1. In application P1676/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2. In planning permit application PP-874-2015 no permit is granted.

He called on heritage evidence from Ms Robyn Riddett.

Buildings and works for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings, and the construction of a dwelling, and alteration to crossover.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Heritage Overlay Schedule 1961 (HO1961 Pineville Heritage Area)

Cl. 43.01-1: Demolish and remove a building: Construct a building or construct or carry out works, including a pergola, verandah, and fence, and new crossover

Local: Cl. 21 (including 21.06-5, 21.06-6), 22.09, 22.61.

Cleared rectangular single lot of 614m2 (13.41m wide by 45.8m deep) with a modest inter-war bungalow-styled dwelling setback 7m from the site frontage, and about 1m from the south boundary.

There are two small outbuildings in the rear yard, a low brick front fence. A vehicle crossover and driveway inside the north boundary provide access to the rear of the site.

1. This is an application by Rose Lipinski under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against a decision of the Greater Geelong City Council to refuse to grant a Planning Permit for buildings and works for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings, and the construction of a dwelling, and alteration to crossover.
2. The largely cleared rectangular review site of 614m2 (13.4m wide by 45.8m deep) is on the east side of Bowlers Avenue, Geelong West, 40m north of its intersection with Gertrude Street and 200m south-west of the southern end of the Pakington Street (Geelong West) commercial area.
3. The review site is generally surrounded by residential development. The site and its immediate surrounds are in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 3 (NRZ3). They are also covered by a Heritage Overlay (HO1961 - Pineville Heritage Area). The requirement for a planning permit is triggered only by the Heritage Overlay (HO), as a single dwelling is as-of-right in the NRZ.
4. The review site contains a modest inter-war bungalow-styled dwelling, setback 7m from the site frontage, and about 1m from the south boundary. There are two small outbuildings at the rear of the site and a low brick front fence. Vehicle access is via a crossover at the north-west corner and a driveway inside the north boundary into the rear of the site. The dwelling is currently unoccupied, and the applicant has submitted that it is not tenantable in its current form.
5. The proposed replacement dwelling is of a complex contemporary design. Its main features are broadly described as follows:
   • A modern two-storey design exhibiting an asymmetrical gable form presents to the front façade, with cuboid forms to the rear. Heights are 7.25m at the apex of the front asymmetrical gable and 7.4m at the rear. A low rendered fence is proposed.
   • The front façade includes double garaging with a timber-faced double garage door, a timber front entrance door, and portions of smooth or stucco render and glazing to the front study/guest bedroom. The front entrance door would be inset by about 2m behind the other parts of the frontage. The façade also includes a first-floor balcony accessed from the master bedroom, and a section of horizontal weatherboard at the southern side of the front first-floor façade.
   • At the ground-floor the garage is setback 8.1m from Bowlers Avenue, and the southern side of the frontage (which is separated from the garage by the inset front entrance door) has a slight diagonal alignment to the street frontage, with a minimum frontage of 7.6m. A hipped roof form verandah/eave extends across the full frontage. It is set slightly diagonal to the street frontage, with its front projection being to 5.7m of the street frontage at its north end (in front of the garage) to 8m at the southern front corner. The structure is more of a verandah in front of the garage and front entrance, and eave over the southern side of the ground floor. Overall it presents as the roof form to the lower floor façade.
   • The ground-floor layout includes an open-plan kitchen, laundry, dining and family room, with an additional separated living room, each accessible to a north facing, partially covered outdoor space. There is also a guest bedroom or study with powder room in the front south portion of the layout.
   • The first floor would be diagonal to the front boundary and parallel to the above-mentioned verandah/eave. It includes the master bedroom with ensuite (both at the front) and dressing room, and two other bedrooms with a shared bathroom. It has a balcony in front of and accessed from the master bedroom. The master bedroom would be set back by about 1m behind the garage façade, with its front balcony to project about forward of the garage at its northern end by about 0.5m reducing to nil setback at the south wall of the garage. The first floor would then be inset by about 1.2m behind the front south side of the ground floor and the southern side elevation for about 5m from the front of the dwelling. Insets behind the ground floor otherwise vary back to nil along the southern façade of the dwelling, adjacent to the property at 20 Gertrude Street owned by the Cotters who are a party to this proceeding.
   • The upper floor materials include painted horizontal weatherboards (including to the street frontage) and light metal cladding.
6. HO1961 is applied over 273 mainly residential properties in Geelong West, containing 163 dwellings of contributory significance, and 78 (28%) that are not significant. The Pineville Heritage Area is stated to be significant for its diverse dwelling styles from 1850 through to 1948 that resulted from progressive subdivision, and reflect the diverse socio-economic circumstances through that time. Bowlers Avenue, and the parallel Pineville Avenue to the east were subdivided from the former Pineville Estate[2] in the early 1920s, resulting in the common interwar bungalow dwelling style in the two streets.
7. Bowlers Avenue is a short street of about 100m with eight developed residential lots. It terminates at a site that until recently contained the Geelong West Bowls Club, from which all infrastructure has been removed. The site is now fenced off for commencement of a recently-approved multi-dwelling residential redevelopment[3]. That site is individually zoned in the Residential Growth Zone, Schedule 2 (RGZ2) although it remains covered by HO1961.
8. Eight residential lots front onto Bowlers Avenue: five lots including the review site front the east side of the street; three lots front the west side. Six of the lots contain single dwellings, and two (both on the east side) contain single-storey medium-density units development. Four of the six single dwellings are bungalow-styled period homes that are classified as 'Contributory' within HO1961, while that at 5 Bowlers Avenue is of 'Local Significance' within the Overlay. The five recognised dwellings exhibit varying levels of detail or simplicity. I was informed that the dwelling on the review site was built as a 'project house' for a labourer in the 1920s. It is typical of many such period houses built in Geelong West at that time.
9. The 'contributory' dwellings at 1, 3 and 6 Bowlers Avenue (and the review site at number 2) are interwar-styled bungalows.
   • The dwelling at number 3 is an interwar Californian bungalow that has permitted alterations. These include the addition of a garage and upper storey, and replacement of introduced windows with timber double hung timber windows characteristic of the building's style.
   • The dwelling at number 6 has altered brick piers supporting the timber verandah posts.
   • The 'Locally Significant' dwelling at 5 Bowlers Avenue is designated within the Pineville Heritage Area as HO639. It is identified in the Victorian Heritage Database as 'an imposing bungalow design and is unusual in Geelong West. It has excellent degree of integrity'. The dwelling is currently the subject of permitted works.
10. Dwellings at numbers 1/2[4], 4, and 8 Bowlers Avenue are introductions within the heritage area and are not significant. Number 1/2 abuts the review site. Its dwelling is considered to be anomalous within in the streetscape. It was built initially as a caretaker's residence for the former aged care facility use of 22 Gertrude Street that was permitted in 1977. The site was converted under a 2002 planning permit to two separate dwellings, and then subdivided via planning permit 597/2006. The exterior of the dwelling has been modified and reclad as a cuboid townhouse. It has a single cuboid form garage-cum-carport built to the Bowler's Avenue frontage.
11. The property at 4 Bowlers Avenue that abuts the review site to the north was redeveloped in 1993 with two single-storey brick dwellings serviced by a common property driveway on the north side, being the 'away' side from the review site. The front dwelling that faces Bowlers Avenue is a face-brick bungalow interpretation.
12. The property at 8 Bowlers Avenue is 'downhill' to the north from the review site and abuts to its north the site that was the former Bowls Club. The lot was redeveloped with three face-brick, hipped tiled roof form dwellings in 1985 and subdivided in 1988. The dwellings have no design relativity with the contributory dwellings.
13. As previously identified the application seeks two separate scopes of works, being:
    • the demolition of the existing 'contributory' heritage dwelling (and outbuildings/fence), and
    • the development of a new dwelling.
14. Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the application was advertised by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by requiring a notice to be erected on the land for a period of 14 days. Three objections were received relating to:
    • demolition of a contributory dwelling;
    • proposed dwelling is contrary to the heritage area for bulk, form, fencing, garaging, and window form; and
    • overshadowing and overlooking are not addressed.
15. The Council's Development Hearings Panel resolved under delegation on 17 June 2016 to issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the following stated reasons relating to the above two works scopes:

1. The development fails to appropriately ensure the conservation of an identified Heritage Place and so is contrary to the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks with respect to the following Clauses:

1. 15.01-5 - Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character
2. 15.03-1 - Heritage Conservation

1. 22.09 - Cultural Heritage
2. 22.61 - HO1961: Pineville Heritage Area.

2. The development fails to appropriately ensure the conservation of the contributory dwelling and so is contrary to the purpose of the Heritage Overlay, Clause 43.01.

1. The Council's position was informed by written advice from its Heritage consultant Dr David Rowe who was not called upon to provide evidence to the Tribunal.
2. The Applicant for review, being the Permit Applicant, conversely submitted that the demolition of the existing building is appropriate and that the bulk form and appearance of the proposed building will not adversely affect the significance of the Heritage place.
3. The Applicant drew upon the following information in support of demolition of the dwelling on the review site:
   • A letter/inspection report and recommendations of February 2015, by Yttrup and Assoc. Consulting Engineers[5];
   • Heritage Submission of by Anthemion Consultancies of February 2016.
4. The Yttrup correspondence states that 'the building is generally in poor condition and in need of a significant amount of work to bring it up to a serviceable level' and concludes that its 'very poor condition' is 'partly due to footing and floor movement but primarily due to lack of maintenance'. It also recommends that the dwelling should be inspected for pests, which 'may require removal of some internal linings to access wall and roof framing timbers'.
5. The Heritage report is supported by an expert witness statement of and appearance by Ms Robyn Riddett of Anthemion Consultancies (the same author). The key conclusions in her expert statement are that in her opinion:
   • There will be no loss of, or adverse effect on the cultural heritage significance of the Pineville Heritage Precinct or Bowlers Avenue as a result of demolition.
   • The contemporary dwelling proposed for the site is appropriate for the heritage setting.
   • The Council's Grounds of Refusal have not been substantiated.
6. Having considered the submissions and the evidence, and having inspected the site and general neighbourhood, I find the principal issues in this case to be the following.
   • Is it appropriate to demolish the existing dwelling?
   • Does the proposed dwelling satisfy the planning scheme objectives, including those relating to heritage?
7. I agree that the Tribunal must first decide on the matter of demolition in the Heritage Overlay area. If such decision is that the dwelling cannot be demolished the second question is largely academic and does not require consideration. It is also the case however that should removal be technically permissible, this should not occur if the proposed replacement dwelling is deemed to be inappropriate in its physical and/or policy context.
8. I have decided to affirm the decision of the Greater Geelong City Council. While I accept that design elements of the proposed development include contemporary interpretations of the main heritage elements sought to be retained within the HO1961 area, I find that the total visual design 'package' fails to achieve the objectives sought by the planning scheme. My test is ultimately whether, if developments with similar design characteristics as that proposed here were to be commonly replicated within the overlay area, the identified heritage character of the area would be retained. I have concluded that this would not occur, and that the character would be substantially altered in a way that is not envisaged by the planning scheme. I therefore find that regardless of overall design merits of the proposed dwelling per se, and its probable suitability at many other sites, I am unable to permit its development at this site. I find that the proposed demolition and development would not result in net community benefit.
9. It follows from the above, and from the admission of Mr King for the applicant, and the stated opinion of the Council, that the existing dwelling is not beyond repair, I cannot support the demolition of the existing dwelling. Such should only occur, in part where a replacement proposal can otherwise satisfy the objectives of the planning scheme, by protecting or enhancing identified heritage character.
10. The detail of my reasons follows.

1. Planning decisions are based on the notion of whether proposals present reasonable rather than best planning outcomes in context of planning policy and planning scheme provisions, including the achievement of net community benefit[6]. The Tribunal must assess proposals on their merits, rather than on comparisons with what could otherwise be proposed on the site.
2. As the requirement for a planning permit is triggered only by the Heritage Overlay, my decision is made primarily in consideration of the Decision Guidelines in the HO, and the associated decision guidelines at Cl. 65 in the planning scheme.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING DWELLING?

1. I identify three sub issues to this consideration:
   • What does the planning scheme say?
   • Is the building proposed for demolition ruinous to such an extent that it cannot be reclaimed?
   • Would the character of the heritage precinct generally, and the immediate neighbourhood of the review site specifically, be so changed by the loss of the review building that the loss will not have an unreasonably deleterious impact on the heritage values of the heritage place?
   • Would the inclusion of the proposed replacement dwelling onto the site result in a positive heritage outcome?

1. The Planning scheme contains considerable heritage content. I have previously identified some elements of that content, and I do not propose to detail it all here. Broadly however the scheme regularly reinforces that heritage is important and its loss or potential loss is a serious matter in the making of planning decisions. This is reinforced in summary by the following identifications.
2. Clause 15 (via clauses 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles: Heritage) 15.01-5 (Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character), 15.03-1 (Heritage Conservation), and Clauses 22.06-5 (MSS Heritage and Identity) and 22.09 (Cultural Heritage) all convey generally consistent themes relating to new developments showing respect for heritage and neighbourhood, in part through contemporary interpretation rather than replication, and positive contributions of new developments and extensions to built form, materials and amenity.
3. Clause 22.09 Cultural Heritage in particular seeks 'to encourage the retention of culturally significant and contributory heritage places within Heritage Overlay areas' and 'to encourage development to be undertaken in accordance with the accepted conservation standards of the ICOMOS Burra Charter'. In short, the Burra Charter identifies three hierarchical levels of repair for heritage structures:
   • Preservation- Maintaining a place in its existing state and preventing further deterioration.
   • Restoration- Returning a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing elements without the introduction of new material.
   • Reconstruction- Returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material.
4. The Charter advocates a cautionary approach to changing a place. This means doing both as much and as little work that is needed to repair and secure and make a place functional, while also to ensuring that the history of the place can continue to be recognised in its physical material (fabric). Further, the use, management and change at a place should be guided by a conservation policy prepared following the assessment of significance and the investigation of the issues affecting the future of the place.
5. I have previously referred to the Pineville Heritage Area, contained at Clause 22.61 of the Planning Scheme. It covers various matters often relating to the features of new/replacement buildings and building extensions/additions within their settings. These primarily relate to retaining the predominant scale of the area, including single-storey height and building separation including front and side setbacks, and contemporary and/or innovative interpretation of traditional building design. It also seeks the retention of culturally significant Victorian, Late Victorian, Edwardian, Federation, interwar and early postwar building stock.
6. Clause 22.61 also states that buildings and works should (ie: not must) comply with the City of Greater Geelong's Heritage and Design Guidelines 1997 that includes that the demolition or removal of contributory dwellings 'will only be supported where it is clear that the replacement building makes an equal or greater contribution to the Conservation Area'[7]. I discuss this matter later, but note here that I find that the proposed replacement would not make such contribution.

Is the current dwelling ruinous such that it cannot reasonably be reclaimed?

1. I accept that the Yttrup report referred to in this decision does not cover the above-mentioned Burra Charter matters.
2. I also accept that the current dwelling is not in good condition. However, the inspection by Yttrup and Associates was not comprehensive in that the resulting letter/report stated that it did not include inspection of the roof cavity and sub-floor framing, nor the dwelling' plumbing and electrical installations. It also stated that the conduct of an insect investigation would also be appropriate. However, those matters aside, the identified list of defects and issues does include uneven floor levels, mould in some rooms including on some walls and ceilings, differential movement between internal built elements, and a damaged and leaking verandah.
3. I note that letter/report also identifies that 'significant' work is needed to bring the dwelling up to a serviceable level. The nine points identified for this broadly include restumping to level and raise the floor to Building Code of Australia (BCA) levels and the subsequent replacement of doors and windows with operable units, the likely need for structural works to the roof and walls and roof, the replacement of all internal linings and external weatherboards, review of the integrity of fireplace and chimney brickwork, and likely attention to plumbing and electrical installations following the restumping. An inspection for pests is also recommended.
4. There is no question that the above matters are significant, but I am swayed by the Yttrup inference that the poor condition of the building is largely due to lack of maintenance. This is potentially associated non-occupancy that may have occurred across several years. I am also satisfied that the Council has sought supporting evidence from the applicant relating the need for the demolition based on whether the dwelling's structural integrity is 'essentially beyond reasonable repair', and I note from the Council's submission to the Tribunal that its Heritage adviser identified further matters that should be considered under an engineering assessment of the building. These include: accordance of repair processes with the conservation practices outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter for accepted conservation standards[8]; the extent of and significance of fabric requiring repair and replacement; whether the building fabric is structurally sound even if it may not strictly comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA); and 'repairs to exterior fabric and structural integrity only (given that no internal alteration controls apply)'.
5. While Dr Rowe was not called upon to provide evidence, I apply considerable weight to his written report to the Council that was provided to me along with his Curriculum Vitae.
6. I was informed that the supplementary evidence sought by the Council has not been provided and I note that the closing content in the Yttrup document states that the cost of the needed works 'will need to be considered against the cost of removal and replacement of the building'. The statement is not definitive on costs and no such subsequent information is before the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal has found in the past that it should not be swayed in heritage decisions such as that now before me, by poor building condition resulting from lack of maintenance.
8. While it may be that the building would not warrant refurbishment were it in a non-heritage area, I identify that the Heritage Overlay has been in place for a considerable time, and the owners of land covered by the HO should be aware of its implications. This includes the statement at page 5 in the Heritage and Design Guidelines that 'the need to undertake remedial works does not justify demolition of an existing building'. Without any inference by me relating to the current matter, partial explanation of this is provided in Moloney vs City of Geelong West (AAT No. 1993/024690) that was referred to me by the Council, which states the following:

The question to be asked is whether the owners of the land should be able to benefit from the neglect of the site. Take a situation for example where two listed buildings exist side by side and the owners each seek permits to redevelop. One building has been carefully tendered and preserved. The other has been neglected and left open to the elements and to vandals. There would be little prospect of the owners obtaining a demolition permit in the first example. Why then should the owners of the second example gain a benefit through their neglect?

1. I therefore cannot agree to the demolition of the existing building based on the information before me regarding its current condition.
2. Relevant to this finding I also note here that I find that the proposed replacement would not clearly makes an equal or greater contribution to the Pinevill Heritage Area as sought of a replacement building by Geelong's incorporated Heritage and Design Guidelines 1997.

Would the heritage value and character of the precinct and the immediate neighbourhood be unreasonably impacted upon by removal of the existing dwelling?

1. I have been given diametrically opposed opinions on this subjective matter.
2. The applicant relied on the following evidence of Ms Riddett to support the position that the loss of 2 Bowlers Avenue would not have an adverse impact upon the wider heritage place. Ms Riddett proposed (in summary) that:
   • Pineville Heritage Area is a large precinct, with Bowlers Avenue being a short street containing eight developed residential lots fronting to the street (five on the east side; three on the west side).
   • The review dwelling is one of two contributory dwellings on the east side. (The other three dwellings being non-graded (not contributory)).
   • The review dwelling has altered windows, is in poor condition, and is the 'plainest' and least contributory of the contributory dwellings in the street.
3. The Council and objecting residents conversely proposed that the shortness of Bowlers Avenue should not be used to justify the demolition of the review dwelling. This is because the short street length, caused by its termination at the bowling club grounds, is of historical significance to the Pineville Heritage Area, and its low number of contributory dwellings does not diminish its contribution within the wider Precinct. The Council also proposed that:
   • most dwellings in the street have heritage significance, and
   • if the existence of 28% of non-significant properties in the Heritage Area was to be in part considered justification for the removal of adjoining or nearby contributory dwellings, the heritage value of the precinct would diminish over time through 'death by a thousand cuts'.
4. The Council and in part the residents, also collectively submitted that:
   • The three non-contributory developments that intersperse the east streetscape evolved under an earlier planning regime that lacked demolition controls, and under current controls the proximity to non-contributory dwellings is not a decision guideline for consideration under the Heritage Overlay, or other State and Local Planning Policy.
   • While the lack of heritage integrity on the east side of Bowlers Avenue was recognised in the 2010 Ashby Heritage Review, the dwellings at numbers 2 and 6 were considered to contribute to the area's significance.
   • The applicants have assessed the review dwelling based on architectural merit and overlooked that the rudimentary design of the review dwelling reflects the socio-economic status of the original owner that directly relates to the statement of significance for the Pineville Heritage Area.
   • The aluminium framed windows that have been installed into the façade as a later modification can be easily replaced with appropriate as has occurred at 3 Bowlers Avenue opposite the review dwelling.
   • It is inappropriate to argue that approved contemporary style of the Bowling Club site redevelopment justifies the proposed redevelopment of 2 Bowlers Avenue. While the two sites are in the same heritage area, the planning policy frameworks covering the two sites differ, with the Bowls Club strategically zoned Residential Growth to enable development of the site to its fullest ability following the loss of the bowling club itself as the key element of the site's inclusion in HO1961.
5. I accept the Council's position that the bowling club site is not typical or particularly relevant to the streetscape character of Bowlers Avenue. It is a much larger site set lower topographically in an area that apart from its entry from Bowlers Avenue, is largely visually separated from the general Bowlers Avenue streetscape. I am satisfied that this will continue to be the case following construction of the approved intensive townhouse/ apartments type development. I accept that the 'bowls' site is effectively an enclosed site that is beyond and segregated from the Bowlers Avenue streetscape, rather than a part of it as is the review property.
6. Another reason why the review site cannot be directly compared with the Bowls Club site is that land uses such as bowls clubs, suburban tennis courts, and golf clubs in urban areas, particularly where not on land subject to inundation, are systematically squeezed out of inner residential areas for economic reasons as land values increase. Owners of land used for such purposes have historically sold out, often to relocate to other sites. Where this occurs, it is almost inevitable that an alternative use will be proposed for the land. Good planning can dictate suitable permitted replacement uses, but is much less likely to be able to prevent the sale of land and the emergence of pressures for alternative land uses. For these reasons it is perhaps surprising that retention of the Bowling Greens was specified in the Clause 22.91 of the planning scheme.
7. It follows from the above that the review site and the former Bowls Club land are subject to quite different planning considerations for land use and development decisions and I do not discuss this matter further.
8. On balance, I accept the Council's position regarding the significance of the review dwelling. I do not accept the notion that because it is less significant than other contributory dwellings in the street due to its position between two non-significant buildings. A contributory dwelling is a contributory dwelling, and such buildings are not further rated within the category. There is therefore no formal basis for differentiation between different contributory buildings based on position relative to other buildings. To do so without a formal basis for such action would introduce ad hoc decision making. In the current situation where it is alternatively argued the location within a short street, or position between non-contributory buildings does or does not add to or diminish heritage significance, merely enters into a subjective 'he said / she said' scenario from which the Tribunal must determine a position.
9. From a purely non-heritage visual perspective I consider the current dwelling to be recessive in its setting and that its removal would have little local impact.
10. On balance however, and from a heritage perspective, I therefore find that the position of the review building between non-contributory buildings within the streetscape does not influence me to find in favour of demolition. I find that should removal be approved here in absence of compelling evidence of the type that I have previously discussed, it could then follow that an argument could be put that the contributory dwelling at number 6 Bowlers Avenue (which is itself also between two non-contributory dwellings) has diminished significance (or perhaps heightened significance) as the only remaining contributory building on the east side of the street. It could in theory then follow that without prescriptive policy direction that demolition should be permitted on the west side of the street on the basis of diminished significance caused by only one side of the street having retained heritage values.
11. In my opinion the significance starts and stops in this matter with the designation of the review dwelling as a contributory building, and with local policy and the provisions of the Heritage Overlay supporting the retention of such buildings unless there is compelling evidence in support of demolition. Such evidence is lacking here.

DOES THE PROPOSED DWELLING SATISFY THE PLANNING SCHEME OBJECTIVES?

1. Relevant to the current matter, and as I have previously identified, the State provisions in the planning scheme[9] broadly and consistently seek to ensure the conservation, of places of heritage significance, and for land use and development to recognise and protect cultural and community identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. They also seek for development to respond to, reinforce and contribute to those features. Importantly, the planning scheme identifies and the Tribunal has regularly reinforced that the above does not mean replicating features in design, but using features that complement identified characteristics.
2. I have previously identified the thrusts of Clauses 21.06-5 Heritage and identity, and 21.06-6 Implementation that accept or encourage contemporary interpretation that relates to the location, bulk, form and materials of existing and/or neighbouring significant buildings. I have also referred to the key
3. Other key heritage elements in the planning scheme not covered above include but are not limited encouraging development to accord with accepted conservation standards in the ICOMOS Burra Charter[10]. In this instance total demolition of the existing dwelling is sought and I determined that the required evidence is not before me to support this action.
4. Relevant to development of a new building, Clause 22.09 includes the following :

Ensure that the cultural heritage significance of the place will be enhanced.

Discourage demolition of sites that are not of cultural heritage significance within a heritage area until a planning permit for the replacement development is approved and a bona-fide contract for the new work has been confirmed.

Where a permit is required for development, require that all buildings and works should be in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Heritage and Design Guidelines, 1997.

1. In the current matter it is reasonable to apply the second of the above principles where the existing dwelling does in fact have cultural heritage significance albeit of 'contributory' status. The third point is a clear requirement, although by definition 'guidelines' are not prescriptions, and they provide for interpretation and discretion.
2. Key elements of the Heritage and Design Guidelines include :
   • Geelong West generally is an older part of suburban Geelong and the Planning Scheme's content on the Pineville Heritage Area at Cl. 22.61 has specific provisions for consideration. Its traditional housing stock primarily includes low-scale detached Victorian, Late Victorian, Edwardian, Federation, interwar and less commonly early early-postwar era dwellings as identified in Geelong's Ashby Heritage Review Stage 2, Volume 2 (2010).
   • Retain the 'predominantly uniform scale ... including single-storey height and building separation'.
   • Importantly and consistent with my earlier notations, it seeks for contemporary and/or innovative interpretation of traditional building design including detached buildings, hipped and/or gable roof forms, (with 25o and 35o pitches), front side or return verandahs, narrow or wide eaves, and minimal detailing.

The above matters are important within my decision.

1. The Heritage and Design Guidelines also encourage:
   • the use of traditional construction materials including horizontal timber weatherboard wall cladding, timber-framed windows and non-highly reflective corrugated sheet metal roofing;
   • low front fence height, to 1.3m high; and
   • appropriate development, form and scale of garages and/or carports, with location at the rear of existing and/or infill buildings.
2. The primary argument submitted by the applicant in support of the design proposal for the replacement dwelling is that it uses elements that complement traditional local elements that are identified in the heritage documentation. These include a portion of horizontal weatherboard on the upper-level frontage to Bowlers Avenue, the pitch of the asymmetrical upper-storey gable roof sections, the proposal for an eave (which is proposed at the first floor only for the southern side), and the use of timber window framing. While this may be so, and while I identify that the proposed dwelling design displays contemporary innovation, it is important that the stated elements integrate within a package that is sympathetic with local character, rather than present as a series of independent segments within the 'big-picture' impression.
3. It is also important that the proposed development is not looked at and considered as a single entity in isolation of potential future developments. In short, a primary issue is to what extent the heritage character objectives of the planning scheme including the Incorporated City of Greater Geelong Heritage and Design Guidelines 1997 would be retained or enhanced if developments of a similar type to that proposed here were to be 'replicated' across the Heritage Area. My assessment is the character that is intended to be retained would be replaced by a distinctly different character. Within this I make no judgement as to whether this would represent character improvement or decline but just that significant change would occur that I accept is not consistent with what is intended by the planning scheme.
4. I indicatively find that the net impact of the following features in combination lead me to the above finding:
   • The horizontal weatherboard facing on the upper-level frontage does not present a primary defining feature of the design that relates to ground-level building features that dominate across the predominantly single-storey local dwellings.
   • The garage presents as a dominant feature.
   • The asymmetric gabled upper-level form is uncharacteristically dominant within the heritage area;
   • The height and imposing presence of the first-floor elevation to Bowlers Avenue is atypical of the area.
   • The absence of eaves on the northern side of the building is not characteristic of the area.
   • The forms of windows fronting Bowlers Avenue are uncharacteristic.

1. On balance across the reasons given above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] The 'Pineville' homestead remains at 2 Gertrude Street.

[4] Lot ½ Bowlers Avenue is at the rear of 22 Gertrude Street. It is also known as 2A Bowlers Avenue, but is not associated with the review site at 2 Bowlers Avenue.

[5] Letter of 17 February 2015 from Nathan McLaren of P.J. Yttrup and Associates Consulting Engineers of 33 Roberts Road, Belmont, to Mr Dale Pattison, Think Technology P/L

[6] Refer Sections 1 Purpose and 4 Objectives of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

[8] The Burra Charter is referenced at Cl. 22.09 of the Planning Scheme.

[9] Clauses 15 Built Environment and Heritage including 15.01-5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character; 15.03-1 Heritage conservation