The Commissioners of the Presbyterian Church of Western Australia and Shire of Peppermint Grove
[2007] WASAT 306
•28 NOVEMBER 2007
THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE [2007] WASAT 306
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 306 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:222/2007 | 14 AND 15 NOVEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER) MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 27/11/07 | |
| 32 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Development approval granted subject to conditions | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Conservation and adaptation of historic church hall and construction of church manse Whether manse is permissible development on land reserved for "Public Uses Church" Whether Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) apply to manse Setback Height, bulk and scale Streetscape Setting Cultural heritage Church and church hall on State Heritage Register Whether manse will have an adverse impact on cultural heritage significance of church and church hall |
Legislation: | Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA), s 46, s 78 Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 2.2, cl 3.2.1, cl 3.3.1, cl 3.9.1 A1, Table 1 Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 2.3, cl 3.2.3, cl 4.3.3, cl 4.4(c), cl 4.9.1, CL 4.9.4, cl 5.1.2 |
Case References: | Dunbar and City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 331; (2006) 47 SR (WA) 50 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is allowed.,2. The decision of the respondent made on 12 June 2007 and communicated to the applicant on 26 June 2007 to refuse development approval for the construction of a two-storey plus basement manse at No 16A Keane Street, Peppermint Grove is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted to development application No 007-58 made on 23 February 2007 for conservation and adaptation of St Columba's Church Hall and construction of a two-storey plus basement manse subject to the following conditions:,(i) The development application shall be carried out in accordance with the conservation and adaptation works identified in the development application and the plans drawn by Hocking Planning and Architecture project No 2006-19 drawing Nos SK-C-01 to SK-C-17 inclusive each plan dated 29.05.06, updated 22.02.07, revision 03, except as varied by the following conditions.,(ii) The Venn Street façade of the study, bay window and roofed timber deck at ground floor level and the Venn Street façade of the master bedroom and bay window at first floor level shall be set back by an additional 1.229 metres from the Venn Street frontage. This change is to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence. No other change to the plans referred to in condition (i) shall take place without further development approval.,(iii) Prior to the issue of a building licence, the applicant must provide for approval by the Shire of Peppermint Grove landscape plans for the open space area at the eastern (Venn Street) street frontage of the manse and also the land along the western side of the Church containing the vehicle access, and must thereafter carry out and maintain the landscaping in accordance with the approved plan.,(iv) Prior to the issue of a building licence, the applicant must provide for approval by the Shire of Peppermint Grove a detailed plan for the proposed boundary fence on the southern common property boundary and must thereafter construct and maintain the fence in accordance with the approved plan.,(v) The stairway window shall be fixed obscure glazed and the upstairs study window shall be fixed obscure glazed to 1.6 metres above finished floor level.,(vi) The roof is to be a colorbond colour approved by the Shire of Peppermint Grove to ensure that there is no potential for reflected glare to the adjoining and other neighbouring properties.,(vii) The ground surface of the driveway from Keane Street shall be turf paved underlay turf finish. This area must not be hard paved at any time during the lifetime of the development.,(viii) The manse may be used as a place of residence for the Minister of St Columba's Presbyterian Church and the Minister's family, but not by any other person.,(ix) A proposed colour schedule for all works shall be submitted to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for consideration and advice prior to the issue of a building licence. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE [2007] WASAT 306 MEMBER : MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
- MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
SHIRE OF PEPPERMINT GROVE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Conservation and adaptation of historic church hall and construction of church manse - Whether manse is permissible development on land reserved for "Public Uses - Church" - Whether Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) apply to manse - Setback - Height, bulk and scale - Streetscape - Setting - Cultural heritage - Church and church hall on State Heritage Register - Whether manse will have an adverse impact on cultural heritage significance of church and church hall
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA), s 46, s 78
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002), cl 2.2, cl 3.2.1, cl 3.3.1, cl 3.9.1 A1, Table 1
Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 2.3, cl 3.2.3, cl 4.3.3, cl 4.4(c), cl 4.9.1, CL 4.9.4, cl 5.1.2
Result:
Development approval granted subject to conditions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr D Mitchell with Mr A Hevorn
Respondent : Mr CA Slarke
Solicitors:
Applicant : PSB Legal
Respondent : McLeods
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Dunbar and City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 331; (2006) 47 SR (WA) 50
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This case concerned a development application for conservation and adaptation of an historic Church Hall and for the erection of a two-storey above basement Church manse. The principal issues concerned:
• setback to the street and to two adjoining properties;
• height, bulk and scale;
• streetscape, visual amenity and setting; and
• impact on the cultural heritage significance of the Hall and adjoining historic Church.
2 The Tribunal determined that, with the imposition of a condition requiring that the street façade of the manse be set back by an additional 1.229 metres, the proposed development would be acceptable in relation to each of the issues. The resulting setback would average the setbacks of the Church and Church Hall and would be complementary to those buildings and also provide an appropriate transition between the Hall and a garage and house on the adjoining property to the south. The proposed 4.290 metre separation between the proposed manse and the Hall, and the increased setback from the street, would enable the Hall to continue to be viewed as a three-dimensional structure. The proposed manse would be discernibly different to the historic buildings on the site, but would appropriately use materials that visually link the proposed and historic buildings.
3 The Tribunal also determined that the impact of the proposed manse on adjoining properties is acceptable in relation to overshadowing and visual bulk and scale. The mid-winter shadow that would be cast on the adjoining property to the south is within the contemplation of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) and would substantially fall on a garage and within the shadow line of any 1.8 metre high solid boundary fence. The visual impact is mitigated by variations in materials and setbacks, particularly an increased setback at the second level towards the rear part of the adjoining property. The visual impact of the development on the adjoining property to the west is no greater than the visual impact of the buildings on that property when viewed from the site.
(Page 4)
4 The development application was granted approval subject to conditions.
Introduction
5 On 23 February 2007, The Commissioners of the Presbyterian Church of Western Australia (Church) made a development application to the Shire of Peppermint Grove (Shire or Council) for consent to the conservation and adaptation of the historic St Columba's Church Hall at No 16A Keane Street, Peppermint Grove (site) and the erection of a two-level plus basement church manse at the site. The site is located at the corner of Keane Street and Venn Street. Other than a corner truncation, the site has a regular, rectangular shape and an area of approximately 1208 square metres. The shorter street boundary is to Keane Street to the north and the longer street boundary is to Venn Street to the east.
6 The site is zoned "Urban" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The site is unzoned but is classified as a local reserve for the designated purpose of "Public Uses - Church" under the applicable local planning scheme, the Shire of Peppermint Grove Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3 or Scheme).
7 A manse is relevantly defined as "the house and land occupied by a minister or parson, usually of non-conformist churches, as Uniting Presbyterian, etc": TheMacquarie Dictionary (4th ed, 2005, The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, Sydney) page 873. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that a manse is not only the residence of a church minister, but is also used for pastoral care and educational activities for congregants. The proposed manse also includes the parish records store.
8 On 21 May 2007, the Council approved the conservation and adaptation of the Church Hall, but deferred determination of the manse to enable consideration of objections. On 18 June 2007, the Council refused the part of the development application which proposes the construction of the manse on the basis that the development:
"would compromise the streetscape and general amenity of the locality and further would not contribute to orderly and proper planning within the Shire of Peppermint Grove."
9 The Church seeks review of the Council's decision under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).
(Page 5)
St Columba's Presbyterian Church, Church Hall and former manse
10 St Columba's Presbyterian Church Hall was constructed on the site in 1896, shortly after the subdivision and initial development of Peppermint Grove in the early 1890's. The Hall is of timber and iron construction in the Federation Carpenter Gothic style of architecture. The Hall occupies the central part of the site and addresses Venn Street to the east.
11 Additions were made to the Hall in 1898 - 1899, by an extension of 20 feet to the west, in 1913, by an extension of 12 feet to the south, in 1931 - 1935, by the addition of an entry porch adjacent to Venn Street, and in the 1960's - 1970's, by the addition of an unsympathetic concrete toilet block to the west.
12 The Hall is single storey and rectangular in shape, with a depth of approximately 16 metres east/west, excluding the porch to the east and toilet block to the west, and a width of approximately 10 metres north/south. The principal façade of the Hall is set back by approximately 2.8 metres from the Venn Street frontage and the entry porch, which has a width of approximately 2.2 metres, is set back by approximately 1.1 metres from the Venn Street frontage.
13 The Hall served as both the first place of Christian public worship in the district, including for Anglicans, until St Luke's Anglican Church was completed in 1897, and as the original Cottesloe School, until a school building was opened a short distance to the west in 1898.
14 In about 1905, a single storey manse was erected for the minister approximately 18 metres to the south of the Hall on land which is now known as No 12 Venn Street. The building was constructed with corsed rusticated limestone walls, corrugated iron roof and timber and cast iron verandah in the Federation Queen Anne architectural style and is set back approximately 6.8 metres from Venn Street. The manse was used by the minister until about 1992 when the Church exchanged No 12 Venn Street for No 1a McNeil Street, Peppermint Grove, located approximately one kilometre north of the site, which has been used as the manse since that time.
15 The former manse at No 12 Venn Street is separated from the site by a double garage set back approximately 6.0 - 6.5 metres from Venn Street and approximately 1.2 metres from the common boundary, and a 1.8 metre high open steel and mesh fence along the common boundary. The southern part of the site between the Hall and the common boundary has dimensions of approximately 10 metres north/south by 27.18 metres
(Page 6)
- east/west. This area is grassed and contains a garden shed in the south-west corner.
16 Saint Columba's Church was constructed in the northern part of the site in 1909 - 1910, using local limestone and slate, in the Federation Gothic style of architecture. The Church was designed by Louis Bowser Cumpston, a notable architect of the Gold Boom era.
17 The Church principally addresses Keane Street and has its side wall to Venn Street. The setback of the front wall is approximately 6.5 metres from Keane Street and the setback of the side wall is approximately 5.5 metres from Venn Street. The rear or southern wall of the Church abuts the northern wall of the Hall. The Church has a Norman style tower in the north-east corner, adjacent to the intersection of Keane Street and Venn Street, which projects from the main structure. The tower is set back by approximately 4.0 metres from Keane Street and by approximately 3.0 metres from Venn Street.
18 The original design of the Church allowed for an addition over the area of the Hall with the intention of demolishing or relocating the Hall to the south. However, the demolition or relocation of the Hall was deferred as the cost of 25 pounds was considered to be beyond the Church's finances at the time. Subsequently, the continued lack of funds and opposition within the congregation to the moving of the Hall resulted in it remaining in its original position and no extension being made to the stone Church.
19 On 28 June 1996, St Columba's Presbyterian Church and Hall was placed as a single permanent entry on the Register of Heritage Places maintained under s 46 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA) (HWA Act). The Heritage Council of Western Australia (Heritage Council) assessment documentation indicates that St Columba's Church and Hall are of aesthetic, historic and social value, and have significance in terms of rarity, representativeness, condition, integrity and authenticity. The Heritage Council statement of significance is as follows:
"St Columba's Church and Hall, a limestone and slate Church (1909) and a timber and iron Church Hall (1896), has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:
The Hall is a fine example of the Federation Carpenter Gothic style of architecture, and the Church is a fine example of the Federation Gothic style of architecture;
(Page 7)
- the place is a landmark which addresses the corner of Venn and Keane Streets, Peppermint Grove;
the Hall was the first place of worship in Peppermint Grove and housed the original Cottesloe School;
the place has potential to contribute to an understanding of late 19th and early 20th century construction techniques in Western Australia, because of the intact and original nature of the fabric."
20 Saint Columba's Presbyterian Church and Hall is also listed as a single entry on the Council's Heritage List under cl 5.1.2 of TPS 3. The former manse to the south of the site is also listed on the Council's Heritage List.
21 In June 2005, Mr Terence Mayor, a health and building inspector and the Council's Manager, Development Services, prepared a report for the Church in relation to St Columba's Church Hall. The report identified a number of significant issues concerning the structural integrity of the building, public safety, fire safety, asbestos and disabled access to the building. The report noted that the sub-floor structure has failed due to long-term weather exposure and general age deterioration. The failure of the sub-floor and walls has resulted in "very obvious building movement and the structural failure of the main building". The report also noted that the building has external asbestos cladding and internal asbestos lining and that weathering has caused the external cladding to deteriorate while some internal lining has cracked due to structural movement/failure of the building. The report contained the following conclusion:
"The inspection of the premises has revealed that there are some significant structural building defects that require attention and need to be rectified to ensure that the building is considered to be suitable for continued use as a public building."
22 Mr Mayor's report recommended that the Church should engage a structural engineer to carry out a further detailed inspection and provide specifications for necessary conservation works. In July 2006, the Church obtained a report from a structural engineer which recommended significant conservation works to the roof, external walls, internal walls and floors. The recommended conservation works have been incorporated into the proposed development before the Tribunal. The Church intends to finance the conservation works and the
(Page 8)
- construction of the manse by selling the current manse at No 1a McNeil Street.
Proposed development
23 The development application before the Tribunal has two components.
24 The first component involves conservation and adaptation of St Columba's Church Hall. These works include -
• demolition of the central portion of the 1913 southern extension to create a courtyard providing access between the existing crèche, expanded kitchen and proposed manse;
• demolition of the 1960's - 1970's concrete toilet block to the west and construction of male and female disabled-accessible toilets;
• restoration of windows, weatherboard cladding, flooring, internal panelling and roof and drainage systems;
• adaptation and expansion of the existing kitchen in the south-east corner;
• adaptation of the existing crèche in the north-west corner; and
• disabled-accessible access by means of a ramp to the entry porch.
25 The second component involves the construction of a new manse between the Hall and the southern site boundary. The manse would be accessed through the same pedestrian entry area as the Hall from Venn Street and would abut the Hall at the rear of the proposed courtyard. The proposed manse incorporates the following elements:
• at basement level, the parish records store and a subterranean family room;
• at ground floor level, the minister's study located adjacent to Venn Street and accessed both internally and from a roofed timber deck in the entry area between the Hall and the manse, an open plan kitchen/living/dining room,
- laundry, small internal garden/courtyard, a single garage and a single carport; and
- • at first floor level, a master bedroom with en suite adjacent to Venn Street, three smaller bedrooms, a bathroom and an open study area off the hallway.
26 The manse would principally address Venn Street. Its principal façade would be set back 3.5 metres from Venn Street with a two-storey roofed bay window element projecting to 2.342 metres from Venn Street. The proposed southern side wall would be set back at ground floor level and first floor level generally 1.5 metres from the common boundary with No 12 Venn Street, with a 2.970 metre section adjoining the stairs set back 1.9 metres and the western 5.680 metres at first floor level adjacent to bedroom 4 set back by 3.0 metres.
27 The garage and carport would be located in the south-west part of the site with a setback of 1.5 metres from the southern boundary and 0.9 metre from the western boundary. Vehicular access would be via a turf paved underlay turf finish driveway from Keane Street between the Church and the western boundary of the site.
28 The floor plans of the proposed development and the Venn Street elevation showing the proposed manse, the Hall and the Church are reproduced in Attachment A to these reasons.
29 The Shire advertised the proposed development for public comment. The Council received 26 letters of objection, including 17 form letters, from local residents. As Mr Mayor pointed out, this is a significant number of objections in a local government area which has only approximately 1500 residents. Ms Cave, the owner and resident of No 12 Venn Street, did not write a letter of objection and, according to the covering letter of the development application, was consulted by the Church and was favourable to the proposal. However, Ms Cave attended the Council meeting on 18 June 2007 and advised:
"that the proposed development appeared to be extensive and highly packed in on the site and that both sisters were genuinely concerned." (Minutes of ordinary meeting of Council 18 June 2007.)
30 In accordance with s 78 of the HWA Act, the Shire also sought advice from the Heritage Council. In April 2007, the Heritage Council
(Page 10)
- resolved to advise the Shire that it supports the proposed development subject to the following condition:
"A proposed colour schedule for all works shall be submitted to the Heritage Council for consideration and advice, prior to the issue of a Building Licence."
"I can confirm that the proposed design of the manse was not considered by the Heritage Council's Development Committee to have a significant adverse impact on the significance of the Church and Church Hall.
In making its decision to support the proposed development, the Committee noted that the manse had been designed to blend with the existing buildings on the site and in the street by a number of means including:
• cladding the front wall in a regular ashlar limestone to complement the stone church
• finishing the side walls of the manse in painted weatherboard to complement the hall
• matching the manse's Venn Street setback closely to the setbacks of the existing buildings.
Other contextual design elements include metal roofing with a pitch similar to the church and hall, garage doors placed discretely away from both frontages, and the use of stabilised turf in the driveway and courtyard instead of hard landscaping.
I acknowledge that the comments of the Heritage Council staff were sought when the manse was being designed (as to contextual design and heritage-impacts) and that the outcome was broadly consistent with those discussions.
The Council has no comment to make on wider amenity, open space or residential density issues which may be at issue in this case."
(Page 11)
A servant of two masters? No 2
32 The Shire relies on expert evidence in relation to planning matters from Mr Mayor and Mr Aaron Lohman, a consultant town planner. Mr Lohman came into this matter initially because he was consulted by Mr Chris Campbell, who owns and resides with his wife and three children at No 16 Keane Street, which property adjoins the site to the west. Mr Lohman conceded that his instructions from Mr Campbell were to oppose the development application. In accordance with those instructions, Mr Lohman wrote four letters of objection to the Shire on behalf of Mr Campbell on 24 April 2007, 16 May 2007, 4 June 2007 and 8 June 2007. In addition, Mr Lohman attended the Council meetings on 21 May 2007 and 18 June 2007 and addressed each meeting in opposition to the proposed development on behalf of Mr Campbell.
33 Dunbar and City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 331; (2006) 47 SR (WA) 50 involved a planning review application in which the respondent City instructed an architect and town planner to represent it as its advocate and to give expert evidence on its behalf in circumstances where the architect and town planner had been initially retained by the principal objectors to the proposed development as their expert/advocate when the development application was being assessed by the City. At [24], the Tribunal said the following:
"[I]t is generally undesirable and inappropriate for a local government authority defending its planning decision in the Tribunal to retain as its expert witness/advocate a person, no matter how well qualified and experienced, who was previously retained in relation to the same application by an objector. Although [the expert witness/advocate] provided thoughtful and intelligent evidence, which the Tribunal has accepted in material respects, and was fair in making appropriate concessions and suggestions to [the applicant], there remains, certainly in [the applicant]'s mind, a perceived conflict of interest. A local government authority's position in advancing the public interest and an objector's position in advancing his or her private interest may correspond and in this case they probably do, but this will not always be the case. It is in the interests of administrative justice and proper public administration generally that the Tribunal and applicants seeking review before it are not put into the position which occurred in this review. The Tribunal expects that this situation will not occur again."
(Page 12)
34 It is disappointing that the same thing has occurred in this case. For a local government to call as an expert witness a consultant who was initially retained by an objector to oppose a proposed development gives rise, at the very least, to a perceived conflict of interest. This perception undermines administrative justice and proper public administration generally.
35 Furthermore, although Mr Lohman said that he has read the Tribunal's pamphlet A guide for experts giving evidence in the State Administrative Tribunal and agrees to be bound by the expert's obligations to the Tribunal stated in it, we accept Mr Mitchell's submission on behalf of the Church that Mr Lohman's previous instructions to oppose the development application affects the weight to be given to his evidence in these proceedings.
Is a manse permissible?
36 In his witness statement - and in his objections to the Shire on behalf of Mr Campbell - Mr Lohman queried whether a manse is capable of approval on the site. Mr CA Slarke, counsel for the Shire, disavowed such a submission.
37 The proposed manse development is permissible under the Scheme. As the site is not zoned under the Scheme, but rather is classified as a local reserve for the designated purpose "Public Uses - Church", no land use is prohibited on the site; cf cl 3.2.3 OF TPS 3 in relation to zoned land. Furthermore, while the Council - and the Tribunal on review - is required by cl 2.3 of TPS 3 to have regard to the ultimate purpose intended for the reserve in assessing the proposed development, the proposed manse serves the ultimate purpose intended for the reserve. Although the manse is proposed to be used for residential purposes, those purposes are relevantly incidental or ancillary to church use of the site. The residential component of the manse is not an independent, dominant use. Furthermore, the manse includes the parish records store in the basement and the minister's study which would be used for pastoral care and educational activities for congregants. Finally, as Mr Ian Hocking, who is the designing architect and a town planner, said, the manse would present and function as "an integral part of the Church uses of the site".
Do the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) apply?
38 It is common ground in this review that although the proposed manse would serve as the minister's residence, the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2002) (Codes) do not apply to the proposed
(Page 13)
- development. We agree with the common position of the parties, because cl 4.3.3 of the Scheme refers to application of the Codes in the Scheme area as follows:
"Unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the [Codes] shall conform to the provisions of those Codes."
40 However, it is also common ground in this review that the provisions of the Codes, and variations to the Codes in the Scheme, can be used as a guide to test the proposed development. In this regard, the surrounding locality is zoned "Residential" and coded "R12.5" under the Scheme. Again, we agree with the common position of the parties, although we note that when using the Codes as a guide to test the proposed development, one must also bear in mind that the site is not zoned "Residential" and is not subject to any residential density coding under the Scheme.
Issues for determination
41 The following four principal issues arise for determination in this review -
1. Whether the setback of the proposed development is acceptable.
2. Whether the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is acceptable in the context of the height, bulk and scale of existing built form on the site.
3. Whether the proposed development is acceptable in relation to streetscape, visual amenity and setting.
(Page 14)
- 4. Whether the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the Church and Church Hall.
42 The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.
Setback
Street setback
43 The Acceptable Development provision in relation to setback of buildings in cl 3.2.1 and Table 1 of the Codes prescribes a setback of 7.5 metres from the "primary street" and 2.0 metres from the "secondary street" for land coded "R12.5". This provision is varied by cl 4.4(c) of the Scheme as follows:
"For R10 and R12.5 codes areas the setback from the front street boundary to any building including carport or garage shall be a minimum of 9 metres for the primary street and 4.5 metres from the secondary street. Council may permit a lesser setback where:
• a lot has a depth of less that 25 metres from a street boundary to a rear boundary; or
• where there are a significant number of existing houses having a lesser setback to the same street block; and
• where it is considered that the lesser setback will not detrimentally affect the quality of the streetscape."
44 Although, when the Council sought public comment in relation to the proposed development, it stated in the advertisement that the manse "will present to Venn Street, which is the secondary street frontage for the property", both Mr Mayor and Mr Lohman consider that Venn Street is the primary street. While both of these witnesses consider that a 9.0 metre setback between the Venn Street boundary and the manse would not be reasonable in the circumstances, in their respective opinions, the proposal would not satisfy any of the bullet points in cl 4.4(c) of TPS 3, assuming that that provision applied. Mr Mayor expressed the opinion that the setbacks of the other dwellings on the western side of Venn Street, between Keane Street and Irvine Street, range between 4.5 metres and 12 metres, with an average setback of 8.6 metres. Mr Lohman focused on the immediate street block between Keane Street and Columba Place, where he said the average setback is in excess of 5.0 metres. Based on
(Page 15)
- Mr Mayor's and Mr Lohman's evidence, Mr Slarke submits on behalf of the Shire that the proposed setback to Venn Street is "manifestly inadequate".
45 The Church presented planning evidence from Mr Steven Allerding, a consultant town planner, and Mr Hocking. Mr Allerding agrees with Mr Mayor and Mr Lohman that the primary street for the purposes of the proposed manse is Venn Street. However, Mr Allerding considers that the proposed setback of the manse to Venn Street would satisfy the second and third bullet points of cl 4.4(c), if that provision were applicable, and is acceptable on a merit assessment, because -
• there is no consistent setback in Venn Street, as a result of development occurring over a long period of time; and
• the proposed, reduced front setback is compatible with the setbacks of adjoining properties.
46 In contrast to Mr Mayor, Mr Lohman and Mr Allerding, Mr Hocking considers that the primary street is Keane Street and that Venn Street is the secondary street. Mr Hocking considers that the proposed street setback would satisfy the second and third bullet points of cl 4.4(c), if that provision were applicable.
47 A determination as to whether a particular street is relevantly the "primary street" or the "second street" is principally based on the shape and configuration of the lot, not on the siting and orientation of any proposed building on the lot. This is apparent from the explanatory text at page 47 of the Codes which states that:
"Different streetscapes usually occur on secondary or side streets, with the street alignments formed by the long side boundaries of corner lots."
48 In this case, the longer, eastern street boundary of the site is the secondary or side street and the shorter, northern boundary of the site is the primary street. Although, as the explanatory text at page 47 of the Codes goes on to recognise, similar considerations to those for setbacks to frontage streets will apply where a streetscape is altered by subdivision of corner lots, creating new frontages to the side street, in this case, the proposed manse would present and function as an integrated component of the overall church use of the site and not as a de facto, independent, subdivided lot. Therefore, if cl 4.4(c) of TPS 3 applied to the proposed development, it would require a setback of 4.5 metres from Venn Street.
(Page 16)
49 We agree with Mr Hocking and Mr Allerding that the second bullet point in cl 4.4(c) of the Scheme would be satisfied, if that clause applied. There are a significant number of existing houses having a lesser setback than 9.0 metres to Venn Street, which is their only street frontage. As noted earlier, Mr Lohman said that the average setback is only about 5.0 metres. The setback of a large double garage of the house across Venn Street from the site is only 2.5 metres and there are a number of street walls having a zero setback in the streetblock.
50 However, we consider that the proposed, lesser setback would detrimentally affect the quality of the streetscape, because the manse would be located too close to the street. Mr Hocking explained that the proposed setback of the manse is complementary to both the Church and the Hall, because the street setback of the manse averages the street setbacks of the Church and the Hall to Venn Street. We agree that as the proposed manse would present and function as an integrated component of the Church use of the site, it is appropriate that its setback be the average of the existing buildings on the site. We also agree with Mr Hocking that determining the setback of the manse by reference to the average of the setbacks of the Church and Hall is appropriate given the heritage significance of the Church and Church Hall. As noted earlier, the Heritage Council supports the proposed development, in part, because the proposed setback matches the setback of the historic buildings on the site.
51 However, the proposed manse projects closer to Venn Street than the average of the setbacks of the Church and Hall to Venn Street. As noted earlier, the side wall of the Church is set back approximately 5.5 metres from Venn Street and the principal façade of the Hall is set back approximately 2.8 metres from Venn Street. The average of these setbacks is 4.15 metres. We do not consider that the porch should be included in the calculation of setback, as it only occupies approximately one-fifth of the Hall's façade. We do not consider that the tower at the north-east corner of the Church should be included in the calculation of setback as it is a significant visual element in the streetscape which should retain its prominence.
52 As noted earlier, the proposed setback of the manse is 3.5 metres to the principal façade and 2.342 metres to the closest point of the two-storey bay window element. Because the bay window element is two storeys in height, we consider that streetscape impact of the manse should be assessed on the basis of the average of the setback of the principal façade
(Page 17)
- and bay window. The effective setback of the proposal is, therefore, 2.921 metres.
53 In order to complement the Church and the Hall, the proposed manse should be set back by an additional 1.229 metres, which is the difference between the average of the setbacks of the Church and the Hall - 4.15 metres - and the proposed effective setback - 2.921 metres.
54 The minister's study and the master bedroom, which are adjacent to Venn Street in the proposed development at ground floor and first floor, each have a depth of 5.460 metres and a width of 4.460 metres, excluding the bay window which has a depth of 1.158 metres. Reducing the depth of these rooms by 1.229 metres, from 5.460 metres to 4.231 metres, would still allow them to function for their intended purpose.
55 If the principal façade of the manse were set back 4.729 metres, with the bay window structure set back 3.571 metres, the Tribunal considers that the setback to Venn Street, while projecting in part closer than 4.5 metres, would not detrimentally affect the quality of the streetscape, and would be appropriate on a merit assessment of the street setback and streetscape impact of the proposal. This setback would be complementary to the Church and Church Hall. It would also produce an appropriate transition in setback between the Church Hall - 2.8 metres - and the garage - 6.0 - 6.5 metres - and former manse - 6.8 metres - at No 12 Venn Street.
56 With an additional setback of 1.229 metres, we accept Mr Hocking's evidence that the manse would "visually appear from Venn Street, as an individual building, whilst forming a compatibly designed element of the Church group". Furthermore, although there is no residential building having a 3.571 metre - 4.729 metre street setback over two storeys in the immediate locality, that setback is acceptable when viewed in the context of the setbacks of the historic buildings on the site and when viewed in the context of the setback of the building across the road. While the portion of the building across the road which has a setback of approximately 2.5 metres is single storey, it is wider than the proposed manse and notably closer to the street.
57 Clause 4.9.1 of the Scheme requires that 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
(Page 18)
- (b) maintain adequate standards of privacy, daylight, sunshine and safety on the site and in relation to the adjoining lot or lots.
58 For reasons set out earlier, we find that, if the setback were increased by 1.229 metres, the proposed manse would be set back from the street alignment so as to preserve the amenity of the area, having regard to the setback of the historic buildings on the site, the setback of the garage and former manse at No 12 Venn Street, and the setback of building elements on the opposite side of the road. Furthermore, as Mr Hocking explained, the proposed setback of the manse would enable surveillance of the street in a way which is not possible from other residential properties in the vicinity, because of the high street front walls. We find that the proposed setback would maintain adequate standards of safety on the site in terms of surveillance.
Southern setback
59 As noted earlier, the setback of the proposed manse to the southern boundary would be generally 1.5 metres, in part 1.9 metres, and, in the western part on the second level adjoining bedroom 4, 3.0 metres. As the southern boundary of the site is the rear boundary, the Acceptable Development provision in cl 3.3.1 A1 and Table 1 of the Codes would require a 6.0 metre setback, if the Codes applied and if the site were coded "R12.5". The corresponding Performance Criteria is expressed as follows in cl 3.3.1 P1:
"Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;
• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;
• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and
(Page 19)
- • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties."
60 The former manse at No 12 Venn Street is set back approximately 8.0 metres from the common boundary with the site. The setback area includes a double garage set back approximately 1.2 metres from the common boundary and a landscaped area to its west or rear. Mr Lohman described this landscaped area as the most accessible and largest area of open space at No 12 Venn Street. He considers that the setback of the proposed manse from the southern boundary does not assist with protection of access to direct sun for the adjoining property or assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property. Mr Mayor agrees.
61 In contrast, Mr Allerding does not consider the landscaped area of No 12 Venn Street adjoining the common boundary to be an active open space area. He considers that the active open space area of No 12 Venn Street is the area behind the house to its west. In Mr Allerding's opinion, the proposed setback assists with protection of access to direct sun and assists in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk. Mr Allerding notes that the proposed development satisfies the Acceptable Development provision in cl 3.9.1 A1 of the Codes of a maximum shadow cast at midday on 21 June onto the adjoining property of 25% of the site area, assuming that the Codes applied. He notes that the maximum height of the proposed manse at the ridge of 8.115 metres is 1.885 metres less than the maximum building height of 10 metres for "R12.5" coded areas. Finally, Mr Allerding considers that the variation of materials and setbacks along the southern elevation of the manse would reduce its impact in terms of building bulk.
62 The Tribunal finds that the Performance Criteria in cl 3.3.1 P1 of the Codes would be satisfied in the circumstances of this case, if the Codes applied. The building is set back to provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining building and appurtenant open spaces. The building is also set back so as to ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation and assist with protection of access to direct sun for the adjoining property to the south. This is evidenced by the fact that the development would satisfy the Acceptable Development provision in relation to overshadowing. Furthermore, most of the shadow that would be cast at midday on 21 June would fall on the garage and within the shadow line that would be cast by a 1.8 metre high solid boundary fence on No 12 Venn Street.
(Page 20)
63 The building is set back from the boundary so as to assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property, because of the variations in materials and setbacks, and particularly the increase in setback at the western end adjacent to the rear part of the adjoining landscaped area and the rear garden of No 12 Venn Street. While the Tribunal notes that Ms Cave, the owner and resident of No 12 Venn Street, advised the Council meeting on 12 June 2007 that the development "appeared to be extensive and highly packed in on the site", the Tribunal finds that the visual impact of building bulk when viewed from No 12 Venn Street is acceptable, because of the variations in materials and setbacks and because the visual impact is on a side boundary of No 12 Venn Street.
64 Finally, the building is set back from the boundary so as to assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. The open space of No 12 Venn Street presently has no privacy from the site, because it can be viewed through the steel and mesh fence. Although there are two proposed windows along the southern side of the first floor of the manse, one to provide light to the stairway and one for a small study, the Church accepts a condition that the stairway window shall be fixed obscure glazed and the study window shall be fixed obscure glazed to 1.6 metres above the finished floor level.
65 For these reasons, we also find that the proposed building is set back from the southern boundary so as to preserve the amenity of the area and maintain adequate standards of privacy, daylight, sunshine and safety on the site and in relation to the adjoining lot, in satisfaction of cl 4.9.1 of the Scheme.
Western setback
66 On the western side adjoining the common boundary with No 16 Keane Street, the setback of the proposed garage and carport is 0.9 metre. The setback of bedroom 4 on the first floor of the manse would be 2.4 metres. If the Codes applied, the setback of bedroom 4 would comply with the Acceptable Development setback of 2.4 metres, but the garage and carport would require an additional 600 millimetre setback to comply.
67 Mr Campbell gave evidence that the setback of the garage and carport would adversely affect his residential amenity in two respects. First, the closeness of the building to the boundary would present "an obviously and significant negative visual appearance to an area of outdoor space where any family predominantly spends time whilst
(Page 21)
- outdoors". Second, the new driveway will affect amenity. Mr Lohman gave evidence that the setback of the development would create "a sense of confinement" for Mr Campbell's property.
68 The Tribunal finds that, if the Codes applied, the development would satisfy the Performance Criteria in cl 3.3.1 P1 of the Codes in relation to setback to the western boundary. The Tribunal inspected the area on both sides of the common boundary. On Mr Campbell's side, there is, from the street to the rear boundary, a driveway, a drive-through garage, a utility area and a cabana building. The cabana building presents with an approximately 3.0 metre high boundary wall to the Church site and with a pitched roof above which contains a partial second level. The proposed garage for the manse would be set substantially behind the cabana on Mr Campbell's property. Although the roof of the carport and the wall of bedroom 4 would be visible from Mr Campbell's utility area and an outdoor dining area to its west, we accept Mr Allerding's evidence that the visual impact of the development on Mr Campbell's property is acceptable. The visual impact of the manse on Mr Campbell's property is no greater than the visual impact of structures on that property upon the Church site or the visual impact of a substantial two-storey dwelling house on the property to the west on Mr Campbell's property. The impact of the driveway set back 0.9 metre from Mr Campbell's property to serve two cars is a reasonably anticipated impact on a residential property, and is hardly unacceptable.
69 For these reasons, the Tribunal also finds that the proposed building will be set back from the western lot boundary so as to preserve the amenity of the area and maintain adequate standards of privacy, daylight, sunshine and safety on the site and in relation to the adjoining lot, in satisfaction of cl 4.9.1 of the Scheme.
70 The setbacks of the proposed development are acceptable.
Height, bulk and scale
71 Mr Lohman considers that the impact of the bulk and scale of the existing and proposed development requires consideration in the context of the characteristic and surrounding urban fabric. In his opinion, the existing Church and Church Hall, when combined with the manse, is not representative of streetscapes in the vicinity. This is particularly apparent when viewing the Venn Street elevation which, in Mr Lohman's opinion, "proposed an unbroken line of building façade with little relief which has a limited setback to the boundary". Mr Mayor is concerned that the proposed manse would remove the green buffer to the south of the
(Page 22)
- Church Hall and would "cause there to be an almost unbroken building mass along the Venn Street façade". In Mr Mayor's opinion, the addition of the manse to the existing buildings on the site will cause it to have a detrimental effect on visual amenity due to the excessive bulk and scale of the building mass which will be created.
72 In contrast, Mr Allerding considers that the height, bulk and scale of the proposal is acceptable. He notes that the height is approximately 1.885 metres less than the maximum height for buildings on land coded "R12.5" under the Scheme. He considers that the development is not inconsistent with the bulk and scale of some buildings in the locality. The proposal provides an acceptable transition between the larger scale of the Church and Church Hall and the single storey scale of No 12 Venn Street. Mr Allerding described the proposal as a "narrow, elegant structure". Mr Hocking agrees with Mr Allerding and stresses that the majority of residential properties in Venn Street, between Irvine Street and Johnston Street, have a two-storey bulk and scale facing Venn Street.
73 The Tribunal finds that the proposed height, bulk and scale of the development would be acceptable if the manse is set back an additional 1.229 metres, as discussed earlier. As noted, the height is less than the maximum height contemplated for residential buildings on land coded "R12.5". Although Mr Lohman is correct in his observation that the Church, Church Hall and manse would not be representative of streetscapes in the vicinity, this observation is correct at present of the site. However, we do not agree with Mr Lohman's opinion that the development would present as an unbroken line of building façade with little relief. While a single storey element of the manse would abut the Hall behind the courtyard, when viewed from the street, the manse and the Hall would present as substantially separate, but related, buildings. The front façade of the manse would be separated from the Hall by a gap of 4.290 metres, although the roofed timber deck would project into this area by 2.0 metres. This separation would be emphasised by an additional setback of the manse by 1.229 metres.
74 We do not consider that the removal of the open space buffer to the south of the Hall and its replacement with the proposed manse creates an unacceptable bulk and scale. The bulk and scale of the manse is acceptable, with the additional setback. It should also be noted that this open space area is in itself uncharacteristic of the immediate locality and, although reserved for "Public Uses - Church", is private, not public land.
(Page 23)
- The siting of the proposed manse, with the additional setback, is acceptable.
75 Furthermore, using the Scheme and the Codes as a guide to test the proposed development, if the site were coded "R12.5", the proposal would satisfy two of the principal quantitative controls on bulk and scale, namely, maximum building height (8.115 metres as opposed to 10 metre maximum) and maximum plot ratio (0.495 as opposed to 0.5 maximum). While the open space of 50.52% is less than the Acceptable Development provision of 55% for land coded "R12.5" under the Codes, we accept Mr Allerding's evidence that the proposal is largely compliant with the standards for residential development on land coded "R12.5" and that this supports the acceptability of the proposal in terms of its height, bulk and scale.
76 Finally, we accept Mr Allerding's evidence that the manse would present as a "narrow, elegant structure". Its narrow presentation to Venn Street mitigates its bulk and scale. Nevertheless, because the manse is two storeys in height, whereas the Hall is single storey with a substantial gabled roof above the original Hall, it is appropriate in terms of bulk and scale that the manse visually "step back" from the Hall when viewed from the street. An additional setback of 1.229 metres from Venn Street will achieve this objective.
Streetscape, visual amenity and setting
77 Mr Lohman and Mr Mayor each consider that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the streetscape, visual amenity and setting of the site and immediate locality. Mr Lohman considers that the manse, Church and Church Hall would create an unbroken façade, with limited open space, which is not characteristic of development in the locality. Mr Mayor considers that the existing open space to the south of the Hall provides a context and setting for the existing buildings and that the removal of this open space is detrimental. He considers it significant and desirable that the former manse is separated by approximately 18 metres from the Hall. Mr Mayor also provided calculations of the plot ratio of the manse by reference to the area to the south of the Hall that he considers would be for the "exclusive" use of the manse. Finally, Mr Mayor considers that the manse will present very much like a battleaxe development, as a result of the driveway coming off Keane Street, whereas cl 4.9.4 of the Scheme prohibits battleaxe subdivisions.
(Page 24)
78 In contrast, Mr Allerding and Mr Hocking consider that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of streetscape, visual amenity and setting. They each note that the streetscape of Venn Street in the immediate locality is diverse and that directly opposite the proposed manse is arguably the densest area of residential development in Venn Street.
79 The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of streetscape, visual amenity and setting. Although the streetscape presentation would certainly be uncharacteristic of the locality, the presentation of the proposed manse would be consistent in terms of streetscape, visual amenity and setting with the presentation of the existing buildings on the site. While the manse would present as a substantially separate building to the existing buildings on the site, its streetscape impact is acceptable in the context of the existing building. However, the manse would not create a continuous unbroken façade, as Mr Lohman contends. While the three buildings on the site would present and function in an integrated manner, there would be considerable variation in the form and façades of the buildings.
80 Furthermore, the streetscape impact of the manse would be limited by existing built form, street trees and topography. The manse would only be readily apparent from directly in front and for a short distance to the north and south along Venn Street. It would not be readily apparent from the north of Keane Street or from the south of Columba Place. In the limited part of Venn Street in which the manse would be seen, it would be viewed in the context of the existing Church and Hall.
81 We do not accept Mr Mayor's opinion that the plot ratio of the proposed manse should be determined by reference to the area which he identifies for the "exclusive" use of the manse. The manse would be part of an integrated lot used for the purposes of the Church. The plot ratio of the development and its impact should be determined in the context of the site as a whole.
82 We also do not agree with Mr Mayor's opinion that neighbours would have a legitimate expectation that no significant new development would occur between the Hall and the southern boundary of the site. This area is private land available for development consistent with the reservation of the site for "Public Uses - Church", provided that its impact is acceptable on a merit assessment.
(Page 25)
83 Finally, we do not agree with Mr Mayor's opinion that the manse will present very much like a battleaxe development as a result of the driveway off Keane Street. The manse would not be readily perceptible from Keane Street. From Venn Street, the manse will present and function as an integrated component of the Church site.
Cultural heritage significance
84 The Shire presented evidence on cultural heritage significance and impact from Ms Rosemary Rosario, an architectural heritage consultant. Notwithstanding the advice of the Heritage Council, Ms Rosario considers that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of St Columba's Church and Hall in terms of its landmark values and authenticity, and in consequence of inappropriate design and scale.
85 Ms Rosario gave evidence that the southern elevation of the Hall will be "almost completely obscured" by the manse and the landmark values of the Church and Hall will be adversely affected. She expressed the opinion that the authenticity of the Church and Hall will be reduced by the construction of the new manse between the Hall and the former manse at No 12 Venn Street. Ms Rosario also expressed the opinion that the proposed manse is "visually complex and comprises a number of elements constructed of different materials that have been used together in an attempt to reflect the fabric of both the adjacent Church and the Hall", and that, as a result, "the composition of the proposed building conflicts with the simpler compositions of the existing significant buildings". The front elevation of the manse creates a dominance "that is intrusive on the visual integrity of the place".
86 In contrast, Mr Hocking, who has considerable experience in relation to heritage architecture, gave evidence that there is nothing of particular aesthetic value in the southern elevation of the Hall. He disagrees with Ms Rosario's opinion that the manse will reduce the landmark values of the Church and Hall because the building will no longer be seen as visually discrete. Mr Hocking considers that the manse will read as a separate building, although one related to the other buildings on the site. He disagrees that the proposed building is visually complex. Mr Hocking considers that the proposal is a "contemporary building that is in character with the historic buildings". It is "discernibly different, but attempting to use materials that will link the buildings together in a visual sense". He refers to the Heritage Council's advice that the manse has been designed "to blend with the existing buildings on the site".
(Page 26)
87 In relation to authenticity, while Mr Hocking conceded that the draft Municipal Heritage Inventory place record form that his firm prepared for the Shire said that the historical significance of the former manse at No 12 Venn Street "is greater as part of a cultural group" including the Church and Hall, he said that at the time he had no information as to when the garage at No 12 Venn Street was built, nor was he aware of the zoning or ownership. The Shire did not respond to the draft and it was not finalised by Mr Hocking's firm.
88 The Shire contends that the manse will reduce the cultural heritage significance of the Church and Church Hall by -
• reducing the relative prominence of the existing buildings;
• reducing the authenticity of the place by inserting the new manse between the original manse and the Church buildings; and
• failing to ensure through the design and materials used that there is a clear distinction between the buildings and recognised heritage significance of the new manse.
89 In contrast, the Church submits that the cultural heritage significance of the Church and Church Hall would not be adversely affected. It submits that the proposed development, while a functioning component of the existing heritage place, is legible as comprising a related but later period of development than the Church and Church Hall. It submits that, although there was a time when the Church, Church Hall and former manse would have been viewed as a heritage precinct or unit, the concept of unity has been diminished by the severance of No 12 Venn Street from the Church site, by the rezoning of No 12 Venn Street to "Residential" in place of the former reservation for "Public Uses - Church", and by the construction of a substantial modern garage at No 12 Venn Street. The Church submits that authenticity of the Church and Church Hall is maintained through the sympathetic nature of the design, construction and materials.
90 The Tribunal agrees with the advice of the Heritage Council and considers that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value of the Church and Church Hall such as to warrant refusal of the application.
(Page 27)
91 The proposed manse will reduce the relative prominence of the existing buildings on the site to a limited extent when viewed from directly in front of No 12 Venn Street and from in front of the southern end of the site. However, the 4.290 metre setback between the façade of the proposed manse and the Hall would enable the Hall to continue to be viewed as a three dimensional structure. In particular, the whole of the southern side wall of the Hall between the proposed courtyard and Venn Street would be apparent from the street in front of the site. With an additional 1.229 metre setback for the manse from the street, the southern side wall of the Hall between the street and the courtyard would also be apparent from in front of No 12 Venn Street. Ms Rosario and the Shire did not raise any concern on heritage grounds in relation to the partial demolition of the 1913 southern addition to the Hall to make way for the courtyard or in relation to the abutting of the manse to the existing crèche at the rear of the Hall. It is to be noted that the section of the southern elevation of the Hall that would be apparent from the street is greater than the section of the northern elevation of the Hall that does not abut the Church and is therefore able to be seen from Venn Street.
92 With an increase of 1.229 metres to a setback of 4.729 metres to the principal façade and 3.571 metres to the bay window, the proposed manse would "step back" from the façade of the Hall, thereby maintaining the relative prominence of the Hall and Church.
93 The Tribunal accepts Mr Hocking's evidence in relation to authenticity and the ability to distinguish between the heritage buildings and the manse. We agree with Mr Hocking that the proposed manse is discernibly different from the Church and Church Hall, but utilises some of the materials used in those buildings in an appropriate manner given the juxtaposition with those buildings.
94 Finally, we consider that the former historic unit of the Church/Church Hall and former manse has been substantially severed by the change in ownership, rezoning, and construction of the modern double garage. Furthermore, whereas the Church and Hall are listed as a single entry on the State Heritage Register, the former manse is not included in the entry, and, indeed, is not listed at all. While the former manse is included in the Council's Heritage List, it is not included in the single entry of the Church and Church Hall.
Conclusion
95 The Tribunal considers that the proposed conservation and adaptation of the historic St Columba's Church Hall and construction of a
(Page 28)
- new Church manse at the southern end of the site warrants development approval subject to conditions. The development is consistent with the ultimate purpose intended for the site under the Scheme, namely, "Public Uses - Church".
96 The Tribunal has determined that, with the imposition of a condition requiring that the street façade of the proposed manse be set back by an additional 1.229 metres from Venn Street, so that the principal façade would be set back 4.729 metres and the bay window element would be set back 3.571 metres -
• the setback of the proposed development is acceptable;
• the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is acceptable in the context of the height, bulk and scale of existing built form on the site;
• the proposed development is acceptable in relation to streetscape, visual amenity and setting; and
• the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value of the Church and Church Hall such that the application should be refused.
97 A condition requiring that the Venn Street façade of the new manse should be set back by an additional 1.229 metres would still leave the minister's study and master bedroom with adequate dimensions of 4.231 metres by 4.460 metres plus a bay window with a depth of 1.158 metres.
Orders
98 The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is allowed.
2. The decision of the respondent made on 12 June 2007 and communicated to the applicant on 26 June 2007 to refuse development approval for the construction of a two-storey plus basement manse at No 16A Keane Street, Peppermint Grove is set aside and a decision is substituted that development approval is granted to development application No 007-58 made on 23 February 2007 for conservation and adaptation of St Columba's Church Hall and construction of a
- two-storey plus basement manse subject to the following conditions:
- (i) The development application shall be carried out in accordance with the conservation and adaptation works identified in the development application and the plans drawn by Hocking Planning and Architecture project No 2006-19 drawing Nos SK-C-01 to SK-C-17 inclusive each plan dated 29.05.06, updated 22.02.07, revision 03, except as varied by the following conditions.
(ii) The Venn Street façade of the study, bay window and roofed timber deck at ground floor level and the Venn Street façade of the master bedroom and bay window at first floor level shall be set back by an additional 1.229 metres from the Venn Street frontage. This change is to be shown on the plans submitted for the building licence. No other change to the plans referred to in condition (i) shall take place without further development approval.
(iii) Prior to the issue of a building licence, the applicant must provide for approval by the Shire of Peppermint Grove landscape plans for the open space area at the eastern (Venn Street) street frontage of the manse and also the land along the western side of the Church containing the vehicle access, and must thereafter carry out and maintain the landscaping in accordance with the approved plan.
(iv) Prior to the issue of a building licence, the applicant must provide for approval by the Shire of Peppermint Grove a detailed plan for the proposed boundary fence on the southern common property boundary and must thereafter construct and maintain the fence in accordance with the approved plan.
(Page 30)
- (v) The stairway window shall be fixed obscure glazed and the upstairs study window shall be fixed obscure glazed to 1.6 metres above finished floor level.
(vi) The roof is to be a colorbond colour approved by the Shire of Peppermint Grove to ensure that there is no potential for reflected glare to the adjoining and other neighbouring properties.
(vii) The ground surface of the driveway from Keane Street shall be turf paved underlay turf finish. This area must not be hard paved at any time during the lifetime of the development.
(viii) The manse may be used as a place of residence for the Minister of St Columba's Presbyterian Church and the Minister's family, but not by any other person.
(ix) A proposed colour schedule for all works shall be submitted to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for consideration and advice prior to the issue of a building licence.
I certify that this and the preceding [98] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER
(Page 31)
Attachment A
(Page 32)