Truong and East Perth Redevelopment Authority
[2008] WASAT 283
•27 NOVEMBER 2008
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: EAST PERTH REDEVELOPMENT ACT 1991 (WA)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: TRUONG and EAST PERTH REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2008] WASAT 283
MEMBER: MS R MOORE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD: 15 SEPTEMBER 2008
DELIVERED : 27 NOVEMBER 2008
FILE NO/S: DR 203 of 2008
BETWEEN: THAI QUOC TRUONG
Applicant
AND
EAST PERTH REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Installation of security screens to heritage building - Whether adverse impact on heritage significance of the building - Whether adverse impact on streetscape and urban design quality of the locality
Legislation:
East Perth Redevelopment Act 1991 (WA), s 42
East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992 (WA), cl 1.10.3, cl 2.21.1, cl 2.21.5, cl 4.7.1, cl 4.9.3, cl 5.23
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252
Result:
Application for review is dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr D Jack (Acting as Agent)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: East Perth Redevelopment Authority
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
This matter involved an application for review of a planning refusal by the East Perth Redevelopment Authority for the installation of security screens to the windows and doors of a heritage listed building at No 343 349 (Lot 107) Newcastle Street, Northbridge.
The East Perth Redevelopment Authority was of the view that the security screens would reduce the heritage significance of the building and adversely impact on the streetscape and urban design quality of the locality.
The applicant argued that the security screens did not obscure or adversely affect any fabric of heritage significance particularly as behind four of the screens were existing nonoriginal aluminium framed windows.
In terms of the streetscape and urban design quality of the locality, the applicant described the existing streetscape as stylistically inconsistent and identified examples of similar screens within the area, including the adjacent property.
The Tribunal found that the proposed screens were visually obvious and, not withstanding the existence of nonoriginal windows, would result in a further deterioration of the heritage fabric and therefore have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the building. By impacting the heritage significance of the building, the security screens would also adversely impact on the streetscape and urban quality of the area.
The application for review was dismissed and the decision of the respondent affirmed.
Introduction
These proceedings involve an application brought by Mr Thai Quoc Truong (applicant), pursuant to s 252 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act), for review of the decision of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority (respondent or Authority or EPRA) made on 8 May 2008 to refuse approval of an application to install security screens to No 343 349 (Lot 107) Newcastle Street, Northbridge (site or subject site).
Site and Locality
The subject site is located at No 343 - 349 (Lot 107) Newcastle Street, Northbridge and sits within the Russell Square Precinct of the New Northbridge project area.
This section of Newcastle Street is varied in terms of building use, style, height and form. Immediately adjacent to the subject site to the east is a three storey modern building and to the west is a pair of single storey original brick and iron residences. On the northern side of Newcastle Street are single and two storey commercial buildings.
The site has a land area of approximately 615 square metres and contains a renovated row of four single storey residences which have recently been converted to offices. This existing building is listed on the Authority's Heritage Inventory with a Management Category Level 2.
Aluminium security screens have been installed to the four windows and four door openings fronting Newcastle Street. This application is for the approval of these existing security screens.
Planning framework
The subject site is located within Precinct 20: Russell Square Precinct as specified in cl 5.23 of the East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992 (WA) (Scheme).
Clause 1.10.3 of the Scheme includes the following specific objectives:
e)to encourage the protection of any place or object of recognised cultural heritage significance within the Scheme Area;
…
f)to encourage the replacement of inappropriate uses and development;
…
m)to create a visually attractive locality in the Scheme Area with appropriately scaled streetscapes and other elements, providing a diverse but unified urban townscape and landscape characterised by high quality urban design
Clause 2.21 of the Scheme provides that:
2.21.1The Authority may take such action as it deems appropriate for the preservation of places and objects of cultural heritage significance or other scientific interest within the Scheme Area.
…
2.21.5 A person shall not, without first applying for and obtaining the Authority's development approval, commence, carry out or continue any modification to or work affecting any heritage object or place the details of which have been entered in the Heritage Inventory, and the provisions of this subclause shall apply to any work, act or activity which would otherwise be exempted from the obligation to obtain development approval by the provisions of clause 2.6.
Clause 4.7.1 of the Scheme provides that:
Where in the opinion of the Authority the amenity of a place, street or locality relates significantly to the architectural or physical character of existing buildings and/or the landscape, the Authority shall require that the appearance of any proposed development:
a)will enhance the amenity of the place, street or locality in question; and
b)will maintain appropriateness in the exterior designs of buildings.
Clause 4.9.3 of the Scheme provides that:
In this clause the term 'development' shall have the additional meaning of changing the colour of the exterior of a building.
Relevant planning policies
The following planning policies and guidelines are relevant to this review:
•New Northbridge Design Guidelines
•Section 1. Core/Common Guidelines for All Precincts (Common Guidelines)
•Section 2. Russell Square Precinct (Precinct Guidelines)
•Planning Policy 1.14 - Heritage (Heritage Policy 1.14)
•Draft Planning Policy 1.18 - Window Tinting and Roller Shutters (Draft Policy 1.18)
Proposed development
The proposed development is the installation of eight security screens to the street elevation of the existing heritage listed building on the subject site.
The security screens are typically white/cream diagonal mesh aluminium screens with approximately 100 millimetre aluminium frames to the four screens to the door openings and approximately 40 millimetre frames to the four window screens.
The screens are already installed at the subject site.
Respondent's decision
On the 8 May 2008 the Authority refused retrospective development approval for the installation of security screens for the following reasons:
1.The proposed development is inconsistent with the East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992, Clause 1.10 'Scheme Objectives' in that it would have a negative impact on a place of recognised cultural heritage significance and be contrary to the orderly and proper control of development within the Scheme.
2.The proposed development is inconsistent with the East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992, clause 1.10 'Scheme Objectives' in that it would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape and have a negative impact on the quality of the urban design within the locality.
3.The proposed development is inconsistent with Planning Policy 1.14 'Heritage' in that the addition introduces a change to the original building that is not considered to be sympathetic or complementary to the heritage place and detracts from the heritage significance and visual interpretation of the property.
4.The proposed development is inconsistent with Draft Planning Policy 1.18 'Window Tinting and Roller Shutters' in that it restricts visual permeability, colour variation, façade articulation, pedestrian interaction and passive surveillance between the street and the property.
5.The proposed development is inconsistent with the New Northbridge Core/Common Guidelines for All Precincts Section 1.2.9 'Place Activation' in that it fails to maintain the required interconnectivity between the building and the street and discourages passive and active interaction.
6.The proposed development is inconsistent with the New Northbridge Core/Common Guidelines for All Precincts Section 1.3.9 'Safer Design' in that it fails to maintain clearly delineated and legible entries to the building, high levels of interaction and interest through windows and visible indoor activity and the promotion of surveillance of the street.
7.The proposed development is inconsistent with the New Northbridge Design Guidelines - Russell Square Precinct, Section 2.1.2 'Objective of the Precinct' in that it would have a negative impact on the significance of an existing EPRA listed heritage place.
8.The proposed development is inconsistent with the New Northbridge Design Guidelines - Russell Square Precinct, Section 2.4.1 'Building Appearance and Streetscape' in that it is not considered to provide the required visual richness and variety to the public face of the building and would have a detrimental impact on its individual identity.
In advice notes attached to this development refusal, it was suggested that the existing security screens be replaced with framed high tensile marine grade stainless steel mesh screens with a black finish.
Heritage significance
The existing building on the site is a row of four attached dwellings (now offices) under a single hipped roof built around 1895.
It has a continuous verandah along the front under the same corrugated iron roof. The walls are rendered brick to the street and face brick (recently painted) to the side and the chimneys are rendered brick with cornices.
The Authority's Heritage Inventory contains a Statement of Significance as follows:
Aesthetic Value: The place has interest as a modestly detailed Victorian Georgian style of residential building. The place forms an integral part of a mixed residential and commercial area dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and contributes to the historic character of the area.
Historic Value: The place reflects the expansion and development of residential and commercial buildings on the city fringes during the rapid population increase of the 1890's gold boom and the early years of the twentieth century.
Representativeness: The place is representative as an example of a modest residential building dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
As stated above, the building is listed on the Authority's Heritage Inventory with a Management Category Level 2, which warrants a 'high level of protection'.
Whether the proposed security screens have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the building
The applicant purchased the site from the Authority in 2004 with a caveat requiring the purchaser to undertake renovations to the existing buildings. On completion of the works, the applicant requested the removal of the caveat. In 2007, after a final inspection by the Authority, it was noted that the security screens were unapproved and it was requested that a development application be submitted. In accordance with s 42 of the East Perth Redevelopment Act 1991 (WA), the development application was referred to The City of Perth who had no objections. The Authority subsequently refused the application for the reasons above.
Ms Alice Steedman, an architect with heritage expertise, stated in the applicant's statement of issues, facts and contentions that:
[w]hilst the screens in question might not be the most desirable option for a heritage building, the impact needs to be balanced against the assessed level and nature of significance of the place; its condition, authenticity and integrity; the economic costs and benefits of the proposal; and, the sustainability of heritage values.
Ms Steedman was of the view that the screens did not obscure, destroy or adversely affect any fabric of heritage significance because neither the windows nor doors were part of the original fabric.
The existing windows are aluminium framed windows and have not been replaced by the applicant. The doors are period replicas installed by the applicant.
It was Ms Steedman's contention that in any case, the doors and windows are not prominent features of the building, being set back behind a verandah which provides shade to the building's front elevation.
Ms Moredoundt, a heritage architect advising the respondent, described the building as Victorian Georgian in style with a modest and unadorned façade. It was her view that the security screens have a negative impact on the building because of the 'business' of the design of the mesh; the use of aluminium framing; and the choice of colour.
Ms Steedman provided, in her witness statement, photographs of other heritage buildings in the locality showing similar screens installed, including the pair of houses immediately adjacent to the subject site. Her evidence included photographs of Ada, Alfred and Arthur Villas, which are permanently entered on the State Register of Heritage Places and form part of the New Northbridge urban renewal project, and clearly showed similar security screens fixed to the street window and door openings.
It was the evidence of Mr Jacks, a planner and the respondent's representative, that the respondent has never approved similar screens on any category 2 heritage building and that with regard to the specific example of Ada, Alfred and Arthur Villas, the screens were unauthorised works and have since been removed.
Ms Moredoundt suggested that a more appropriate type of security screen in this case would be framed high tensile marine grade stainless steel mesh screens with a black finish, 'which would have a minimal impact on the appearance of the place'.
Ms Steedman argued that such suggested screens would still be intrusive and was of the view that the respondent was requiring a higher standard than necessary for a building of this category.
Mr Jacks stated that the respondent requires and expects sympathetic restoration of heritage buildings with a category 2 management level and that they regularly impose a higher standard than any other local government and are proactive in negotiating good design outcomes. He argued that the Scheme objectives, planning policies and design guidelines all emphasise the importance of protecting and enhancing the significance of heritage listed places within the area.
It is clear that the objectives of the Scheme and the relevant planning policies and design guidelines are to protect and enhance the existing heritage significance of places within the area and in this case, the Tribunal can see no reason not to assess the proposal against the requirements of this planning framework.
Heritage Policy 1.14 states that the assessment of development applications for Heritage Places must consider how the proposal will impact upon the significant fabric and the significance of the place and particularly 'any changes that destroy or adversely affect significance should be avoided'.
The Tribunal agrees with Ms Moredoundt in her assessment of the impact of the screens on the heritage value of the building and finds that notwithstanding the existence of nonoriginal windows and doors, the 'busy' design and light colour of the screens, introduces a nonsympathetic element to the façade of this building.
In photographs provided to the Tribunal, the security screens appear as lightcoloured block elements against a similarly light-coloured external building wall. The effect of this is the loss of contrast between the window and door openings and the external building wall. The security screens also make it difficult to read the depth of the openings in relation to the external face of the wall. The loss of visual detail has a negative impact on what is a modest and simple building and consequently has an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the place.
Whether the proposed security screens have an adverse impact on the streetscape and urban design quality of the area
Ms Steedman contends that the subject site and other heritage listed buildings on Newcastle Street 'are increasingly incongruous in the streetscape due to the scale and form of the new development' as encouraged by the design guidelines, and refers specifically to the security screens as 'barely visible under the darkened space of the verandah and … not detract[ing] from the visual amenity of the streetscape'. With regard to streetscape, Ms Steedman describes Newcastle Street as 'extremely inconsistent in form, bulk, style and degree of fenestration'.
Ms Moredoundt's opinion is that the subject site 'has heritage significance for its aesthetic and historic values and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape, the Russell Square Precinct and the Northbridge area', and as the proposed screens have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the building then consequently the screens have a negative impact on the streetscape.
Mr Jacks reiterated this and added that the screens have an adverse 'impact on the urban design quality of the locality by not encouraging an active environment as well as reducing the overall safety of the area by creating an urban form which reduces surveillance opportunities'.
Draft Policy 1.18 provides guidelines for the installation of window tinting, roller shutters and similar devices. It is concerned with maintaining the articulation of building facades and restricts the installation of visually impermeable roller shutters or similar devices 'as they reduce connectivity, create an unfriendly environment and can give rise to the perception that an area is subject to crime'.
Ms Steedman argues that as the security screens were installed at the subject site in April 2007 and this draft policy was issued in May 2007, that it cannot be retrospectively applied. The screens were installed prior to a development application being made in January 2008 by which time the draft policy had been in existence for over 6 months.
Draft Policy 1.18 is a seriously entertained planning proposal and therefore a relevant matter for consideration in this review. In this case, the Tribunal has considered that Draft Policy 1.18 should be given some weight but it is not determinative of the issue.
Although the security screens do not satisfy Draft Policy 1.18 in regard to the degree of visual connectivity between the subject site and the locality, and the security screens do not satisfy the Common and Precinct Guidelines in terms of street activation and surveillance, the Tribunal is of the view that the primary issue in relation to the impact of the security screens on both the streetscape and the urban design quality of the area is their negative impact on the heritage significance of the building.
The Tribunal agrees with both Ms Moredoundt and Mr Jacks, both of whom express the opinion that by adversely affecting the heritage significance of the building, the security screens also adversely affect the streetscape and urban quality of the area.
In themselves, the security screens are not necessarily out of character with the existing streetscape but as Ms Steedman states, 'the urban design of the locality is changing to reflect the preferred design as indicated in the EPRA design guidelines'. The Tribunal agrees with Ms Steedman and her assessment of the existing streetscape character as varied in building style, form, setback and height but as discussed earlier, the planning framework emphasises the respondent's desire 'to regenerate the Scheme area with high quality design solutions and to carefully conserve and adaptively reuse places of heritage significance'.
The Tribunal finds that the proposed security screens have an adverse impact on the streetscape and urban design quality of the area.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has determined that the installation of the proposed security screens have an adverse impact on the heritage listed building and consequently a detrimental affect on the streetscape and urban design quality of the locality. It follows that the application for review should be dismissed and the decision of the respondent to refuse planning approval should be affirmed.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decision of the respondent made on 8 May 2008 to refuse development approval for the installation of security screens at No 343 349 (Lot 107) Newcastle Street, Northbridge is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [53] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS R MOORE, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
3