The application for review is dismissed. No permit must issue.

Mr Garry Scott represented himself and, with authorisation, Catherine Ho and Tony Hallam.

Part demolition and the construction of alterations and extensions to an existing dwelling in a Heritage Overlay

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Camberwell Conservation Study (1991) - Development Guidelines (reference document)

Cl 43.01-1 permit required for demolition and the construction of buildings and works under the Heritage Overlay.

I inspected the site and surroundings prior to and after the hearing.

I was provided with an extensive array of photographs of the site and the surrounding area together with plans and policy guideline documents.

1. At the hearing, Mr Scott, a resident objector living at No 6 Victoria Road, submitted that he had not received the expert report prepared by Mr Robert Sands, a heritage expert witness for the proponent, that this was contrary to proper Tribunal practice and that he was accordingly disadvantaged in preparing his case.
2. I provided time for Mr Scott to study the report and indicate if he was prepared to continue with his submissions at the hearing. Following consideration he indicated that while he was prepared to make submissions at the hearing he requested further time to give more detailed consideration to Mr Sands report and to make further submissions.
3. With the agreement of the other parties I determined to issue an interim order providing that Mr Scott could make further submissions by 17 October 2008 in relation to Mr Sands report and that the proponent be given an opportunity to respond to these submissions by 31 October 2008.
4. My interim order was issued on 3 October 2008.

1. The main elements of the proposal involve:
   • Demolition of the rear section of the main roof together with the two rear existing Victorian chimneys, some internal partition walls and part of the rear external wall.
   • Substantial rearrangement of the internal ground floor accommodation to extend the master bedroom with walk-in robe and ensuite, the provision of a rumpus room, home theatre, an extension of the living area together with a new stairwell for access to the upper floor.
   • The construction of an upper floor extension of some 120 sq.m comprising two bedrooms each with walk-in robe and ensuite, and a large playroom/study with access to an external balcony
2. The proposals are well illustrated in the plans prepared by N H Webb Architects which are attached to the Tribunal file.

1. The subject site is located on the south side of Victoria Road and on the western corner of Avoca Street. It contains a single storey rendered Victorian villa (Loddon villa) which is graded D2 in the Camberwell Conservation Study and was built around 1890. Vehicle access is from Avoca Street to a relatively new double garage sited on the southern boundary.
2. The dwelling contains an open plan kitchen living area with family room, separate formal living room, four bedrooms and two bathrooms.
3. To the north, south and east are single storey brick dwellings all of which are graded D2 in the above Heritage Study. To the west is a single storey dwelling of much later construction, which has no assigned heritage value and is used as a dental surgery. The rear part of the surgery site is an open car park.
4. The subject site is included in the Prospect Hill Road Heritage Precinct (HO159) which is described in the Heritage Policy, Clause 22.05 as Camberwell's most intact and distinguished concentration of late Victorian and Federation building stock.

1. The proposal was refused by Council prior to advertising for the following reasons
   • The part demolition of the existing heritage fabric is inappropriate and will adversely impact on the significance of the heritage place
   • The proposed addition is not in accordance with Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy and the Camberwell Conservation Study 1991, which discourage visible additions.
   • The proposal is contrary to the purposes and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay.
2. Ms Flint stated that in issuing that refusal Council was cognisant of the fact that discussions had been held with Council officers and Council's Heritage Adviser, Mr Graeme Butler, and that the concerns expressed in these discussions and the suggestions offered had not been taken up by the proponent.
3. Following the lodging of the application to review council's decision, the Tribunal directed advertising to adjoining properties and objections were received relating to
   • building bulk and height
   • overlooking
   • failure to address the impact on Avoca Street
   • lack of compliance with the Heritage Policy.

1. It was generally agreed that as this was an application within a Heritage Overlay the key policy elements of relevance are Clause 15.11- Heritage, Clause 43.01-Heritage Overlay, Clause 22.05- Heritage Policy, Clause 65 General guidelines and the proposed revisions to Clause 22.05 contained in Amendment C66 which, at the time of hearing, had been adopted by Council following an independent panel report and forwarded to the Minister for Planning for determination.
2. Amendment C66 has since been approved by the Minister and thus now forms an integral part of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. Because of its recent approval I believe it important to set out the key revised provisions of the scheme as they relate to this proposal.
3. Key objectives of the Heritage Policy are set out in Clause 22.05-2 and include:

To encourage the retention and conservation of all 'significant' and 'contributory' heritage places in the Heritage Overlay.

To consider the cultural heritage significance described in the statement of significance for any heritage place as part of the design process of any proposal and when making decisions about proposed buildings and works associated with that place.

1. The statement of significance for the Prospect Hill Precinct includes the following:

The areas north of the railway line comprise a generally intact collection of late Victorian and Federation houses, all very well designed and with a high level of integrity to their gardens and street appearance. The precinct is one of the most intact and homogenous estates of this type in Melbourne, rivalling the Central Park Stanhope Street region in Malvern and the other leading Boroondara concentrations of this period, the Grace Park Estate in Hawthorn (HO152) and the Barry Street Precinct in Kew (HO143). It is the foremost precinct of combined late Victorian-Federation building stock in the former Camberwell municipality.

Many late Victorian and Federation houses in this area have been custom-designed, giving the precinct a distinct identity (this is particularly true for areas north of Prospect Hill Road). The area as a whole is marked by a general cohesion in scale, address of the streets, property dimensions, materials and detailing and fence height. Though there are variations, the streets have a general uniformity in their mature street tree coverage, basalt kerbs and pitching, asphalt foot paving, and driveway width. Within the general precinct heavy traffic volumes have been kept to four streets in three axes: Stanhope Grove-Trafalgar Road, Prospect Hill Road, and Broadway West. The Read Gardens, a small but mature park, is a central focal point.

The north-western section of the Prospect Hill Precinct, the former Tara Estate (bounded by the south side of Canterbury Road, the east side of Loch Street, the south side of the Broadway and the western edge of HO159), (my emphasis) is Camberwell's most intact and distinguished concentration of Victorian and Edwardian building stock. It was developed from 1890 following the subdivision of the land around John O'Shannessy's residence, Tara (1859, now 2 Berwick Street). The area has a high level of visual cohesion and period expression, deriving from its consistency of scale, form, materials and siting. Many buildings within the Estate are of individual distinction, having been custom-designed in variations on the prevailing Italianate and Federation styles. This area also features some interwar development.

1. The Heritage Policy includes as a reference document the Schedule of Gradings in Heritage Precincts (2006) and No 4 Victoria Road is identified in that document as a 'contributory' heritage place.
2. Clause 22.05-3 goes on to set out a range of matters for consideration in relation to proposals which involve demolition, alteration and/or addition to 'significant' and 'contributory' places and I will deal with these in may assessment below.

1. The Prospect Hill Road Precinct, and particularly that part identified as the former Tara Estate has been clearly identified as having major heritage significance in the Boroondara context and its highly intact nature is clearly visible from the range of photographs provided and my site inspections.
2. In this context, it should be noted that Nos 1, 2-4 and 6-8 Avoca Street are also listed as 'contributory ' places, No 3 Victoria Street opposite the subject site is listed as a 'significant ' heritage place and No 6 Victoria Road, the residence of Mr Scott, is designated as a 'contributory' place.
3. In my view, the above combination of factors means that, in terms of heritage values, the 'bar is set quite high' and I have concluded for the reasons set out below that the current proposal fails to meet the tests necessary to achieve the purposes and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 and the key provisions of the Heritage Policy and its related guidelines.
4. In terms of 'demolition' clause 22.05 provides that the responsible authority may:
   • Permit partial demolition of 'significant' or 'contributory' heritage places for the purpose of additions and alterations if the additions and alterations will not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of the place and the proposed addition or alteration is in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
   • Permit partial demolition to remove non-original and non-contributory additions to heritage places in line with the conservation provisions of this policy
5. The Development Guidelines provide that

...if the building is valued D in Level 1 or 2 Streetscape (Victoria Road and Avoca Streets are Level 2) then only the parts which are not visible from the street should be permitted to be demolished.

1. While it was agreed that the bay window extension to the rear of the subject dwelling was not original, the roof and chimneys to be demolished were part of the original house and are clearly visible from Avoca Street and to a lesser extent from Victoria Road.
2. Mr Butler's advice to Council was that their demolition would detract from the contribution of the property to the heritage place. Mr Sands on the other hand suggested that principal roof component towards the front of the building was to be retained and that the two chimneys involved were secondary in value and thus the demolition would not detract from the significance of the heritage place.
3. Although Mr Butler was not available for cross-examination I support his view. The fact that the two rear chimneys have less ornamentation does not detract from their contribution; on the contrary, Mr Sands agreed that it was common Victorian architectural practice to decrease the level of ornamentation in buildings towards the rear. I also note that the Development Guidelines provide further support for refusal in their emphasis on the importance of the rooflines in creating the rhythm of streetscapes in Victorian and Edwardian Era housing.[1]
4. Thus the demolition proposal is inconsistent with both Clause 22.05 and the Development Guidelines.
5. As indicated above, the scheme does provide that demolition may be acceptable where new proposals contribute to the achievement of conservation objectives. In this case, however, I find that the proposed additions themselves do not satisfy the objectives of the Heritage Policy or the Development Guidelines.
6. The provisions relating to additions to contributory building seek to ensure that such additions
   • Should not change the principal façade or principal visible roof forms of the heritage place.
   • Should be designed in a manner that responds to, is respectful of, and is compatible with the built form and architectural treatment of the heritage place.
7. Where upper level additions are proposed the scheme provides that they should
   • ...be sited and massed behind the principal façade and principal visible roof forms so they are not visible from the street

For corner sites, the sight line is taken from the primary street frontage. All additions visible from other street frontages should be distinct from, and read as a secondary element to, the heritage place

If your building is contributory only (Value D) additions can be visible but must be visually related to the original building and not dominant in scale.

1. They further provide that
   • Building form should be respectful
   • ...
   • New building façade height and setback recessive to adjoining A-D buildings
2. Mr Iles relies on Mr Sands view that because this building is graded 'D' it is not of individual significance but contributory to the area as a whole and he affirms that the case for the applicant relies on the distinction between primary and secondary frontages.
3. Mr Iles and Mr Sands attempted to suggest that because the new additions would only be partly visible from Victoria Road they could be considered recessive and therefore acceptable. Mr Sands submitted that the proposal was understated and sympathetic solution to a difficult problem.
4. I disagree. It is necessary to consider the proposal as a whole and its relationship to the immediate vicinity and the objectives of the precinct as a whole.
5. An examination of the Schedule of Gradings makes it clear that the vast majority of buildings in the Precinct are also 'contributory' but the Statement of Significance of the Precinct emphasises its intactness, homogeneity and cohesion of scale and it is this aggregated effect which is important.
6. Given that all adjoining properties in Avoca Street and Victoria Road within HO159 are 'contributory' and therefore an important component of the Precinct as a whole, the proposal needs to show respect to those elements.
7. I find that the plans provided with the application clearly demonstrate that the upper storey extension will be visible to a substantial degree from Victoria Road although well recessed. However, the full extent of the addition is such as to create a dominating element in the Avoca Street Streetscape. Although Clause 22.05 provides that additions visible from streets other than the frontage should be read as a secondary element to the heritage place, this does not imply that these views are unimportant.
8. The existing wall on the Avoca Street frontage is 1.4m from the boundary and this will be extended for the major part of the upper floor extension to a wall height of at least 6.02m. While the northern section will be broken up by the retention of the existing roof form for the ground floor, the northern and southern ends of the upper floor extension will only be slightly recessed by 0.6m.

1. In overall terms the proposal is simply too large and overbearing.
2. I do not believe that the proposal is an acceptable outcome in terms of the planning scheme provisions, policies and guidelines. It requires a fresh approach.
3. Accordingly I will dismiss the application for review and direct that no permit issue.

[1] Camberwell Conservation Study 1991- Development Guidelines p 3 - ROOF FORM