Sipsas and City of Stirling
[2009] WASAT 10
•21 January 2009 (Edited decision delivered orally 15 January 2009)
SIPSAS and CITY OF STIRLING [2009] WASAT 10
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2009] WASAT 10 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:363/2008 | 15 JANUARY 2009 | |
| Coram: | MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER) MS R MOORE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 15/01/09 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Development approval for demolition refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARY SIPSAS CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Demolition of house Heritage Protection Area House largely or substantially intact Some alterations including verandah enclosure Street generally comprising houses largely or substantially intact Whether term 'intact' is absolute or can be qualified to reflect degree of intactness |
Legislation: | City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5(f)(iii), cl 1.3.5(f)(vi), cl 2.2.3.2, cl 2.2.3.4, cl 2.2.3.5, Sch 4 Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 27 August 2008 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing house at No 187 (Lot 205) Sixth Avenue, Inglewood is affirmed. |
Summary | Ms Mary Sipsas sought review of the decision of the City of Stirling to refuse to allow her to demolish a house. The house was constructed in about 1930 in the Federation Bungalow architectural style and is located in the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area. The Inglewood Heritage Protection Area is recognised as an area of considerable cultural heritage significance, generally comprising houses constructed from 1910 to 1950, predominantly in the Federation Bungalow and Californian Bungalow styles.,Following the hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral decision in which it refused to allow demolition of the house. The Tribunal found that the house is largely or substantially intact, despite certain alterations, including the enclosure of the front verandah. The Tribunal also found that the house forms part of a streetscape comprising original houses that are generally largely or substantially intact. The Tribunal therefore determined that the proposal is materially inconsistent with the planning framework and warrants refusal.,The Tribunal's reasons, taken from the transcript and edited in minor respects, were as follows. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : SIPSAS and CITY OF STIRLING [2009] WASAT 10 MEMBER : MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
- MS R MOORE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Development application Demolition of house Heritage Protection Area House largely or substantially intact Some alterations including verandah enclosure Street generally comprising houses largely or substantially intact Whether term 'intact' is absolute or can be qualified to reflect degree of intactness
Legislation:
City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5(f)(iii), cl 1.3.5(f)(vi), cl 2.2.3.2, cl 2.2.3.4, cl 2.2.3.5, Sch 4
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
(Page 2)
Result:
Development approval for demolition refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr MJ Hardy
Respondent : Mr D McLeod
Solicitors:
Applicant : Hardy Bowen
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Ms Mary Sipsas sought review of the decision of the City of Stirling to refuse to allow her to demolish a house. The house was constructed in about 1930 in the Federation Bungalow architectural style and is located in the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area. The Inglewood Heritage Protection Area is recognised as an area of considerable cultural heritage significance, generally comprising houses constructed from 1910 to 1950, predominantly in the Federation Bungalow and Californian Bungalow styles.
2 Following the hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral decision in which it refused to allow demolition of the house. The Tribunal found that the house is largely or substantially intact, despite certain alterations, including the enclosure of the front verandah. The Tribunal also found that the house forms part of a streetscape comprising original houses that are generally largely or substantially intact. The Tribunal therefore determined that the proposal is materially inconsistent with the planning framework and warrants refusal.
3 The Tribunal's reasons, taken from the transcript and edited in minor respects, were as follows.
Introduction
4 These proceedings involve an application brought by Ms Mary Sipsas (applicant) under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) for review of the decision of the City of Stirling (City or Council) to refuse development approval under the City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2 or Scheme) for demolition of an existing house at No 187 (Lot 205) Sixth Avenue, Inglewood (site).
5 The site is zoned 'Residential' and is subject to a residential density coding of R30 under the Scheme. The site is located within the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area designated by Sch 4 of the Scheme. The Council has adopted Character Retention Design Guidelines (Guidelines) as a planning policy for three Heritage Protection Areas, including Inglewood.
6 On 27 August 2008, the Council refused to grant development approval for demolition for the following reason:
(Page 4)
- The proposed demolition is not in accordance with Clause 2.2.3.2 of District Planning Scheme No.2 and Section 3.1 of the Character Retention Guidelines.
7 The issues before the Tribunal in this review are encapsulated within the Council's reason for refusal. In particular, the principal issues for determination in this review are:
1) whether the proposed demolition would be inconsistent with cl 2.2.3.2 of DPS 2; and
2) whether the proposed demolition would be inconsistent with the objective of s 3.1 of the Guidelines.
Site and locality
8 The site has a regular rectangular shape and an area of 739 square metres. The existing house on the site is a modest single-storey inter-war cottage in the Federation Bungalow architectural style. The building is set back approximately 7.5 metres from the street boundary and has a bituminised driveway running along its south-east side to a flat-roofed open carport.
9 The house is partially screened from the street by mature plantings on the property as well as a large tree on the verge immediately outside the front of the house. There is no front fence to the property.
10 It appears that the house was constructed in about 1930. A 1934 plan in evidence shows that the house as originally constructed included a wraparound verandah at its north-east corner. Ms Nerida Moredoundt, a heritage architect who gave evidence on behalf of the City, considered it likely that the verandah was originally covered and incorporated within the roof form of the building. She expressed this opinion on the basis that Federation verandahs were typically roofed, and there is evidence in the street of this characteristic.
11 Although it is not entirely certain as to whether the verandah as originally constructed was roofed, we consider that it probably was, in light of Ms Moredoundt's evidence and the reasons for her opinion.
12 The verandah was subsequently enclosed by brown face brick walls to create a bedroom and a study extension to the lounge room.
(Page 5)
13 The front door of the house is accessed from the eastern side of the building but, prior to the enclosure of the verandah, would have been accessed directly from the street via a path through the verandah.
14 Other alterations to the house have occurred over time. In particular:
• there is a brick wall extending from the north-east corner to the open carport;
• the original brickwork has been painted;
• the gutters and downpipes have been replaced;
• some window sashes on the side elevations may have been removed;
• some rendering of limestone footings and some repair of walls has taken place, probably to address rising damp; and
• it is probable that a front fence was removed because, as noted earlier, there is currently no front fence and the evidence suggests that low front fences were characteristic of the period of construction.
15 The locality comprises predominantly single residential buildings with one house to each lot. Like the house on the site, buildings in the locality are generally single storey and located towards the front of the lot. Setbacks vary in the street from approximately 5 metres to 9 metres. Houses generally have front gardens with non-indigenous plantings that reflect the period of construction. Most houses have low front fences up to 1.2 metres in height in a variety of styles, including timber pickets, woven wire and low masonry.
16 Mature trees, particularly in back gardens, provide an attractive tree canopy throughout the area. Streets have pavements and grass verges on both sides and street trees are planted at regular intervals.
17 In terms of period and style of construction, houses in the locality are generally traditional single-storey brick and tile bungalows exhibiting some of the simpler characteristics of Federation Bungalow and California Bungalow styles, with projecting front half-timbered gables and front verandahs under extended main roofs. Roofs are typically terracotta Marseilles tiles decorated with terracotta finials.
(Page 6)
18 The area is largely in its original form with the exception of several open carports in front or to the side of dwellings. In the immediate locality of the site between Hamer Parade to the north-west and Robinson Street to the south-east there are 38 regularly shaped allotments. Demolition of an original house on these sites has only occurred in one instance. In another instance, a house post-dates the general period of construction of buildings in the locality; that is, the period from the early 1900s to 1950. However, this latter case is a house of a similar scale to characteristic buildings, and constructed probably in the late 1950s or early 1960s. On seven other lots in this immediate locality, a second house has been constructed to the rear but the original house has been retained.
Planning framework
19 Clause 2.2.3.4 of DPS 2 requires prior development approval under the Scheme for demolition of a building in a Heritage Protection Area.
20 Clause 2.2.3.2 of the Scheme is material in this review. This provision states as follows in relation to development within a heritage protection area:
Development within a Heritage Protection Area shall comply with the following:
(a) the intention of the Council under Clause 2.2.3.1 of [the] Scheme;
(b) unless otherwise approved by the Council, the conservation of architectural elements or features of an existing building or buildings which are considered to significantly contribute to the streetscape or character of the area; and
(c) the Character Retention Design Guidelines adopted by the Council.
21 In particular, para (b) and para (c) of this clause are significant in the determination of this review.
22 Clause 2.2.3.5 of DPS 2 specifically requires the Council and the Tribunal on review to have regard to the Guidelines, and authorises the consent authority to refuse to grant development approval if it is of the opinion that the proposed development does not comply with the Guidelines. Clause 1.3.5(f)(vi) of DPS 2 also requires consideration in this review of any local planning policy, heritage policy statement or guidelines adopted for Heritage Protection Areas and any other plan or guideline adopted by the local government under the Scheme.
(Page 7)
23 Clause 1.2 of the Guidelines states that:
The retention of the heritage buildings, gardens and streetscapes is important, as these are features that give the area its special heritage character.
24 This clause identifies the key objectives of the Guidelines as including:
Encourage 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;
…
25 Specifically in relation to the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area, cl 3.1 of the Guidelines states as an objective in relation to demolition of existing buildings:
Retain and conserve original buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas, particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s.
26 The clause goes on to acknowledge that applications will be received proposing to demolish houses within the Heritage Protection Areas, and requires in such cases applicants to provide a written justification for the proposed demolition, addressing seven identified points. It is agreed between the parties that the two most relevant points for the purposes of these proceedings are as follows:
a) Detail why the character of the building and its setting does not contribute to the character of the Heritage Protection Area and streetscape;
b) Detail why the building is not a typical or intact example of a specific architectural style or building type …
27 In addition, the Guidelines in cl 2.3.3, cl 2.3.4 and cl 2.3.5 identify the significance of the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area and describe its streetscapes and traditional Inglewood houses in the following terms:
Inglewood is an area of considerable significance.
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.
…
Inglewood is laid out on a rectangular grid with lots of approximately equal size in individual streets, but with some variation across the area. Traditional lot sizes vary throughout the area, however[,] the majority are between 650 and 750 square metres with street frontages between 13.0 and 15.0 metres.
The area comprises predominantly single residential buildings with one house to each block. Houses are general single storey, located towards the front of the lot and with the front door facing the street. Houses are set back an equal distance from the front boundary from 5 to 9 metres in individual streets. Houses have front gardens with exotic plantings that reflect the period of construction. Most houses have low (0.9 to 1.2 metres) front fences in a range of styles including timber pickets, woven wire and low masonry fences. Mature trees, particularly in back gardens, provide an attractive tree canopy throughout the area.
…
Traditional houses in Inglewood were constructed predominantly in the period 1910 to 1950. All houses are single storey and are generally constructed of red brickwork which in many instances is partly rendered. There are some weatherboard and iron houses remaining.
Houses are generally modest in scale and proportion and typical of middle class housing of their era. However[,] wall heights are generally higher than contemporary standards with wall plates at around 3.5 metres above ground. Styles are predominantly Federation [Bungalow] and Californian Bungalow with some examples of Mediterranean and Spanish Mission styles[,] particularly in the more recently developed north[-]western part of the area.
28 Clause 1.3.5.1(f)(iii) of DPS 2 also requires consideration to be given to any approved State planning policy. Of relevance in this review is State Planning Policy No 3.5 - Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5) gazetted on 29 May 2007. SPP 3.5 sets out the principles of sound and responsible planning for the conservation and protection of Western Australia's historic heritage.
29 SPP 3.5 applies to places and areas of significance at both State and local level. Clause 2 of SPP 3.5 states, in part, as follows:
(Page 9)
- Heritage supports urban and rural amenity by providing familiarity and the presence of landmarks by underpinning our 'sense of place' and by enhancing the quality of our built environment generally.
30 Clause 6.2 of SPP 3.5 states 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. The clause states 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.
31 The Inglewood Heritage Protection Area is relevantly a heritage area for the purposes of SPP 3.5. It is designated by DPS 2 on the basis of a clear statement of significance set out in the Guidelines and referred to earlier in these reasons. The Guidelines are a planning policy that satisfies the requirements of cl 6.2 of SPP 3.5.
32 Clause 6.6 of SPP 3.5 sets out development control principles which should be applied in considering planning applications in relation to, amongst other items or places, a heritage area designated pursuant to a local planning scheme. It 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.
33 Specifically in relation to demolition in a heritage area, cl 6.6 of SPP 3.5 states as follows:
Demolition of a local heritage place should be avoided wherever possible although there will be circumstances where demolition is justified. The onus rests on the applicant to provide a clear justification for it.
34 The clause also states that demolition approval 'should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition or because a building has been neglected'.
Heritage evidence
35 The Tribunal had the benefit of heritage evidence from two heritage architects, Mr Ronald Bodycoat, who gave evidence on behalf of the applicant, and Ms Moredoundt. The heritage experts agreed that the existing house on the site is an example of a modest Federation bungalow constructed in about 1930 that has undergone 'some changes'. They also
(Page 10)
- agreed that 'the form of the house and its location on the site are representative of its architectural style'.
36 However, the heritage experts disagreed in relation to three key matters.
37 First, their opinions differed in relation to the extent of changes that have occurred to the existing house. In his witness statement, Mr Bodycoat said that, while the gabled roof form of the house has been retained, 'the entire roofline has been altered, the front and side elevations have been rendered and painted and an addition has been added to the north-east corner'. Mr Bodycoat also referred to changes to the front garden; in particular, the probable removal of the front fence and the current landscaping which obscures some views of the building from the street.
38 In oral evidence, Mr Bodycoat indicated that it is not certain whether the roofline has been altered in the area of the enclosed verandah. As noted earlier, Ms Moredoundt is of the opinion that the roof above the enclosed verandah is original. As we found earlier, Ms Moredoundt is probably correct.
39 However, we consider that, even if the roof above the enclosed verandah was added or extended, the principal elements of the roof, particularly the gabled elements, remain original elements and are appreciated as such from the street as well as from within the site. These elements of the roof are dominant and, as Ms Moredoundt explained, are characteristic of the Federation style of architecture in which broad roof planes extend over verandahs.
40 Ms Moredoundt disagreed with Mr Bodycoat in relation to the extent and significance of changes to the building. In particular, she did not consider that the enclosure of the verandah substantially alters the heritage significance of the building, and she considers that the enclosure is reversible by the removal of the brick infill and the reinstatement of verandah posts 'which would not be an overly costly exercise'.
41 In relation to the painting of the original brickwork, Ms Moredoundt does not consider that it substantially affects the cultural heritage significance of the building, because a number of buildings in the Heritage Protection Area had been painted prior to the designation of that area. In any case, she indicated that it is now quite common for painting on original brickwork to be removed, a proposition with which Mr Bodycoat agreed.
(Page 11)
42 Ms Moredoundt considered that the probable removal of the front fence and the current state of the garden can be readily altered to restore the presentation of the building to its likely original form.
43 We agree with Ms Moredoundt that the changes to the building do not substantially alter its cultural heritage significance. The most significant alteration to the building is the enclosure of the verandah. The verandah enclosure is certainly unattractive, particularly because of the colour of the bricks. However, as Mr Neil Maull, a town planner and a senior development assessment officer of the City, said in evidence, that the enclosure of the verandah does not preclude an observer from understanding the original form of the building.
44 The essential architectural style, form, scale and character of the original house remains apparent, notwithstanding the enclosure of the verandah. In particular, as both Mr Maull and Ms Moredoundt observed, a key - if not the key - element in the presentation of the building is the roof form and the gables which form part of the roof form. That element remains unobscured by the verandah enclosure and, as noted earlier, is a key characteristic feature of Federation Bungalow style of architecture.
45 The other elements of change are relatively minor, and examples of these types of changes are apparent generally in the locality of the site.
46 The second point of difference of opinion between the heritage experts related to the extent to which the changes to the existing house affect its contribution to the streetscape of Sixth Avenue and the Heritage Protection Area more broadly.
47 Mr Bodycoat considered that the changes to the existing house detracted from any significant contribution to the streetscape. In contrast, Ms Moredoundt considered that the stylistic characteristics of the existing house remain clearly evident, and that, as a house constructed in about 1930, it is a traditional house that makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and to the Heritage Protection Area.
48 We prefer the evidence of Ms Moredoundt on this point. Notwithstanding the changes that have occurred to the house over time, the essential form, scale and character and much of the original materials remain apparent. The house remains, notwithstanding the changes, largely or substantially intact.
49 Mr Bodycoat and counsel for the applicant, Mr Michael Hardy, strongly questioned whether the word 'intact' should be qualified by an
(Page 12)
- adjective such as 'largely' or 'substantially'. Indeed, as is apparent from the quotation from cl 1.2 of the Guidelines earlier, the Guidelines refer to degree of intactness.
50 However, Ms Moredoundt explained that it is common practice in heritage architecture for the term 'intact' to be qualified by adjectives such as 'largely' or 'substantially'. Indeed, the extract from cl 1.2 of the Guidelines set out earlier recognises that there are degrees of intactness.
51 Furthermore, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate in heritage matters for the term 'intact' to be qualified to reflect the degree of intactness. The qualification allows for some flexibility and for changes over time. By their very nature, buildings and localities change and develop over time. In planning generally, and in heritage planning in particular, there are very few absolutes. Very few areas or places of cultural heritage significance are completely intact.
52 It is therefore understandable, and indeed appropriate, for heritage architecture to utilise some qualification to the term 'intact'.
53 The third area of difference between the heritage architects was in relation to the extent to which the changes to the houses generally in the street, including the changes to the house on the site, have affected the significance of the streetscape.
54 Mr Bodycoat considered that the existing houses in the street have undergone variations and alterations, and therefore the locality 'is not worthy of mandatory retention'. In contrast, Ms Moredoundt considered that the streetscape 'retains a high proportion of traditional houses which have undergone the range of changes that are common in the Heritage Protection Area'. Ms Moredoundt said that these traditional houses on the whole 'exhibit their original form, scale, materiality [that is, materials] and character and therefore it is a largely intact and significant streetscape'.
55 We prefer the evidence of Ms Moredoundt on this point. The photographs in evidence and the view of the site and locality confirm to the Tribunal that the immediate locality of the site between Hamer Parade and Robinson Street, and indeed the broader locality, part of which the Tribunal viewed to the south-east of Robinson Street, contains houses that generally continue to exhibit the traditional form, scale, materials and character identified in the statement of significance for the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area in the Guidelines.
(Page 13)
56 While some changes have happened over time, these changes do not alter the conclusion that the immediate locality of the site is largely or substantially intact in terms of the characteristics of cultural heritage significance identified in the Guidelines.
Assessment of proposal
57 Having regard to the evidence and the findings expressed, the Tribunal considers that the proposal warrants refusal because it is materially inconsistent with three important elements of the planning framework.
58 First, as noted earlier, cl 2.2.3.2 of the Scheme states that development within the Heritage Protection Area shall comply with, relevantly:
… the conservation of architectural elements or features of an existing building or buildings which are considered to significantly contribute to the streetscape or character of the area; …
59 As the existing house on the site is largely or substantially intact, notwithstanding the changes to which we have referred, reflects the form, scale, character and, to some extent, materials of buildings which are typical of the Heritage Protection Area, and sits in a streetscape generally comprising buildings which are largely or substantially intact, the complete demolition of the building as proposed does not involve the conservation of architectural elements or features of the building that are considered to significantly contribute to the streetscape or character of the area.
60 As both Mr Maull and Ms Moredoundt explained, a typical building such as the house on the site makes a significant contribution, precisely because it is a typical building of the era of construction identified in the statement of significance. The conclusion of the Tribunal would perhaps be different if the building itself were not largely or substantially intact, or if the streetscape of which it forms part was not comprised of buildings which are generally largely or substantially intact.
61 Second, the proposed development is inconsistent with the objective expressed in cl 3.1 of the Guidelines to retain and conserve original buildings 'particularly those buildings dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s'.
62 Mr Hardy submitted, correctly, that the Guidelines are not mandatory. There is flexibility contained within the expression of an
(Page 14)
- 'objective'. Furthermore, as a provision of a planning policy, cl 3.1 of the Guidelines can be departed from in appropriate circumstances.
63 However, we do not consider that this is a case in which it is appropriate to depart from cl 3.1 of the Guidelines, because the building on the site is largely or substantially intact and the site is comprised within a streetscape of buildings which are generally largely or substantially intact.
64 We recognise that the flexibility to which we have referred is reflected in the ability to lodge a development application for demolition and in the considerations set out in cl 3.1 of the Guidelines, particularly para (a) and para (b), the two most significant considerations in relation to this application. We also recognise that Mr Bodycoat, a qualified and experienced heritage architect, provided a statement in support of the development application in which he expressed the opinion that the considerations, and particularly para (a) and para (b), of cl 3.1 of the Guidelines are satisfied. However, we consider that Mr Bodycoat has somewhat overstated the extent and consequences of alteration of the building.
65 For reasons we have already addressed, we consider that the character of the house on the site and its setting does contribute to the character of the area and streetscape, and it is a building that is typical of the architectural styles contemplated by the statement of significance in the Guidelines.
66 Finally, the proposal is inconsistent with SPP 3.5 in terms of its provisions in cl 6.6. As noted earlier, cl 6.6 states that demolition within a local heritage area should be avoided wherever possible. The onus is on the applicant to provide a clear justification for demolition.
67 In this case, the applicant has put forward essentially three justifications for demolition.
68 First, the applicant argued that the house has been so significantly altered that it has largely lost its heritage character. However, for reasons discussed, we do not consider that the changes are substantial in terms of the cultural heritage significance of the building as forming part of the streetscape and, more broadly, the Heritage Protection Area.
69 Second, the applicant argued that the streetscape reflects a variety of architectural styles ranging over 40–50 years of construction and is not uniform or intact. However, the houses in the street conform closely to
(Page 15)
- the description of streetscapes and traditional houses in the Guidelines. As we found earlier, houses in the street are generally largely or substantially intact.
70 Third, the applicant argued that the house is manifestly unsuitable for life in the 21st century. However, the locality comprises many houses that are similar to the house on the site. As noted earlier, the immediate locality comprises some 38 houses that are single storey and almost exclusively of the same era as the building on the site. While these houses may be differently configured to 21st century houses, that does not make them unsuitable for life in the 21st century. The planning framework contemplates that people will continue to live in these houses.
71 The Tribunal had the benefit of an inspection of the house. It is not apparent to the Tribunal that there is any difficulty in relation to the 'liveability' of the house, although some renovations, particularly to the kitchen and bathroom, would improve amenity. However, there is capacity within the existing building to accommodate sensitive additions and alterations to provide accommodation consistent with modern expectations.
72 Furthermore, as noted earlier, seven properties within the immediate locality of the site have been redeveloped in a manner that preserves the cultural heritage significance of the sites and of the locality by retaining the house at the front and constructing a second dwelling at the rear. Ms Moredoundt gave evidence, which we accept, that the site has the capacity to accommodate this form of redevelopment.
73 Finally, the key concern of the applicant, it appears, relates to the lack of daylight to the front bedroom and the lounge room. The front bedroom is located within the verandah enclosure referred to earlier. The restoration of the building by the removal of the enclosure would avoid that concern and would also permit greater light into the lounge room. Pruning vegetation in the front setback area of the house would also improve daylight.
Conclusion
74 The Tribunal has determined that the proposal warrants refusal, because it involves the complete demolition of a building that is largely or substantially intact in terms of the characteristics of buildings that are typical in the Heritage Protection Area and is in a street generally comprising such buildings.
(Page 16)
75 Appropriate redevelopment of the site, consistently with the applicable planning framework, does not, in the Tribunal's view, involve complete demolition. Rather, it involves conservation, adaption and sensitive alteration and addition to the existing building.
76 In arriving at these conclusions, the Tribunal has given careful consideration to the extent of alterations that have occurred to the house over time. The most significant alteration that has occurred is the enclosure by dark brick of the original verandah. However, the Tribunal does not consider that this change, or the other changes that have been referred to in the reasons, warrant a different conclusion.
Orders
77 For the reasons given above, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 27 August 2008 to refuse development approval for the demolition of the existing house at No 187 (Lot 205) Sixth Avenue, Inglewood is affirmed.
- I certify that this and the preceding [77] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
2
0
2