The Applicant argued that the development is an acceptable response to its heritage context, and to the policy framework of the Planning Scheme. Its submissions referred to the siting of the addition to the rear of the dwelling, its massing, design and materials, and the minimal extent of demolition proposed. The Applicant's position is that the contemporary design of the addition is appropriate, and that its extent of visibility in the streetscape will not have an unacceptable impact on the area's heritage significance.
The Council and the residents made contrary submissions. In their view, the scale, form, siting, height, setbacks, materials and design of the proposed addition display no regard for the heritage buildings within the Overlay, and make no reference to the heritage context of the review site and its surrounds. In support of their positions, the residents placed some emphasis on the addition's presentation to the surrounding secluded private open space areas.
When viewed from the rear of the adjoining properties, I agree that the addition will appear as a particularly discordant and anomalous element within a context that is characterised by Inter-war dwellings of modest proportions and a restrained architecture. The proposed building is very large. It extends for a distance of some 18.8 metres from the rear of the dwelling and rises to a maximum height of 9.1 metres. In part, it is constructed to the eastern boundary, and otherwise displays setbacks of between 1.9 metres and 3.7 metres from this interface[6]. Setbacks from the western boundary are greater, ranging between 3.2 metres through to 5.6 metres. As shown on the plans, the ground level setbacks will be paved and will not be able to support any landscaping to soften and/or screen the building's east and west elevations. Further, the design of the addition is highly contemporary. It employs geometric forms and modern materials which do not in any way seek to emulate (or reflect) those of either the existing dwelling or of the dwellings on surrounding lots.
When considered within this 'rear yard' context, the residents' opposition to the development is understandable. The proposed building is entirely at odds with the heritage character of the area as it is perceived from this perspective.
Although I have sympathy for the residents, I am required to make a decision which is based on the policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme. The Scheme not only confers a discretion on decision-makers when making determinations as to whether or not a permit should be granted, it also guides and, indeed, constrains that discretion.
In this instance, it is evident that the Planning Scheme does not ascribe any heritage significance to the 'backyard realm'. I acknowledge that this differs from how the residents perceive the heritage character of their neighbourhood, where they attach significance to not only what is visible in the street, but also to what is seen from within the sites themselves. To the residents, the setting of the dwellings within this area is an equally important contributor to the area's heritage value as the dwellings' presentation in the streetscape. They place significance on the setbacks from the boundaries, the 'green spine' that is created by the contiguous rear yard areas, the obvious presence of vegetation and the prevailing sense of openness, which is enhanced by the low profile nature of the dwellings and their additions.
The residents' submissions emphasised the development's impact on the character of the neighbourhood and on the amenity of the adjoining properties. However, I am not able to take either of these matters into account in determining this Application, as they are not heritage considerations. To do so would be for me to step outside of the ambit of discretion afforded by the relevant planning permit trigger - in this case the Heritage Overlay control[7]. This course of action is not lawfully open to me.
I acknowledge that Clause 21.05-5 of the MSS (Heritage) includes a strategy that development integrates respectfully and harmoniously with the neighbourhood character. Given this forms part of the policy context relating to the municipality's heritage, I consider that the reference to neighbourhood character in Clause 21.05-5 should be properly read and understood within the heritage context of a site. In turn, this should be informed by the relevant Statement of Significance which identifies the reasons for the area's inclusion within the Heritage Overlay.
I consider that in the circumstances of this application, the 'neighbourhood character' referred to in that Clause is confined to the streetscape, as it is from this context that the area derives its heritage significance. In my view, it should not be read as being the broader neighbourhood character one would consider when undertaking an assessment under Clause 55.02, for example.
On this basis, what I am required to do is determine whether the proposed addition will have an unacceptable impact on the Murchison Street streetscape. As currently proposed, the proposal does not comply with Performance Measure No. 1 (PM1) of the Heritage Policy, which provides that development should be sited within an 'envelope' created by projecting a line of 10º from the gutter line on the main façade and extending to the rear of the heritage place. The Applicant advised that compliance can be achieved by tapering the roof profile and lowering the floor level at the junction of the addition with the existing dwelling.
In respect of the development's impact on the public realm, the residents and the Council commented not only on the visibility of the addition from the front of the site, above the existing roofline, but also on its visibility from the sides. Submissions variously referred to the extent to which the addition would be seen from along the driveway of the review site, and also from the eastern side, given the alignment of Murchison Street and the topography. It was argued that, while technical compliance with PM1 may be achieved, the design response has not had regard to the intent of this performance measure and would detract from the area's heritage significance. Having carefully inspected the site and surrounds, I find myself in agreement with these submissions.
I have not been persuaded that the proposed addition is an acceptable response to this heritage area, either as proposed, or with the suggested modifications to comply with PM1. There are three key elements of the physical context that, in my opinion, would result in the development impacting unacceptably on the heritage streetscape. These are:
The site's position at the southern termination of the Murchison Street 'dogleg'. It is in direct view as one proceeds south along this section of the street before turning west to continue toward Alexandria Street. Indeed, it is the most prominent dwelling as one turns the corner. The view of the proposed addition is not confined to the northern and southern sides of Murchison Street in the vicinity of the review site. From these locations, the width of the street, the siting of the dwelling and the angles of view in combination act to restrict the addition's visibility. The view from the 'dogleg' is greater than would be the case if Murchison Street simply continued its alignment from Alexandria Street through to Lansdowne Road without changing direction to proceed northward in this location.
The topography, which rises from west to east (and to the north-east). Again within the 'dogleg', pedestrians and motorists are at a higher level than the review site. From this position, a greater portion of the addition would be visible than would be the case if the topography did not display this gradient.
The separation provided by the driveway of 23 Murchison Street. The space created by the driveway area of this adjoining dwelling provides the addition with a greater degree of visibility within the streetscape than would be possible if a lesser separation existed between the dwelling on the review site and that adjoining to the east.
I consider that that these factors, in combination, limit the ability of PM1 to achieve an acceptable streetscape outcome in this instance. The result is not consistent with the policy of siting and massing an upper level addition so that it is preferably not visible, particularly in intact or consistent streetscapes. Further, due to its contemporary design, the proposal is not consistent with the policy that visible roof forms of additions should relate to the original roof form.
The review site's prominence within the approach from the north is of importance to my conclusions. Due to its siting, size and scale, the addition will be particularly obvious from this aspect. The extent of its visibility, in conjunction with the highly contemporary design and materials, would act to accentuate the development's contrast with the traditional style and form of the host dwelling, and others in the street. This visibility is sufficient, in my view, for the addition to unacceptably detract from the heritage character of this section of the streetscape. It will have an apparent, and undesirable, effect on the observer's appreciation of the street's heritage qualities.
I am not satisfied that the proposal meets the objective of respectfully and harmoniously integrating with the surrounding character. Nor am I satisfied that the addition maintains the significance of the heritage place. I do not accept the Applicant's evidence that, to the extent that it is visible from the public domain, the addition is in keeping with the varied character, materials and built form of this locality. Contrary to this statement, the built form in Murchison Street is remarkably cohesive and is one of the reasons for its inclusion within a Heritage Overlay. What variation does exist within the streetscape is generally sympathetic in scale, style and/or appearance to the Inter-war dwelling stock. The same cannot be said for the addition. In my view, the visible portion of the addition will have the appearance of a jarring and incongruent element which is not respectful of the area's valued heritage. My conclusion is that the development does not achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with the policies of the Planning Scheme, and that it does not meet the purposes of the Heritage Overlay.
[2]
For the reasons set out above, I will affirm the decision of the Council and direct that no permit is granted.
[3]
[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.
[4]
[4] An Incorporated Document to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
[5]
[5] Clause 22.04 defines 'Significant heritage places' as including buildings and surrounds that are individually important places of either State, regional or local heritage significance or are places that together within an identified area are part of the significance of a Heritage Overlay.
[6]
[6] These setbacks would increase if a potential boundary re-alignment occurs which would increase the width of the lot from 15.33 metres to 16.47 metres.
[7]
[7] Refer to National Trust of Australia Victoria v Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurances Society Ltd (1976) VR592 and SalmalConstructions Pty Ltd v E H Richards & D Richards and City of Hobsons Bay 22AATR 339
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Martin
Respondent/Defendant:
Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 787
Cases Cited (1)
Martin v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 787 (6 May 2011)