| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : RAMPONO and CITY OF STIRLING [2014] WASAT 20 MEMBER : MS R MOORE (MEMBER) HEARD : 26 NOVEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 20 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : DR 278 of 2013 BETWEEN : JOHN LIONEL RAMPONO Applicant
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords: Town planning - Development application - Demolition of existing Federation era dwelling - Heritage Protection Area of Inglewood - Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora & Inglewood - Generally intact architectural style - Federation era simple weatherboard cottage - Streetscape character compromised Legislation: City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3, cl 1.6, cl 6.6.1, cl 6.6.3, cl 7.1.1, cl 7.3.2, cl 10.2, cl 10.3.1, Pt 6, Pt 7
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 241, s 252(1), Pt 3 Result: Application for review allowed
Development approval for demolition granted
Summary of Tribunal's decision: This matter involved an application for review of the City of Stirling's decision to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No 53 (Lot 780) Tenth Avenue, Inglewood.
The subject dwelling is a Federation weatherboard cottage constructed circa 1907. It is located within a Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area under the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3.
The single issue to be decided by the Tribunal was whether demolition of the dwelling would be contrary to the City of Stirling's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area of Inglewood.
The Tribunal found that while the dwelling had undergone some alterations, it was still considered to be a generally intact example of a simple Federation era cottage. The Tribunal also found that while the opposite side of the street was intact, the heritage character of the streetscape on the side of the street containing the subject site was significantly compromised by more recent development which included a multistorey apartment building on an oversized lot.
The Tribunal determined that the demolition of the subject dwelling could be justified in this case particularly as the site was located within a significantly compromised streetscape.
The application for review was allowed and the decision of the City of Stirling was set aside and conditional development approval was granted.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Ms C Mahncke (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Respondent : City of Stirling
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 These proceedings involve an application brought by Mr John Rampono (applicant), pursuant to s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), for review of the decision of the City of Stirling (City or respondent) made on 30 April 2013 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No 53 (Lot 780) Tenth Avenue, Inglewood (site or subject land).
Site and locality 2 The site has a rectangular shape and an area of approximately 506m2. The subject land is located on the south-western side of Tenth Avenue between Carrington Street and John Street. The dwelling on the subject land can best be described as a simple Federation era weatherboard cottage, constructed circa 1907. 3 The site is located within, but towards the edge of, the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area, as Carrington Street defines the south-eastern boundary to the Heritage Protection Area. 4 The south-western side of Tenth Avenue has a mix of dwelling types, including five original dwellings, a large two and three storey multiunit development, a contemporary two storey grouped dwelling development, and a single house constructed in the latter decades of the 20th century. On the north-eastern side of the street, 12 of the 13 dwellings are original.
Statutory planning framework 5 The subject land is zoned Urban in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Residential with a density code of R40 under the City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No 3 (LPS 3 or Scheme). The subject land is also located within a Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area as shown on the Scheme maps. 6 Clause 1.6 of LPS 3 sets out the aims of the Scheme. The aim of particular relevance to this application is: e) To encourage the conservation and continued use of identified places and objects of cultural heritage significance[.] 7 Part 6 of LPS 3 provides for special control areas, and includes the category of Heritage Protection Area. In respect to Special Control Areas, the provisions applying to a Special Control Area apply in addition to any underlying zone and any general provision of the Scheme. 8 The objectives of the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area are set out in cl 6.6.1 of LPS 3 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 that 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. 9 Clause 6.6.3 of LPS 3 requires that all development conforms with the objectives above and the local planning policy adopted for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area which, in this case, is Local Planning Policy 3.1Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora & Inglewood (Character Retention Guidelines). 10 Part 7 of LPS 3 provides for the establishment of a Heritage List to identify those places within the Scheme area which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the Scheme. A Heritage List has been prepared pursuant to cl 7.1.1 of the Scheme and the subject land is not included in the Heritage List. 11 Clause 10.3.1 of LPS 3 provides the authority for the City to refuse or approve an application with or without conditions. Without limiting the scope of the discretion to determine the application, cl 10.2 of TPS 3 sets out the matters to which regard is to be given in the determination of an application. The pertinent matters relating to this application are as follows: a) the aims and provisions of the Scheme and the objectives of the relevant zone …; … c) any approved statement of planning policy of the Commission; … f) any Local Planning Policy adopted by Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for a designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.3.2, and any other structure plan, detailed area plan or guidelines adopted by the Council under the Scheme[.]
Local Planning Policy 3.1 Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora & Inglewood 12 In accordance with cl 7.3.2 of TPS 3, the respondent has adopted theCharacter Retention Guidelinesfor the purpose of ensuring that the heritage character of Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood is retained and protected, and is reflected in any new development. 13 The key objective of the Character Retention Guidelines relevant to this application is 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. 14 The subject site is located in the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area, which is described in the Character Retention Guidelines as the area bounded by Central Avenue, Carrington Street, Oxford Street, York Street, the City of Stirling boundary, Walter Road, Dundas Road and Hamer Parade. 15 Inglewood is identified as an area of considerable significance for the following reasons: The area is a good example of a highly intact residential area close to the city characterised by typical homes occupied by the working people of Perth from the early 1900s to the 1950s. The area has aesthetic, historic and social significance for the following reasons: • Typical example of the rectangular grid road and subdivision pattern; • Good examples of housing from the early 1900s and inter-war period, including some very good examples of Federation Bungalow and Californian Bungalow styles; • Street design including street layout, grass verges and street trees; and • Garden layout, design and quality. 16 Part 3 of the Character Retention Guidelines addresses the demolition of buildings and contains the following objective: Retain and conserve original buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas, particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s.
State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation 17 Under s 241 of the PD Act, the Tribunal is required to have due regard to any State planning policies which may affect the subject matter of an application for review. State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5) is an approved statement of planning policy prepared under Pt 3 of the PD Act. The objectives of SPP 3.5 are as follows: • 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 planning processes for heritage identification, conservation and protection. 18 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 area designated pursuant to a local planning scheme. Of particular relevance is the principle that '[a] general presumption should apply in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the significance of the area'.
Proposed development and Council's decision 19 The proposed development the subject of this review is the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site. 20 The demolition application was considered at the City's Planning and Development Committee meeting on 2 July 2013 where, despite a recommendation by the planning officer's report to refuse approval, the Committee recommended that demolition be approved. 21 The matter was then considered at the City's Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 July 2013 where the Council resolved to refuse the application for demolition for the following reason: The proposed development is contrary to the requirements of the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area of the City's Local Planning Scheme No.3.
Issues 22 The single issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site is contrary to the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area. 23 The purpose of the Character Retention Guidelines is to ensure that the heritage character of Inglewood is retained and protected. The relevant objective of the Character Retention Guidelines is to ensure the retention of buildings within the Heritage Protection Area dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s where the architectural style of the building is generally intact. 24 Part 3 of the Character Retention Guidelines refers to the demolition of buildings, and has a similar objective of retaining and conserving traditional buildings within the Heritage Protection Area, particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s. Part 3 requires any application for demolition to include a written justification addressing the following points (and any other further justification): a) Provide evidence that the building was constructed from 1960 onwards; 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 asset, 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[.] 25 Part 3 of the Character Retention Guidelines also states that the City may require a heritage assessment by a heritage/architectural professional to be carried out. 26 Two heritage assessments were submitted to the Tribunal as part of the parties' evidence. Mr Stephen Carrick, an architect with heritage expertise, prepared a heritage assessment for the subject dwelling on behalf of the applicant and Town Planning Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) prepared an assessment on behalf of the City. 27 Mr Carrick's conclusions in his heritage assessment were as follows: • 53 Tenth Avenue, Inglewood has limited cultural heritage value as a compromised Federation Bungalow and provides a limited contribution to the immediate streetscape and precinct of Tenth Avenue that forms part of the Heritage Protection Area. • 53 Tenth Avenue is not an intact example of the Federation Bungalow style of architecture. The place displays very few of the style indicators identified by Apperly, Irving and Reynolds and the Character Retention Guidelines. It could be described as a very simple and restrained example of a Federation Bungalow rather than an excellent or good intact example of the architectural style. The place has low authenticity due to various modifications, loss of original materials and finishes and no remnant plantings or features that authentically contribute to the streetscape values of the Heritage Protection Area. • At the time of adoption there were 640 properties listed on the City of Stirling's Municipal Heritage Inventory. These places are individually listed on the Inventory because they are places requiring a high level of protection under the Town Planning Scheme. The Inventory records 16 places that are located on Tenth Avenue. The majority of these places (14) are located north of Beaufort Street and 2 are located south of Beaufort Street. Whilst they are south of Beaufort Street they are not located in close proximity to 53 Tenth Avenue. 53 Tenth Avenue is not individually included on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. It is apparent that the higher number of places, that are very good examples of Federation Bungalow and Californian Bungalow housing from the early 1900s and inter-war period, that contribute to the streetscape values of the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area are located north of Beaufort Street as distinct from the area south of Beaufort Street where 53 Tenth Avenue is located. • The immediate streetscape and built environment on the south side of Tenth Avenue, from Carrington Street to John Street, has been compromised through the demolition and redevelopment of neighbouring sites. The immediate precinct includes three sites with two and three storey flat development and a number of sites with single and two storey post 1970's development. The immediate streetscape of 53 Tenth Avenue has altered to the extent that the existing building is no longer located within a relevant context that is consistent with the objectives and heritage significance of the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area. However, TPG found that the proposed demolition was inconsistent with the key objective of the City's Character Retention Guidelines and found specifically the following: 28 The applicant represented himself at the hearing and Ms Christine Mahncke represented the respondent. The applicant called Mr Carrick to give expert evidence and the City called Ms Nerida Moredoundt, a heritage architect and employee of TPG. The Tribunal also had the benefit of a view of the site on the morning of the hearing in the company of the parties and the heritage experts. 29 The applicant argued that the existing dwelling is neither a good example of a Federation Bungalow, nor is it intact and, further, that it is located within a compromised streetscape. The applicant also contended that the dwelling cannot be upgraded to contemporary living standards because of its position on the narrow site and the development potential of two dwellings, given its R40 density coding, cannot be realised because of limited access to the rear of the property. 30 The respondent contended that the existing dwelling is an intact example of a simple traditional cottage built during the Federation era located within a generally intact streetscape which makes a positive contribution to the Heritage Protection Area, and that demolition would contribute to the erosion of the Heritage Protection Area. 31 The experts agreed that the dwelling is a Federation era cottage in sound condition that has undergone some changes over time. The experts disagreed as to the extent that these changes have affected the level of intactness of the subject dwelling. 32 Mr Carrick was of the opinion that while the subject dwelling is a simple traditional cottage built in the Federation era, it would not be considered a 'good' or 'very good' example of any particular style referred to in the Character Retention Guidelines. Mr Carrick argued that the dwelling had low authenticity as a Federation Bungalow 'as a substantial amount of building fabric has been altered or removed from the time of its original construction'. He also stated that the dwelling made a minor historical contribution to the Heritage Protection Area and a low contribution from an aesthetic point of view. 33 Ms Moredoundt was of the view that the dwelling is a modest weatherboard cottage as referred to in clause 2.3.5 of the Character Retention Guidelines. It was her opinion that while it has lost two front verandah posts and had other elements added, 'the dwelling remains largely intact and that its form, scale, materials and detailing remain clearly evident and demonstrate its architectural style from the time of its original construction'. Ms Moredoundt's view was that the dwelling still makes a positive contribution to the Heritage Protection Area as a simple traditional dwelling indicating how simply workers lived during the Federation era, and that it also makes a modest historical and aesthetic contribution to the Heritage Protection Area. 34 The experts were in agreement, and it was evident on the site view, that the Tenth Avenue streetscape between John Street and Carrington Street has undergone significant change on the southwestern side (including a two and three storey multiunit development), while the northeastern side consists of almost entirely traditional single storey dwellings. 35 In regard to the dwelling on the subject site, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Moredoundt with respect to its level of intactness, and agrees that it presents in its three dimensional form as a modest weatherboard cottage built during the Federation era despite some recent minor alterations. 36 In regard to the contribution the dwelling makes to the immediate streetscape and the Heritage Protection Area of Inglewood, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr Carrick and agrees that demolition of the subject dwelling will not have a material impact on the existing heritage character of the Heritage Protection Area or the relevant streetscape, even taking into consideration the relatively intact northeastern side of Tenth Avenue. 37 While it was agreed that the northeastern side of Tenth Avenue is generally intact in terms of heritage character, the heritage character of the southwestern side of the street has been significantly eroded. The widths and total areas of the lots on the southwestern side vary considerably from each other, while the lots to the northeast are very similar in both width and total area to each other. The built form on the southwestern side has little consistency, and includes a large 1970s two and three storey multiunit development on a larger than usual lot with an untraditional street presentation, a grouped dwelling development immediately adjacent to the subject site to the west, and a modern replacement dwelling on the lot immediately to the east. 38 The Tribunal agrees with Mr Carrick that the demolition of the dwelling on the subject site will have a very limited impact, if any, on the heritage character of the generally intact streetscape to the northeastern side of Tenth Avenue. While the subject dwelling is, in itself, a relatively intact pleasant example of its time and scale, it has lost its immediate context and sits, as described above, within a significantly eroded streetscape.
Conclusion 39 The Tribunal finds that the dwelling has lost its historical context through the significant erosion of the heritage character of the southwestern side of Tenth Avenue, and is of the view that the loss of the subject dwelling will not have a material impact on the heritage character of either the relevant streetscape (either northeastern nor southwestern) or the Heritage Protection Area as a whole. The demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site is not contrary to the City's Character Retention Guidelines for the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area, the purpose of which is to retain and protect the heritage character of the area. 40 It is therefore appropriate, in this case, to allow the application for review and grant development approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site.
Orders 41 For the reasons above the Tribunal makes the following orders: |