4. The development does not satisfy the relevant requirements of Clause 154 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

5. The proposed development is contrary to the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Residential Guidelines.

6. The proposed development is contrary to the City of Port Phillip Municipal Strategic Statement.

7. The proposed development is contrary to the City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy.

8. The proposed development is contrary to the South Melbourne Urban Conservation Study.

9. The proposed development would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the area."

The proponent now seeks a review of the Responsible Authority's decision.

The hearing took place over two separate days. At the conclusion of the first day of hearing, the Tribunal suggested that it would be appropriate for both the Permit Applicant and the Responsible Authority to call expert evidence from heritage consultants as, up until that point, each had relied principally on assertions regarding the merits of the application.

Over the two days, Mr Gutteridge made written and oral submissions on behalf of the Responsible Authority and, on the second day, called evidence from Mr Robert Sands, a Heritage Consultant. Evidence on behalf of the Applicant was provided by:-

* Mr John Lochhead, the Architect responsible for the proposal; and

* Mr A Willingham, an Architectural Historian and Conservation Consultant.

Mr Willingham provided the Tribunal with a thorough written statement of evidence.

Following the hearing the Tribunal inspected the subject land and the surrounding area in considerable detail. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal has had careful regard to all relevant matters put to it.

It is to be noted that a number of the Objectors' submissions made extensive reference to the Good Design Guide and to alleged areas of non-compliance with that document. However, the provisions of the Guide have no application to a proposal for a detached house on an allotment which exceeds 300m2 in area. These submissions have therefore been ignored.

The proceedings give rise to two separate questions. First, should demolition of the existing dwelling be permitted? Second, is the replacement building a satisfactory response which meets the heritage provisions of the Planning Scheme? Rather than summarise all the comprehensive material provided by the parties, the Tribunal intends to deal with each of these questions in turn.

The application for demolition is predicated on the basis that the existing dwelling has reached the end of its useful life and the cost of renovation would be prohibitive. This claim was supported by a document prepared by A A &

A S Lorenzini Pty Ltd, Building Surveyors, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal. The author of the report was not called to give evidence during the hearing.

The subject site is included an Heritage Overlay area wherein all demolition requires a planning permit. Following the introduction of the new format Port Phillip Planning Scheme in October 1998, all places given a preliminary grading of A, B, C, or D within a Heritage Overlay have collectively been designated as "Significant Heritage Places". The timber villa at No. 9 Mountain Street, having previously been graded as "D" in the Port Phillip Heritage Review (1998) is now designated as a "Significant Heritage Place".

"An identified heritage building should be retained, protected and enhanced" and "should be conserved".

The Council's Policy objectives with regard to demolition are:-

* "To retain and conserve identified heritage buildings in order to maintain the integrity and character of significant streetscapes and areas.

* To ensure that demolition of an identified contributory heritage building (in whole or in part) only occurs where it can be demonstrated that demolition is the only feasible option and that new development will make a positive contribution to the character of the streetscape and does not diminish the heritage value of the area."

Guidelines for the assessment of demolition proposals include the following criteria:-

* "Demolition of a significant heritage building is not supported.

* Permission will only be given for the demolition of an identified heritage building if sufficient justification is provided. Reasons for considering demolition include:

- The partial demolition and proposed changes are considered appropriate in the context of ensuring the continued use of the heritage building without compromising its overall heritage significance.

- The partial demolition relates to unsympathetic alterations and additions that were previously made to a heritage building.

- The heritage building or parts of the heritage building to be demolished are structurally unsound and beyond repair in accordance with the provisions of the Building Control Act 1993. Documentation is required to support such a claim.

- The heritage building cannot reasonably be renovated or incorporated into a new development. Documentation is required to support such a claim.

- Where the responsible authority is satisfied that demolition of a part of a heritage building is justified, retention of the main façade(s) and a substantial portion of the building behind the façade(s) (eg. generally the first two rooms) is encouraged to ensure that the structural and visual integrity of the façade is maintained as it is this part of the building that forms the most important streetscape element.

- In the rare situation where the responsible authority is satisfied that demolition of a heritage building is justified, this will only be approved if plans for a new development that will make a positive contribution to the character of the streetscape are approved concurrently."

In his evidence, Mr Willingham provided a most interesting account of the history of the dwelling. It was, he stated, a Victorian Italianate style building erected around 1900 and, in all probability, one of the countless "package houses" produced by timber merchants at that time. Mr Willingham contended that the "D" grading assigned to the villa was "excessive" in the light of the relevant definition, viz :-

"D. Representative buildings, having a medium to high level of integrity and which make an important contribution to their streetscape and local urban character.'

Mr Willingham contended that an "F" grading was more appropriate, viz.:-

"F. Representative buildings, usually considerably altered and which make only a small contribution to the cultural values of the streetscape and the local urban character."

Mr Sands told the Tribunal that, in his opinion, arguments regarding the particular grading of the dwelling were counter productive. The building was graded, located in a Conservation Precinct among buildings which were generally intact, and demolition would remove a "contributory component". It was thus contrary to the whole thrust of Heritage Overlay controls.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the author of the Building Surveyor's report was not present to give evidence and to support the documentation provided. In the Tribunal's view, the report falls short of demonstrating that the condition of the dwelling is such that, having regard to the clear thrust of preserving heritage building stock inherent in the planning controls, demolition is justified.

Typically, as would be expected of a timber dwelling approaching its 100th anniversary, remedial work is necessary. However, structurally, the building appeared on inspection to be in relatively sound structural condition. This view seems to have been supported by the Applicant's own Heritage Adviser, Mr Raworth, who stated in a report which accompanied the application that:-

"It appears to be generally in good condition" (page 2).

It is also relevant to note Mr Raworth's next comment however:-

"The house at 9 Mountain Street was graded "C" under the South Melbourne Urban Conservation Study and `D" within the City of Port Phillip's draft Urban Heritage Review.

A `C' grading under the South Melbourne Urban Conservation Study recognises the building as having a contributory role in the streetscape of the area.

The definition of `D' grade buildings provided by the City of Port Phillip's draft Urban Heritage Review (1998) is as follows:

Representative buildings, usually surviving with a medium to high level of integrity.

Although the integrity of the façade of this building is arguably low rather than medium, it is appropriate to recognise the building as a representative example of its period and type which makes a useful contribution to the street in terms of form and materials. On this basis its D grading does not seem inappropriate, although it might equally be argued that its low integrity places it close to the definition of an E grade building:

Representative buildings, either defaced and/or making a comparatively small contribution to the cultural values of the street."

The major structural defects involve re-stumping and the levelling of floors. The dwelling is far from uninhabitable. Indeed it is presently occupied.

It is necessary in this matter to consider the real objective which underlies the introduction of heritage controls. That objective was succinctly explained by the Planning Appeals Board in the celebrated "Wade" case wherein it was stated:-

"Urban conservation is not primarily for the purist but is to provide a general public of today and the future with a three dimensioned representation of what buildings and streets of buildings were like in given periods of our history."

(Doug Wade Consultants Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council & Ors. (1984) 2 PABR 221 at 234).

If, over a period of time, dwellings within an intact streetscape are "picked off" one by one as the inevitable decay caused by age first manifests itself, then the whole objective of heritage controls will ultimately be defeated.

On the material before it therefore the Tribunal believes the proposal to demolish the dwelling at No. 9 Mountain Street runs counter to the direction of the planning controls. The dwelling makes a useful contribution to the scale, form and appearance of an intact streetscape. Its structural decay is not, on the evidence before the Tribunal and having regard to the relevant planning criteria, so advanced as to justify demolition.

It must be emphasised that the removal of a lowly graded building in a heritage area has the capacity to cause a greater impact than its individual grading might suggest. It is the role it plays in the streetscape, and within the surrounding built environment, rather than the individual merit of the building, which provides the critical element in assessing the matter of demolition in this case.

While the earlier finding makes it unnecessary to consider the proposed replacement dwelling, the Tribunal has given consideration to the arguments put before it and its conclusions should be briefly set down.

The Tribunal accepts that the architect has given careful thought to the design of the replacement dwelling. Both Mr Willingham and Mr Sands agreed that, insofar as it addresses the Mountain Street frontage, it is relatively self-effacing. The Tribunal concurs.

However, this is an area characterised by single storey merchant's dwellings and worker's cottages. There are few two storey intrusions and, save for the walk-up flats opposite, none that strike a discordant note.

There are far more elements at work in this neighbourhood than the simple issue of streetscape. Views are available into the rear of the site from Iffla Street and from Little Mountain Street. Moreover, occupants of nearby land overlook the site. Neighbours also have legitimate expectations that new development will be of a scale which is compatible with established urban conservation principles and surrounding development.

While the subject land is relatively large (indeed, twice the area of most nearby allotments), the size of the proposed dwelling is very significant indeed:-

No other dwelling in the vicinity of the site approaches the size of the proposed structure. No other dwelling has a two-storey element of this magnitude. No other dwelling has a three car garage topped by a loft. The only other loft structure in the neighbourhood is much smaller in size and does not run from boundary to boundary.

Mr Willingham expressed his support for the redevelopment proposal in the following terms:-

"Having perused the residential development documentation, it is my view that the proposed detached two storey house at 9 Mountain Street has been designed in an appropriate contemporary mode which avoids replication of period details. The cleverly articulated street façade, which is enhanced by a modern interpretation of the traditional verandah structure, is of similar height, form and scale to that found in the original villa. It is clear from a perusal of the streetscape elevation that the proposed villa relates to its neighbour at 11 Mountain Street. It is my conclusion that the proposal will not detrimentally impact upon the existing streetscape character of Mountain Street nor otherwise contravene Burra Charter principles or the specific urban conservation objectives set out in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme."

"Conservation requires the maintenance of an appropriate visual setting, eg. form, scale, colour, texture, and materials. No new construction, demolition, or modification which would adversely affect the setting should be allowed. Environmental intrusions, which adversely affect appreciation or enjoyment of the place should be excluded."

It seems to the Tribunal that the Charter explicitly recognises that consideration is not limited only to streetscape character. Moreover, the Charter expressly recognises the importance of scale.

In the Tribunal's view, the replacement building is too dominant for this setting. It fails to respect the predominantly single storey neighbourhood in which it would be placed. Its height and gabled rear loft draw undue attention to the upper level. The fact that the garage and loft run the full width of the allotment would serve to overpower the Little Mountain Street abuttal. In all these matters, the Tribunal agrees with the evidence given by Mr Sands.

Unlike other areas in South Melbourne, Mountain Street does not form a backdrop to a setting of larger dwellings. It is an area of modest, self-effacing villas and cottages. This simply cannot be said of the replacement proposal.

For all the foregoing reasons the application for review is disallowed. The Tribunal orders that no permit be granted.