1. In application P199/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2. In planning permit application PLN23/0382 no permit is granted.

L Rigoni, town planner, Terrain Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a two-storey dwelling.

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

Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 1, Yarra Residential Areas

Heritage Overlay - Schedule 317, Clifton Hill Western Precinct ('HO317')

Development Contributions Plan Overlay - Schedule 1, Yarra Development Contributions Plan

Cl. 43.01-1 (demolition; construction of a building; and the construction and carrying out of works on land in HO317)

The subject land is located on the corner of Turnbull Street and Hodgkinson Street in Clifton Hill. It is an irregular lot with a 10.071 metre frontage, a 25.72 metre sideage and a site area of 372 square metres. It is occupied by a single-storey brick dwelling dating from the 1970s/1980s. To the south-east a two-storey dwelling is under construction. To the south-west is a lane, beyond which is a single-storey Victorian dwelling fronting Hodgkinson Street. On the opposite side of Hodgkinson Street is a single-storey Victorian dwelling, while to the north-west, on the opposite side of Turnbull Street are Mayors Park and the Collingwood Leisure Centre.

1. This proceeding concerns a proposal to demolish the existing dwelling on the subject land and construct a two-storey dwelling in its place. The Yarra City Council ('council') refused a planning permit on grounds which refer to an unacceptable siting and design and consequential adverse effect on the significance of the heritage place.
2. The applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the council's decision.
3. Prior to the hearing the applicant prepared and circulated amended plans of the proposed development. In summary, the amendments generally comprise increased setbacks from boundaries (with the exception of the south-western boundary); increased depths of the balcony and porch; provision of a separate roof form for the balcony; and alterations to windows.
4. On the basis of the amended plans, council and Mr Allen no longer oppose the grant of a permit. The 3068 Group Inc. and Burns Goodman Super Pty Ltd maintain their position that a permit should not be granted. They do not consider the proposed development represents an acceptable response to its heritage context.
5. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme ('Planning Scheme'), I have determined to affirm council's decision and refuse a permit. My reasons follow.
6. Heritage Overlay Schedule 317, Clifton Hill Western Precinct ('HO317'), gives statutory recognition to locality's heritage values. Its purpose includes:
   • To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
   • To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
7. A decision guideline at clause 43.01-8 requires consideration of any applicable statement of significance. In this instance, the relevant statement of significance is documented in the 'City of Yarra Review of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007 Updated March 2013'.[2] The main development period evident in the precinct is identified as being the Victoria era with a substantial contribution from the Edwardian period. The contribution from some well-preserved inter-war buildings and individually significant places of all eras is also noted.
8. Under the heading 'Contributory elements', the statement of significance reads:

Contributory buildings are typically (but not exclusively) detached and attached Victorian-era and Edwardian-era mainly one-storey houses having:

• Expressed pitched gabled or hipped roofs, with some façade parapets;
• Mainly one storey wall heights but with some two storey house rows;
• Weatherboard, face brick (red, bichrome and polychrome), or stucco walls;
• Corrugated iron roof cladding, Marseilles pattern terra-cotta tiles, with some slate roofing;
• Chimneys of either stucco finish (with moulded caps) or of matching face brickwork with corbelled capping courses;
• Typically with post-supported verandah elements facing the street, set out on two levels as required with cast-iron detailing;
• Less than 40% of the street wall face comprised with openings such as windows and doors; and
• Front gardens, originally bordered by typically timber picket front fences of around 1m height; and
• Corner shops and residences with display windows and zero boundary setbacks.

1. As observed in submissions, the streetscape of Hodgkinson Street has a more intact heritage character than Turnbull Street, with the majority of buildings identified as being contributory to the heritage place. Buildings date predominantly from the Victorian era and display the elements identified in the statement of significance. These include, but are not limited to, hipped roofs and parapets, face brick, post-supported verandahs facing the street and facades where solid wall prevails over openings. The street comprises primarily single-storey dwelling with some examples of two-storey dwellings present.
2. Turnbull Street in the vicinity of the subject land is less intact but nonetheless has an evident heritage character. Dwellings in the streetscape include those dating from the Victorian era, with some infill from later periods. Non-contributory buildings are also present.
3. The demolition of the existing building is acceptable given it is non-contributory. Policy at clause 15.03-1L seeks to prevent the demolition of individually significant and contributory buildings, subject to specified criteria or considerations. The policy does not seek to prevent the demolition of non-contributory buildings. The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place, being a decision guideline at clause 43.01-8 of the Heritage Overlay.
4. In respect of new development, it is policy to promote development that is a high quality and respectful in its design response by:
   • Maintaining the heritage character of the existing building or streetscape.
   • Respecting the scale and massing of the existing heritage building or streetscape.
   • Retaining the pattern and grain of streetscapes in heritage places.
   • Not visually dominating the existing heritage building or streetscape.
   • Not detracting from or competing with the significant elements of the existing heritage building or streetscape.
   • Maintaining the prominence of significant and contributory elements of the heritage place.
   • Respecting the following elements of the heritage place:
     • - Pattern, proportion and spacing of elements on an elevation.
     • - Orientation to the street.
     • - Setbacks.
     • - Street wall.
     • - Relationship between solid and void.
     • - Roof form.
     • - Chimneys.
     • - Verandahs and canopies.
     • - Materials.
   • Being visually recessive against the heritage fabric through:
     • - Siting.
     • - Mass.
     • - Scale.
     • - Materials.
     • - Architectural detailing.
     • - Texture, colours and finishes.
5. Specifically in respect of residential infill development, it is policy to site buildings to match the setback of the principal façade of adjoining heritage buildings; ensure development is consistent with prevailing side setbacks and building spacing and with height relative to the surrounding context; and encourage development to reflect the prevailing roof pitch and form.
6. The decision guidelines at clause 43.01-8 include 'whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place'; and 'whether the location, bulk form or appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of the heritage place'.
7. When considered against these decision guidelines and assessed against policy, the proposed dwelling does not represent an acceptable heritage outcome within its context.
8. Being situated on a corner of two relatively wide streets and opposite a public open space area, the subject land is highly visible, both within the immediate surrounds and from further afield. The rear abuttal to a lane that intersects with Hodgkinson Street contributes a further degree of visibility from the public realm. The dwelling will be prominent in both streetscapes and in views from Mayors Park. Its impact on the heritage place is greater than would be the case if it were situated in a mid-block location, where surrounding development would moderate its visibility.
9. The front setback is some 3.2 metres forward of the nearest contributory building at 13 Turnbull Street. While confined to the ground floor level, with the upper-level façade recessed a further 2.7 metres to provide a balcony, the setback represents a siting that is not sufficiently respectful of the contributory buildings in the streetscape.
10. Council and the applicant submitted that justification for the proposed setback is derived from the siting of the existing dwelling on the subject land and from the dwelling that existed on the land prior to that. The existing dwelling is a modest single-storey form of a different character to what is proposed. It has a more articulated façade with modulation as a consequence of variable setbacks. It includes a verandah element and a variety of roof forms. Its siting and massing cannot reasonably be compared to that of the proposal. References to the original Victorian era dwelling that existed historically on the land do not support the proposal. In circumstances where several decades have passed since the building was demolished, there is no ability to appreciate or understand any comparison between its siting and what is proposed.
11. The impact of the siting is accentuated by the absence of a verandah form and the positioning of the balcony above. Although the amended plans introduced a separate roof form above the balcony to reduce the mass and extent of the overall roof form, it does not alleviate the prominence arising from the modest front setback, in combination with the solid brick corner pier extending for the two storey height.
12. The statement of significance identifies post-supported verandahs as elements of contributory buildings. Such verandahs are evident, and common, in both Turnbull Street and Hodgkinson Street. It is policy that development respects these elements.
13. Council and the applicant submitted that the corner entry porch and the balcony above reflect the verandahs displayed by heritage buildings. Although this may be the intent, the development does not represent an outcome that references these verandahs in any meaningful or legible manner. The porch reads as typical entry porch and is confined to the corner of the building, in contrast to the verandahs of contributory building that extend the width of the façade. It is not reflective of a verandah in size, form, design or appearance.
14. Attention was drawn to the development under construction on the adjoining land. That development has what appears to be a contemporary expression of a two-storey terrace, with the first-floor balcony enclosed by 'wing walls'. It was argued that the proposal will have a greater permeability and a lesser visual impact as the balcony is not enclosed. Comments were also made regarding the approved construction materials, colours and finishes for that development, which I will refer to below. While that development will form part of the site's context, policy at clause 15.03-1L discourages the use of atypical buildings to determine the appropriate siting, form an appearance of new development in the context of its surrounds. According to policy, the assessment of this proposal should be in the context of the contributory buildings of the heritage place.
15. In the surrounds of the subject land, there are no contributory buildings of the form and scale of what is proposed. The nearest examples are two-storey Victorian terraces further to the north-west along Hodgkinson Street. These are removed from the subject land and do not have a notable influence on its built form context nor is there a meaningful visual relationship that would provide an understanding of the design response. This is particularly so, given the design does not display any evident cues or elements reflective of those terraces, including in the highly exposed side elevation to Hodgkinson Street.
16. Within its heritage context, the development should be respectful of the prevailing single-storey heritage buildings. In combination, the absence of a front verandah; a front setback that is not keeping with that of the nearest contributory building; the absence of a recessed first-floor level; and an uncharacteristic side elevation manifest a siting, scale and massing of the dwelling is not visually recessive in the context of surrounding heritage fabric.
17. Accentuating the unacceptable contrast with the heritage context is the extensive first-floor glazing in the front elevation, which does not reflect or respond to the solid-to-void ratio which characterises the contributory buildings.
18. Further contrast is displayed by the selection of cream/tan face brickwork as the predominant wall material. As detailed in the statement of significance, a characteristic of contributory buildings is red, bichrome or polychromatic brickwork. The development does not display this material. The selected brick finish will add to the building's prominence and incongruity within its context. It will not result in the building being visually recessive against the heritage fabric in the locality, rather, it will act to draw attention to itself by virtue of is divergence from the prevailing brick finishes displayed by the contributory heritage stock.

1. For these reasons, 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] A Background Document at schedule 1 to clause 72.08.