1. The level of demolition is extensive. The existing verandah will be demolished and reconstructed, with the cast iron frieze to be retained and reinstalled. The weatherboards to the north and south elevations of the existing dwelling will be removed and the elevations restored using James Hardie weatherboard planks.
2. The floor level of the retained dwelling will be raised an additional 160mm.
3. The ground floor proposes to utilise the front four existing rooms and construct an extension that accommodates a laundry, office, and open plan living, dining and kitchen area.
4. A two storey addition will be constructed to the rear of the retained house. It is separated 1.726 metres from the retained house, connected via a flat roof link. The section of the addition immediately behind the retained dwelling will have a transverse skillion profile roof, with the primary roof form beyond to be hipped. The first floor is to accommodate four bedrooms including the master and a retreat.
5. A separate structure accommodating a powder room, store and gym are located to the rear of the site. A pool is also proposed.
6. The materials proposed include to the rear addition vertical Scyon Axon cladding, which produces a timber weatherboard like appearance, aluminium windows and a corrugated iron roof.

1. The Heritage Overlay at clause 43.01of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme ('planning scheme') seeks to conserve and enhance heritage places and ensure development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. The provision includes a number of decision guidelines which in general require consideration of matters including:
   • Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
   • Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
   • Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
2. The review site is located in the Government Survey Heritage Precinct, identified as HO8. The existing house is identified as a contributory graded dwelling. The Statement of Significance from the Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2017 identifies that:

......Aesthetically, while there are examples of unrelated postwar development within the precinct, as a whole, it retains remarkably intact and cohesive groups of nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings that are an integral part of the special character of early Williamstown. Key elements include:

....

• The unifying effect throughout the precinct of groups of predominantly Victorian and Edwardian era houses with common or similar characteristics of design, siting and scale that creates cohesive and homogeneous streetscapes. Many are externally intact and others, although altered, still retain their distinctive form and siting and hence contribute to the precinct.

1. Clause 02.03-5 'Built environment and heritage' identifies that Hobsons Bay played an important role in the development of Victoria illustrated by a variety of heritage places that include buildings. It is policy that council seeks to protect places of heritage significance and conserve characteristics that contribute to their individual identity.
2. Clause 15.03 'Heritage' seeks to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. Strategies include:
   • Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values.
   • Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements of a heritage place.
3. Clause 15.03-1L-01 'Heritage conservation' includes development strategies which include:
   • Design development (including infill, alterations and additions) to not visually dominate a heritage place and complement or enhance its aesthetic qualities in terms of scale, siting, design, form and materiality.
   • Support development that creatively interprets and complements the historic context of a heritage place.
   • Distinguish new development from original building stock through the use of innovative and contemporary design that respects heritage character.
   • Avoid distorting the historic evidence of heritage places by copying or reproducing historic styles or details.
4. Demolition strategies include:

Avoid the demolition of heritage places unless one of the following applies:

• The fabric to be removed is not of primary significance and its removal will not adversely affect the significance of the place.
• The demolition will assist in the long-term conservation of the place.

1. The parties referred to The Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006 ['heritage guidelines'] as the document is an incorporated document in the planning scheme. Of relevance, the parties referred to design considerations Figure 18 'Determining potential visibility' and Figure 19 sight lines. Refer Figures 1 and 2 below. The heritage guidelines also provide guidance on 'Adding a Second Storey' addressing issues of height, visibility and distinguishing old from new and materials.

Figure1: Determining side sight lines. Source Heritage guidelines.

Figure 2: Sight lines. Source Heritage guidelines.

1. Visually I find Lyons Street to be a street of varied forms. Lyons Street itself is a wide street and due to the location of Denis Reserve and the bowling green and other facilities on the west side of the street, Lyons Street appears generous and open. There is a sense of openness to the street that is unique to this location. I find the housing form to be inconsistent. There are contributory heritage buildings sitting alongside newer built form circa 1960s and 1980s.
2. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Raworth provided heritage evidence to the Tribunal. In his assessment, he concluded that the amended development strikes an appropriate balance between the retention and restoration of heritage fabric and redevelopment to provide upgraded accommodation. It was his evidence that the scale, setbacks, materiality and architectural character of the new built form are respectful to the heritage dwelling and overall, the scheme is appropriate having regard to heritage provisions and policies.
3. The proposed addition is large, and the first floor doubles the size of the house. But my assessment is not about the sheer size of the addition but whether it is appropriate having regard to heritage policies.
4. It is noted that the applicant and council agreed the extent of demolition was acceptable. Council submitted that the retention of the four front rooms to the existing dwelling is supported, as is the demolition of the remainder of the dwelling to the rear. Council's heritage advisor commented that the revised demolition notations (on the amended plans) are an improvement although not a guarantee against replication of the building, but draft conditions can address concerns. That being said, the key issues identified for assessment include the potential for 'reproduction', the raising of the building by 160mm and the scale of the proposed additions. I will address these matters below.

Figure 3: Proposed extent of demolition to West (front) elevation.

1. I agree with council that there is danger of reproduction but in the case where the existing verandah is so damaged, I find it best that council can control the proposed reconstruction rather than it be further damaged and removed completely.
2. The building report states that the existing front verandah is about to collapse and needs the roof sheeting and all of the timber structure and ground slab to be replaced.
3. Mr Raworth submitted in his Addendum Statement[3] that in relation to the proposed verandah ground slab:

Ms Lardner's comments here are supported in principle.

Subject to further investigation to be undertaken subsequent to removal of the existing concrete, unless there is clear evidence of an original verandah floor of a different character, it is recommended that the new verandah should be floored with hardwood boards in the traditional manner.

1. In relation to the cast iron posts, Mr Raworth submitted:

Although the plans refer only to the retention of the cast iron lacework to the verandah, it is appropriate that both lacework and columns be reused. It is also appropriate that the fascia detailing below the gutter be either retained or reproduced to match, and that the new gutter itself be ogee profile rather than quad profile.

1. In relation to roof sheeting screws, Mr Raworth submitted:

The amended plans indicate the existing roof sheets are to be retained. It is not clear why the screws would need to be replaced.

1. I agree with the evidence of Mr Raworth regarding the proposed works to the verandah and will include his recommendations as a condition of permit.

1. It is proposed to raise the level of the existing (remaining) dwelling by 160mm, from 9.91 AHD to 10.07 AHD.
2. Council's heritage advisor raised concern that the raising of the ground floor is likely to require the introduction of new material to allow it to be lifted. It was submitted that a condition should be included for the applicant to provide the necessary dimensions to allow consideration of whether the more standard approach of lowering the verandah floor, lowering ground levels and the use of agricultural drains is possible and if not, it was submitted that a rise of 160mm is acceptable.
3. Mr Raworth explained that the existing house sits very low to the ground. It was submitted that it has probably moved over time.
4. Given how low the house sits to the ground and street, I am persuaded that a 160mm rise of the house is acceptable and will not change the appearance to the street or disturb its heritage value or impact to the street.

1. Council submitted that in principle the existing house can be extended both at the ground and first floor.
2. Both parties agreed that whatever addition is undertaken at the house, it will be visible from oblique angles. This is due to, in part, the minimal setback of the house to the street and the width of Lyons Street that allows for oblique views. I further add that to the north, 18 Lyons Street, is a single storey 1980s house that is low set on the site and therefore allows for views across the site to the proposed addition.
3. I agree with the submission of council's heritage advisor that the articulation of the new addition should allow a clear understanding of the extent of heritage fabric remaining. This is a contributory building within a heritage overlay so therefore, it should continue to read it as a heritage building.

1. It was council's concern that the design does not distinguish clearly enough between the extent of the original structure and the addition at ground level. It is council's view that the bulk and mass of the first floor addition will be too visually dominant in the streetscape. Council suggested the following changes should be made:
   • The 1.76 metre setback should be increased.
   • The new addition to be lower in height so that its is under projecting eaves.
   • The ground floor laundry and office addition should be recessed 300mm from the respective elevations (north and south).
   • The first floor addition should be setback further from the street. A prescriptive setback was not provided.
2. It was Mr Raworth's evidence that by setting the addition back behind the retained dwelling by 1.76 metres and incorporating a skillion roof form immediately behind the retained dwelling, the new works comply with the sightline provided in council's incorporated document Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay.
3. I am persuaded by Mr Raworth that setting the addition behind the retained dwelling by 1.76 metres is appropriate. I am persuaded that the setback of 1.76 metres creates an adequate separation between the existing dwelling and the additions. But I am further persuaded by council that the skillion roof area being a laundry and office could be recessed at the ground floor by 300mm from the north and southern elevations. This recess would further reinforce the heritage fabric of the cottage and allows it to sit as a 'separate' heritage form. I note that the further setback of the office from the southern boundary may result in a ground floor window to the office as the existing window may be inadequate. I consider this is appropriate subject to council approval.
4. I find that with the combination of the skillion roof and the 300mm recess that I will require, the proposed ground floor addition will not detract from the heritage value of house or place. The proposed ground floor design (with changes) will ensure that the existing heritage house will read as a separate built form.

Figure 4: Sight line diagram.

1. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed addition, I was referred to the heritage guidelines that provide guidance in relation to proposed additions. These guidelines provide guidance regarding sight lines. The applicant provided sight lines, refer Figure 4, detailing that an average person across the road will see little of the proposed first floor addition. Mr Raworth acknowledged that the addition will be visible from oblique views but from across the street, any views will be limited.
2. Council submitted that the first floor should be further set back. It is proposed to be set back 9.2 metres from the front building line of the existing house. Council's heritage advisor was also concerned that 'the form of the first floor addition presents as disproportionally wide and asymmetrical compared to the heritage part of the house'.
3. I agree with Mr Raworth that a first floor setback of 9.2 metres is generally acceptable in principle. It is generally accepted, in heritage terms, that first floor additions are set back around 8 metres from the front of the house. This generally equates to two rooms. I am persuaded by Mr Raworth that the setback is appropriate and that due to the circumstances of the site, any addition will be visible.

Figure 5: Proposed West elevation.

1. I share council's concern however that the first floor appears disproportionately wide to the existing house. The first floor is set back 91mm on the northern elevation and 834mm on the southern elevation. I asked Mr Raworth what the implications of a 1 metre northern setback would be for the first floor. To be fair to Mr Raworth, he is not the designer of the addition, and it was 'on the run' at the hearing. Nevertheless, Mr Raworth advised that a setback would be barely noticeable to the 'passerby' and considered the proposal acceptable in its current form.
2. I am going to require a 1 metre setback for the first floor from the northern ground floor elevation. I accept that there may be limited views to the addition from across the road. However, when viewed from an oblique view, the continuation of the ground floor setback to the first floor results in a long wall on a single plane that will overwhelm the view of the original house. I am persuaded by council that the heritage house, at least the first four front rooms, should be able to be viewed and identified as the original cottage. The extension of a ground and first floor wall on the same plane, overwhelms the oblique view to the northern elevation.
3. In reaching this decision, it is important to refer to the purposes of the heritage overlay at clause 43.01. The purpose of this overlay is to:

Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.

1. As proposed, I find the first floor addition will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. It will overwhelm the existing house on the northern elevation. The southern first floor addition is set back 1.196 metres from the ground floor (taken rom plan A03.1). A 1 metre setback, addresses council's concerns that the addition is disproportionately wide and asymmetrical compared to the existing house. A 1 metre setback on the northern elevation results in an addition that is balanced having regard to the existing heritage house.
2. I accept Mr Raworth's view that a 1 metre setback will be barely discernible to the passerby, but this is a contributory building in a heritage precinct. Lyons Street is part of the Government Survey precinct that demonstrates the most important and prosperous phase in the development of Williamstown from the mid nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. Lyons Street is an unusual context with residential properties located only on the east side of the street. This context provides opportunities for the residential properties but also requires any design to have regard to not only the sight lines looking direct to the house but oblique views.
3. I am satisfied that with a minor change of a 1 metre setback to the northern elevation, the proposed first floor addition is acceptable having regard to heritage policy.

1. Council was concerned with the west facing first floor windows and suggested that they be either reduced in size or relocated to the north and south elevations. I am persuaded by Mr Raworth that due to the height of the first floor, the windows, if visible to the street, will be limited. I therefore make no change to these windows.
2. Council raised concern with the proposed first floor roof. It is part 7 degrees, party 20 degrees. Whilst I find the arrangement unusual, I am persuaded by Mr Raworth that the first floor roof complies with the sight lines as contained in the Hobsons Bay heritage guidelines and is acceptable.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Construct a building or construct or carryout works.

1. Before the development starts, including any demolition works, a fully detailed 'Demolition Method Statement' must be prepared by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer and be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Statement will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Statement must:

(a) Show retention of the front four rooms of the existing dwelling including repairs only as required.

(b) Include reference to the staging of demolition and reconstruction works on the site.

(c) Detail the necessary protection works required during the demolition works to protect those parts of the building to be retained.

Once approved by the Responsible Authority, all buildings and works must be in accordance with the demolition method statement.

1. Before the demolition starts, details of works to heritage fabric, including repairs, conservation works and any replication of heritage elements must be prepared by a suitable qualified heritage architect and be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, details will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Details must include:

(a) A full description and clear methods of dismantling of the parts of the building and the subsequent reconstruction of the building.

(b) Photographs of the existing conditions and detailed drawings of heritage elements to be removed and reinstated must be provided to enable them to be accurately reinstated.

1. Before the development starts, revised plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

The plans must be substantially in accordance with the amended plans substituted 10 June 2025, but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) Show retention of the front four rooms including the hipped roof form of the existing dwelling including repairs only as required.

(b) Recess the ground floor laundry (north elevation) and office (south elevation) by a minimum of 300mm behind the existing building line (retained front rooms). The office may include a new ground floor window, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(c) The first floor addition on the northern elevation is to be setback from the ground level by a minimum of 1 metre.

(d) Works to the existing verandah are to be amended as follows:

1. The new verandah be floored with hardwood boards in the traditional manner.
2. Both the lacework and columns be reused. The fascia detailing below the gutter be either retained or reproduced to match, and that the new gutter itself be ogee profile.
3. The existing roof sheets and screws are to be reused.

(e) A schedule of all external materials and finishes. The schedule must show the materials, colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, gutters, down pipes, window frames and paving.

(f) Details including elevations and materials of the front fence.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Unless specified in a permit condition, this requirement does not apply if an exemption is available under the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to commencement of any works including demolition, the following provisions relating to the protection of the existing street trees must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) A suitable Tree Protection Zone with barrier fence must be established around the existing street tree.

(b) The Tree Protection Zone must be enclosed using a 2-metre high temporary cyclone fence or similar, which must remain in place through all stages of the development. This fence must not enclose the footpath which must be kept clear for pedestrian access and a sign must be erected on the fence informing that the fence is a 'Tree Protection Zone'.

(c) The area within the Tree Protection Zone must not be disturbed by any means (including parking of vehicles or storage of plant & equipment, materials, soil or waste).

(d) No excavation is allowed within the Tree Protection Zone except with the consent of Council's Town Planning Department and under the supervision of a qualified Arborist.

1. The owner must meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of, the Responsible Authority and other Public Authority Assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The owner must obtain the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant Authority to such alterations and reinstatements and must comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.
2. All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. If the nature strip is damaged during construction of the development approved or during the construction of any services, it must be reinstated and made good, (including by the planting of grass) at the cost of the owner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. All basic services including water, electricity, sewerage, telephone and other telecommunication facilities must be installed underground. All above ground meters must be located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to commencement of the development the owner must prepare stormwater drainage design plans to the satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor. An application to Council must be made for a Legal Point of Discharge for the disposal of stormwater from the subject land and to determine the relevant Council standards for the stormwater drainage system design.
6. Prior to the occupation of the buildings, all boundary walls on or facing the boundaries of the site must be either raked and cleaned (face brickwork) or rendered and painted or bagged and painted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any protruding floor slab must be cleaned and trimmed flush with the wall to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period in which to start the development if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period in which to complete the development if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within 12 months afterwards and the development was lawfully started before the permit expired.

[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] This report was submitted as part of the applicant's submission. It is not evidence.