//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 1392
appellant. The Tribunal allowed the application for review and directed that the Responsible Authority issue a permit for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of the two-storey replacement,...
VCAT allowed Centrum Architects' review and directed the City of Stonnington to issue a permit to demolish a C-graded Victorian timber cottage and build a two-storey infill dwelling. The Tribunal found the east side of Woodfull Street lacked sufficient heritage intactness and the cottage made only a limited contribution to the Heritage Overlay; expert evidence and inspection supported that demolition would not significantly impact the precinct and the replacement design was acceptable.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,876 words · generated 28/06/2026
Centrum Architects sought a planning permit to demolish an existing single-storey timber cottage at 12 Woodfull Street, Prahran and to construct a two-storey, three-bedroom brick dwelling with a single garage (see [1]). The property is in the City of Stonnington, within the Residential 1 Zone and subject to Heritage Overlay HO135. The Responsible Authority refused the permit. Centrum (the applicant for review) applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review under s 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The hearing occurred on 5 June 2001 before Senior Member W R Gould, with a site inspection following the hearing (procedural details and dates are in the heading and [Nature of Application]; see also [26]).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The proposal was amended during processing to a less contemporary design described as an "attic style design" after Council raised concerns (see [5]). The Responsible Authority's conservation consultant, Mr Bryce Raworth, opposed demolition on heritage grounds, raising precedent and streetscape concerns (see [12], [19]). The objector, Mr Humphries (owner of a dwelling opposite), also objected to demolition, arguing it would undermine the heritage overlay and create a precedent (see [20]). The applicant produced a building surveyor's report describing structural defects and a conservation architect Mr David Bick who opined that the dwelling's contribution to the precinct was limited and demolition would not be significantly noticeable (see [22], [23]–[24]).
After considering the evidence and the site inspection, the Tribunal concluded that the east side of Woodfull Street did not retain sufficient heritage significance for the dwelling to be protected, that the cottage made only a limited contribution to the precinct, and that the proposed replacement was appropriate infill. The Tribunal allowed the review and directed the Responsible Authority to issue the permit with specified conditions (see ORDER and [30]–[31]).
The Tribunal’s decision turned on the assessment of heritage significance and streetscape contribution for a C-graded building under the local Heritage Policy (Clause 22.04). Clause 22.04 aims "To recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance" and requires that "any additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage area/and or surrounds" (see [10]). A C-graded building is defined as a representative example of a period or a building that stands in a street retaining much of its original character, and such buildings are "considered to have amenity or streetscape value" (see [10]).
The Tribunal identified the central question as whether the subject C-graded building had "the required degree of heritage significance to justify its retention" (see [18]). The decision shows a methodical assessment:
Consideration of expert heritage evidence. The Council's consultant (Mr Raworth) opposed demolition on the basis that the cottage forms part of a group which contributes to the precinct, and that demolition would create a hole and a precedent (see [12], [19]). The applicant's heritage consultant (Mr Bick) assessed the cottage as a modest standard timber house whose contribution was "low/very low" and that demolition would not have a significant impact (see [24]).
Consideration of the building’s physical condition and habitability. The building surveyor’s report and the Tribunal’s inspection revealed structural lean, potential chimney stress, poor solar access, inadequate kitchen/laundry layout, poor connection to open space and other defects; the Tribunal saw these as relevant to whether retention made sense given modern habitation standards (see [22], [26], [30]).
Close attention to the specific streetscape context. The Tribunal compared the east and west sides of Woodfull Street and found the east side to be less intact, with modernised dwellings near the subject site and only limited contribution by the row of five Victorian cottages including number 12 (see [3], [14], [29]). The Tribunal concluded that the east side is not "of such significance" to justify refusing demolition of the specific site (see [29]–[30]).
Agreement on replacement design. The amended infill design was accepted as appropriate by parties and by the Council’s conservation consultant (see [5], [13], [30]). That rendered concerns about loss of streetscape less compelling.
On balance, the Tribunal found that the limited heritage contribution, the physical defects, and the acceptable replacement design justified allowing demolition. The Tribunal expressly adopted Mr Bick's conclusion that demolition "would not have a significant impact on this heritage area, or even be all that noticeable" and allowed the review (see [31]).
Before this decision, the statutory framework and policy were already clear: heritage overlays and local heritage policies require conservation and sympathetic treatment of additions or replacements, and grading (A, B, C) assists assessment of contribution. The decision applies these established principles by testing the qualitative contribution of a C-graded building against the local streetscape context.
After this decision, practitioners should note that the Tribunal will apply Clause 22.04 and the Heritage Overlay flexibly by assessing actual streetscape contribution in context. A C grading does not create an absolute bar to demolition; the determining questions are the building's real contribution to precinct significance and whether an approved replacement would be sympathetic. The decision reinforces that structural condition, habitability and the realistic prospects of retaining a building in a way that preserves significance are relevant considerations (see [22], [26], [30]).
This is not a statement that demolition will routinely be permitted for C-graded buildings; rather the case exemplifies that the Tribunal conducts a fact-specific balancing exercise, examining grading, intactness of surrounding streetscape, expert evidence, and the proposed redevelopment (see [18], [24], [29]–[31]).
Quoted policy objectives (paragraph [10]): "To recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance; To ensure that any additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage area and/or surrounds."
Plain English: The planning rules say we should protect places with heritage value and make sure any new work fits in with the heritage character.
Definition of C-graded buildings (paragraph [10]): "C graded buildings ... are either reasonably intact representatives of particular periods or styles, or they have been substantially altered but stand in a row or street that retains much of its original character and are considered to have amenity or streetscape value."
Plain English: A C-grade building is contributory only if it is a clear example of its time or it helps make the street look like it did originally.
The Tribunal's central question (paragraph [18]): "The fundamental question therefore to be answered by the Tribunal is whether the existing 'C Graded' building (contributory), in its context, has the required degree of heritage significance to justify its retention?"
Plain English: The court must decide if, in the particular spot and among its neighbours, this building is important enough to keep.
Tribunal conclusion (paragraph [30]): "I therefore do not believe that the east side of Woodfull Street is of such significance, and the subject site in particular, that demolition should be refused."
Plain English: The judge decided that the row of houses on the east side doesn't have enough heritage value, so tearing down this house is acceptable.
Adoption of expert evidence (paragraph [31]): "the demolition of the existing building would not have a significant impact on this heritage area, or even be all that noticeable ... I adopt the basis of his submission overall in allowing this application for review."
Plain English: The Tribunal accepted the applicant's heritage expert that removal won't materially harm the heritage precinct and used that to allow the demolition.
This decision is most directly applicable where:
The subject property is C-graded (contributory) rather than of higher grade, and the local heritage policy requires assessment of streetscape contribution (see [10], [28]).
The immediate streetscape contains a mix of intact heritage buildings and modernised or altered properties so that the contribution of the subject building is limited (see [29]).
Expert heritage opinion supports the view that the particular building's demolition will not have a significant impact on the precinct, and those opinions are supported by site inspection (see [24], [26], [31]).
The building has significant structural or habitability defects that make retention impractical or result in an outcome inconsistent with preservation of heritage significance (see [22], [26], [30]).
A replacement building is proposed which is designed as sympathetic infill and is acceptable to the Responsible Authority or otherwise meets heritage policy goals (see [5], [13], [30]).
If these elements are present, the Tribunal modelled in this decision suggests demolition can be allowed despite a contributory grading.
The judgment itself does not cite later decisions nor does it record subsequent appellate treatment. The decision is a VCAT determination at the Tribunal level and thus forms persuasive (not binding) Tribunal-level reasoning for similar fact patterns. Practitioners should check later VCAT and court decisions and local planning panels for developments applying Clause 22.04 and Heritage Overlay tests in the same way. The text does not provide any subsequent authorities or indicate overturning or adopting by higher courts, so assessment of its later judicial treatment requires separate research beyond the record of this decision.
The decision resolves the specific application before the Tribunal, but several broader questions remain open or are necessarily fact-sensitive:
Thresholds for a C grade: The judgment applies the definitional text in Clause 22.04, but it does not create a bright-line test for when a C-graded building becomes sufficiently non-contributory. The extent to which evidence of physical condition versus streetscape intactness should dominate remains context-specific (see [10], [22], [28], [30]).
Precedent concerns: The Council and objector feared a precedent effect (see [18], [19], [20]). The Tribunal found the immediate impact limited. How decision-makers should weigh the potential for future cumulative loss across a precinct where multiple similar approvals might follow is not exhaustively analysed here; that remains a policy and planning judgment that requires broader precinct-level assessment.
Role of structural defects: The judgment treats building condition and habitability as relevant considerations (see [22], [26], [30]). The precise evidentiary standard and how much weight must be given to building survey reports versus heritage values could be contested in future cases.
Weight of expert evidence: The Tribunal adopted the applicant’s heritage expert opinion. The case highlights the decisive role expert evidence can assume in fine-grained heritage disputes. Questions about minimum content, independence and testing of such expert reports remain practice points for future hearings.
Replacement design safeguards: The Tribunal allowed demolition in part because the replacement was accepted as appropriate infill (see [30]). Future disputes will need to specify and secure conditions that ensure the replacement design does not itself erode heritage values, but the judgment does not catalog the precise conditions that would best achieve that.
Conclusion: Centrum Architects v Stonnington CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1392 demonstrates a fact-sensitive approach to demolition of contributory heritage buildings. The decision is a useful precedent where a C-graded building’s contribution is limited, structural defects are present, and an appropriate infill replacement is agreed. However, its application is narrowly contextual and does not displace the need for careful precinct-wide heritage assessment and strong evidentiary foundations in future cases (see [18], [22], [24], [29]–[31]).
The permit is granted. It is directed that the permit contain the following specified conditions and the Responsible Authority is directed to issue the permit.
Mr G Harrison, Town Planner of Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd, appeared for the Responsible Authority.
Mr C Bowden, Consulting Town Planner, appeared for the Applicant for Review.
Application under S.77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of a decision to refuse to grant a permit.
Demolish an existing dwelling and construct a two storey dwelling in its place.
1. By application dated 18 May 2000, permission was sought to demolish an existing single storey weatherboard cottage and replace it with a two storey, three bedroom brick dwelling. A garage is provided for one car.
2. The site has rearage to A'Beckett Street which, to the north, forms the western boundary of Orrong Park.
3. The subject dwelling is part of a row of five Victorian era dwellings. On the opposite side of Woodfull Street there is a row of Edwardian dwellings also on small allotments.
4. The site is close to shopping, transport and all other community facilities.
5. The proposal was originally for a contemporary two storey dwelling. As a result of concerns by the Responsible Authority, amended drawings were substituted which "is characterised by an attic style design" to quote Mr Harrison.
6. The proposal was advertised by direction of the Responsible Authority and one objection received from Mr Humphries who owns a tenanted dwelling on the opposite side of Woodfull Street. This dwelling was said to be now under Contract of Sale.
7. It was agreed at the hearing that the proposed dwelling satisfied the various State and local planning policies.
8. Should a permit issue for the demolition of the existing cottage on the site?
9. The central issue in this review relates to the demolition of the existing dwelling and, in turn, whether or not such demolition should take place in the light of the Heritage Overlay.
10. Mr Harrison set out the following relevant parts of the objectives of the Heritage Policy (Clause 22.04) which state:-
* To recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance;
* To ensure that any additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage area/and or surrounds; and
The existing Victorian Cottage is graded C. Clause 22.04-3 states that a C graded buildings, "are either reasonably intact representatives of particular periods or styles, or they have been substantially altered but stand in a row or street that retains much of its original character and are considered to have amenity or streetscape value."
11. Mr Harrison said the listed purposes of the overlay are:-
* To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance;
* To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places;
12. The application was referred to the Council's Conservation Consultant, Mr Bryce Raworth, who provided the following comments:-
"1. While the conservation study provides little insight into the significance of this section of the UCA, it does contrast the smaller allotments to Woodfull Street against the larger allotments to Gradview Grove, and this is illustrated by the small buildings either side of Woodfull Street;
2. I acknowledge the fact that the east side of Woodfull Street is less significant and less intact than the west side, but nonetheless believe that it contributes to the significant historic character of the precinct. Demolition of the subject house and its neighbours would substantially affect this historic character. On this basis I believe that demolition is not an appropriate outcome;".
13. Mr Raworth later advised that "the design response seems acceptable as a piece of infill design". He repeated however, his concerns regarding demolition of the existing dwelling.
14. Mr Harrison said that as a graded C building, the existing dwelling is a contributory building in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. He considered that the street generally "retains" much of its original character with most buildings graded B or C although B graded buildings "tend to line the western side of Woodfull Street".
15. He said the background to the heritage significance of Woodfull Street was given by the former City of Prahran's Conservation Review of urban conservation areas which gave the following summary of the heritage characteristics of Woodfull Street:-
* Its diversity, reflecting two predominant periods of development namely the Victorian period (probably 1880's and earlier) and the Edwardian period. Their diversity arises from the differences in architectural styles and tastes in these two periods;
* The contribution of the land form to the character of the street; and
* Its historical relationship to the adjoining areas and its (yet to be understood) relationship to the swamp that is now Ormond Park."
16. The last dot point is certainly "yet to be understood". Reference to "The History of Prahran 1826 - 1924 ( J B Cooper) gives the following statement at page 314:-
The purchase of land in Orrong-road by the Council of 1885 was made with a view to serve two purposes; the immediate one the hole was to be used as a Council rubbish tip, the contingent one was when the hole was filled to make the place into a recreation park. The land had been excavated to a great depth for the clay it contained for brickmaking purposes. For years it had served as a tip for the city's rubbish. Gradually the hole was filled in.
17. Thus the subject cottage was likely to have had outlook over a hole from which clay was extracted and which subsequently became a municipal tip rather than a swamp. The original standard of construction was therefore quite unlikely to be of outstanding quality.
18. Mr Harrison made the following points in support of retention of the weatherboard dwelling:-
* The cottage makes a valuable contribution to the "closed in" scale and forms of development along Woodfull Street.
* The role of the building must be considered in the broader heritage context. Mr Harrison continued:-
"The fundamental question therefore to be answered by the Tribunal is whether the existing "C Graded" building (contributory), in its context, has the required degree of heritage significance to justify its retention? The original cast iron lacework has been removed from the front verandah. Other than this prominent alteration, the external features present a well maintained dwelling. Despite minor modifications, the dwelling conveys a good representation of the Victorian Cottage era.
The City of Stonnington contains many examples of Victorian Cottages and they are regularly the subject of redevelopment propositions by those wanting a modern living environment in a convenient location. Heritage areas, such as Woodfull Street exist in a relatively intact state, whilst others have been fragmented to such a degree that it is really only the structural quality of the extant building, which requires formal consideration. For example, a B graded building may exist in a physically dilapidated state in a diverse, redeveloped streetscape. In that context, where the street no longer appears as it once was, demolition could be viewed as appropriate."
Precedent is an important and powerful planning tool. Given the location of the existing dwelling, it is Council's view, like that of the Objector, that the removal of the dwelling would create an undesirable precedent for the removal of period houses lining Woodfull Street. The existing dwelling makes a good contribution to the eastern side streetscape character of Woodfull Street.
19. Evidence given by Mr Raworth at the hearing was to the effect that the demolition proposed would introduce a "hole" to the centre of the Heritage Overlay and thus set an inappropriate precedent for further development in the overlay area.
20. The objector, Mr Humphries, made the following points in support of the Council refusal:-
* The demolition "would undermine the whole concept of Heritage Overlay areas ..".
* The existing streetscape of Victorian houses would be disrupted. A precedent would be established for the destruction of other heritage listed houses.
* The existing house "has recently been totally restored and has a new kitchen and bathroom with a family room at the rear". The house has also been restumped.
21. In response, Mr Bowden gave the following description of the existing house:-
The existing dwelling on the land comprises a single storey 1900's timber cottage containing two bedrooms, combined kitchen-laundry /living area and a bathroom. The dwelling is modest in size and has been renovated over the years. Recently the property has been upgraded cosmetically to make it liveable, however its condition and standard of accommodation is well below what is currently expected of modern day living in the inner urban area of Prahran.
22. He tabled a report on the house by a building surveyor who noted that the front part of the house "is out of square and leans to the south side. This in turn has put the chimney out of square because of the movement and therefore the roof load is transferred partially to the chimney which is dangerous". While Mr Shaw, the Building Surveyor, was not called to substantiate his report, inspection of the dwelling showed his comments to be self-evident. He concluded:-
"The structure is in poor condition and for that reason we support demolition."
23. Mr Bowden also called heritage evidence from Mr David Bick, Conservation Architect.
v The existing dwelling on the subject site is an example of a typical, late nineteenth century/1900s, small single fronted timber house, the same as number 1 opposite.
The contribution that the existing dwelling makes to this Heritage Overlay Precinct is limited to being an example of a standard modest timber house of that time - it cannot be said that the existing dwelling is a significant building in this Heritage Precinct. In comparison with the 1900s/1910s semi-detached brick houses opposite, the contribution of number 12 is low/very low.
v Number 12 is part of a short row of five Victorian era style dwellings (numbers 8 to 16) - only the two brick terrace type houses at numbers 8 to 10 make a significant contribution to this Heritage Precinct and should be preserved on that basis. Number 16 has aluminium windows and recent metal roof tiles, and no real Heritage Precinct value.
Given the nature of the remainder of the east side of the street, this short row of Victorian dwellings does not have a major role in this Heritage Overlay Precinct.
v In my opinion the demolition of the existing dwelling would not have a significant impact on this Heritage area, or even be all that noticeable.
25. In his conclusion Mr Bowden argued that the demolition is justified "given the condition of the dwelling, its low level of significance and its limited contribution to the heritage significance of the area".
26. The subject site and environs were inspected following the hearing. It was noted that while the house has been renovated in recent years, it still suffers from several defects when judged by the standards of today.
1. The first and most obvious is the lean to the south of the dwelling coupled with the likely stress placed on the chimney as noted by the building surveyor.
2. Apart from the renovated living room, the house has few windows which face north and thus has limited solar access.
3. The kitchen is quite small and contains a laundry - a combination which is seldom regarded as desirable.
4. Due to the slope of the ground, the rear living room has little connection with its adjacent open space. The side open area is narrow and not particularly inviting due to its juxta position with the neighbour to the north.
27. In spite of these and other defects however, the central issue is the contribution made by the dwelling to "the amenity or streetscape value" of the building as set out in the definition to "C buildings".
28. Mr Raworth noted that "C graded buildings" are representative examples of their period and style, are located within a significant Victorian/Edwardian streetscape and area ...".
29. In this case, while the building is clearly a "representative sample" in my opinion it is not located "within a significant ... streetscape and area ..". Clearly if this review was one considering one of the red brick terraces on the western side of the street the significance of the dwelling amongst its neighbours would be undoubted. The east side however consists of relatively modern two storey dwellings at the northern end, "modernised" dwellings immediately to the north of the subject site plus a pair of brick Victorian cottages immediately to the south. Further south again is a brick pair built in the late 1930s or 1940s.
30. I therefore do not believe that the east side of Woodfull Street is of such significance, and the subject site in particular, that demolition should be refused. This of course is bearing in mind that the replacement building was agreed by the parties to be an infill development which would be appropriate in the streetscape. Further, I do not believe that the subject weatherboard dwelling, even when extensively renovated, as would be required, would provide a standard of habitation which would be suitable for much of the 21st Century. Its Heritage significance would of course be destroyed by such renovation.
31. In my opinion, Mr Bick summed up the question of demolition well when he said (above) -
"the demolition of the existing building would not have a significant impact on this heritage area, or even be all that noticeable."
32. I adopt the basis of his submission overall in allowing this application for review.
Centrum Architects
Stonnington CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1392
The Tribunal allowed the application for review and directed that the Responsible Authority issue a permit for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of the two-storey replacement, subject to specified conditions (see ORDER and [30]–[31]).