Is the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage items, and the heritage conservation area itself, acceptable?
- Council raises no contention in relation to the acceptability of the streetscape view or the impact of the proposed development on the Orange Central HCA from Byng Street. The concerns raised by Council focus on the impact on the Orange Central HCA of the view of the proposal from Hill Street.
- There is no contention raised, or evidence before the Court, that raises objection to the development, in relation to the impact of the proposed works on the adjoining heritage items Galbally Mansion, the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society hall (HACBS Hall) or the Gladstone Hotel. I note that the Council assessment report provided the following conclusions in relation to the impact of the then proposed development on these items:
… It is considered that the proposed extension will not detract from the significance of the Galbally Mansion, particularly as it is experienced from Byng Street, subject to it meeting the relevant conditions of consent.
… It is considered that the proposed extension will not significantly detract from the HACBS Hall, particularly as experienced from within Hill Street.
… Given the limited changes to the Byng Street frontage of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed use and development would not affect the significance of the Gladstone Hotel.
(Tab 39, Exhibit 4).
However, Council contends that the bulk and scale of the development is excessive when viewed from Hill Street given that there is a lack of separation of the upper levels to demonstrate a series of buildings rather than one continuous element.
- In her evidence, Ms Polkinghorne identifies that the key views from Hills Street to the proposed extension at the rear of the heritage item are through the gaps between buildings fronting Hills Street. She places particular importance on the view from Hills Street between 81-85 Hill Street. From her analysis of the streetscape, and these viewing locations, she concludes that: firstly the roof form of the proposal is too heavy and solid an element; and that this is a result of the lack of articulation and physical separation provided between the wings of the extension. Given this impact on the streetscape from Hill Street she concludes that the proposal will impact on the significance of the Orange Central HCA. She disagrees with Mr Oultram's characterisation that the view is 'of glimpses of the building' and concludes his evidence understates the impact.
- In the alternative Mr Oultram's evidence is that the proposed addition has been reduced in scale by reducing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the length of the addition. The addition is divided into three sections with openings between and the central section is stepped back from the north and south wings to amplify the effect of separation and allow the gables to read as separate elements. The introduction of pitched roofs with the first floor rooms set into the roof has considerably reduced the scale of the proposal and introduced a form that is consistent with nearby buildings. The changes considerably alter the appearance of the new buildings when viewed from Byng Street and Hill Street, providing a single storey form (Exhibit 6). It is Mr Oultram's view that a casual observer will not make the connection that the limited glimpses seen between buildings on Hill Street are a single building.
- His evidence is that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the Central Orange HCA. In relation to views his Heritage Impact Statement concludes:
The development will not impact directly on significant views as the development site is enclosed by surrounding properties and there is no built development proposed to the front garden.
The new development will be seen in slot views along the drive and from the West but it will not be a prominent element in the streetscape from Byng Street.
The development will be visible from Hill Street over the houses (as they are single storey) and through slot views between them. It is worth noting that the existing house on the subject property is similarly visible and the impact on Hill Street is mitigated by the low height of the development.
This is a common pattern in the area where higher buildings are seen over and beyond single story dwellings to the Street and the proposed development is of a considerably higher quality than some of the later, infill development in the area. It would be unreasonable to expect the development not to be seen and to the casual observer the development could easily be on the next street over. (Exhibit C).
- During the hearing, the applicant proposed further changes to the development. These are depicted in Exhibit M. The amendment proposes a lower roof forms over the bathrooms at the ends of each of the of the new wings of the buildings. This was proposed by the applicant to seek to increase the visual separation between the forms in response to Ms Polkinghorne's evidence.
- Following a review of Exhibit M Ms Polkinghorne's evidence was that, whilst this option was an improvement, it would not address her concern as the consistency of the roof form and alignment would still result in it being read as one form from the view corridors between the buildings in Hill Street.
- Mr McEwan submits based on the photomontages before the Court (Exhibit K) there is no one location on Hill Street where an observer could understand the building as a totality in the streetscape. He argues that portions of the building form will exist as a background to the existing building fronting Hill Street. It is his submission that the dominant contributing forms in the Orange Central HCA remain intact and will not be affected by the proposal.
- Mr Seton submits that Council's primary position is that the proposal does not preserve the significance of the item or the Orange Central HCA. He argues that one of the special characteristics of the central streets of Orange are the single storey dwellings, and the significant spaces between them. It is his submission that this proposal does not respond appropriately to that character, especially when viewed from Hill Street.
- In relation to the appropriate articulation of the building form Mr Turrisi states:
The properties facing Hill Street, which abut the subject site, are unique in their subdivision pattern with their depths being quite shallow. This is evident in the above aerial image. The buildings along Hill Street have greater separations between their side boundaries which means the built form proposed on this site will be visible from Hill Street. 2.3.4 Clause 7.7-6 Planning Outcomes - Visual Bulk of the Orange Development Control Plan 2004, stipulates that the proposed built form should accord with the desired neighbourhood characteristics with site coverage that retains the relatively low density character of the area and the landscaped character. As stated, the area is characterised by detached dwellings with the overall bulk and scale
- It is the primary evidence of Mr Mead that given this Contention relates to the proposal's relationship with the character of the neighbourhood that is a heritage conservation area (and the heritage dwelling on the site), it is a matter for the heritage experts. That is, the general character of the locality should not be treated with a higher status than as a heritage conservation area. Notwithstanding, in town planning terms it is his evidence that the bulk and form of the proposal is acceptable. It was his oral evidence that the photomontages and site view demonstrate the effect of buildings and vegetation on the visibility of the proposed building from various vantage points on Hill Street. It is his conclusion that any views to the proposed building are broken by existing buildings that sit in its foreground and vegetation on Hill Street, noting that even single storey buildings block the view line from the opposite side of the street where they sit in front of the proposal.
- Mr Seton submits that the proposed building roof level at RL 88.75 will be significantly higher (between 1.3m and 3.02m) than the existing buildings in Hill Street so will be visible over their existing roof forms, irrespective of the effect of perspective.
- Mr McEwan submits that visibility of the proposed development in and of itself is not an impact, and that the any impact needs to be considered in the context of the relevant controls and a merit assessment to determine its weight in the determination of the application.