparable to the limestone houses at Nos 52 and 56 The Esplanade and comparable to the white paintwork of No 59 Keane Street. He did concede that while the pitched sections of the roof are comparable to the houses to the north (Nos 56 and 52 The Esplanade), the roof of the proposed dwelling is not as extensive as its neighbours.
48 In his evidence, Mr Swift agreed that the proposed dwelling has a heavier construction style than the existing dwelling, but was of the opinion that it would be visible but not dominant in the streetscape. He highlighted the approved alterations to No 56 The Esplanade which included the removal of two mature pine trees in the front setback area and a significant addition to the original dwelling.
49 Mr Swift was also concerned that the corner lot currently developed as a garage and garden (formerly known as No 60 The Esplanade) was still capable of redevelopment as a residential dwelling and as such would have a significant impact on the streetscape. Mr Allerding believed that there would be constraints on any redevelopment of No 60 The Esplanade which would include its position in relation to adjoining dwellings. The Tribunal notes that this lot may be capable of redevelopment in the future and its development may have a dislocating effect on the streetscape, as argued by Mr Hardy, but there is no evidence before the Tribunal on which it could rely to make a decision on any possible impact on either the heritage significance of the identified cultural group of dwellings or the established streetscape character.
50 In terms of streetscape character, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr Allerding and agrees that No 59 Keane Street forms part of the relevant streetscape. The existing streetscape of this section of The Esplanade is characterised by historic single dwellings with large front setbacks, set above the level of The Esplanade and the river foreshore. While the architectural styles vary, the dwellings present to the street as single storey with verandahs, large volumed terracotta roofs and projecting chimneys.
51 The proposed new dwelling is a substantial two storey dwelling to be located approximately 7 metres forward of the existing dwelling on the site, and the basement carpark with terrace above is to be located another 9 metres closer to the front boundary. The architectural detailing includes arches and balustrades which are heavy in style, and the roof, while similar in material to its neighbours, is of a different style with cornicing and flat sections.
52 The Tribunal is of the view that the scale, materials and three dimensional form of the proposed replacement dwelling, combined with its location forward of the existing dwelling, will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the adjacent Category 1 heritage listed dwellings and on the existing streetscape character of The Esplanade.
53 The final issue before the Tribunal was in regard to the acceptability of vehicular access to the site from The Esplanade. In their joint witness statement, the planning experts agreed that vehicle access from The Esplanade was acceptable, notwithstanding that the site also had access from a rear right of way. Mr Allerding was concerned about 'the consequential development that arises in the context of the access'. The Tribunal shares Mr Allerding's concern and is of the view that the basement garage accessed from The Esplanade increases the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development.
Conclusion
54 The Tribunal has determined that the existing dwelling is part of a cultural group of four heritage listed dwellings which include No 59 Keane Street and Nos 58, 56, and 52 The Esplanade. While the evidence before the Tribunal was that the intrinsic cultural heritage value of the existing dwelling was marginal in its own right, the Tribunal found that its value was in its contribution to the cultural group. The other three dwellings within this cultural group are all Category 1 and have significant heritage value in their own right. As it stands, the subject dwelling makes a positive contribution to the cultural group by its position on the site, its single storey built form which includes a front verandah, and its large volumed terracotta tiled roof.
55 The Tribunal is of the view that under the current State and local planning framework, any replacement dwelling needs to respect the adjoining heritage listed properties in terms of position on the site, and ensure that it does not adversely affect their heritage significance. In this case, the Tribunal has determined that the scale, materials and three dimensional form of the proposed replacement dwelling, combined with its location forward of the existing dwelling, will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the adjacent Category 1 heritage listed dwellings.
56 Therefore, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances of this case and in the exercise of planning discretion, the Tribunal finds that the application for planning approval to demolish the existing heritage listed dwelling and construct a new two storey dwelling (with basement) on the subject site should not be granted. The application for review should be dismissed and the decision made by the respondent refusing planning approval should be affirmed.
Orders
57 For the reasons above, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision of the respondent to refuse development approval for the demolition of an heritage listed dwelling and the construction of a two storey replacement dwelling at No 58 (Lot 147) The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [57] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS R MOORE, MEMBER
0
0
6