Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd v Singleton Shire Council

Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd v Singleton Shire Council - [2010] NSWLEC 1047 - NSWLEC 2009 case summary — Zoe

[12]

Ground floor hairdressing salon, first floor residential (two storey portion of the site) Imposing two storey façade with restrained brick work articulation at top of parapet and simple plaster stucco design above, possibly not the original building. As with other portions of the site, window treatments are not very sympathetic to original configurations. 5 The site adjoins the former Mechanics Institute (74 George Street) to the south and is opposite the former Patrick Plains Shire Council (corner Macquarie and George Streets). Both buildings are listed as heritage items of regional significance under Singleton Local Environmental Plan 1996 (LEP 1996). A number of buildings near the site along George Street are listed as local heritage items and the former Post Office (27 George Street and Ewebank (88 George Street) are listed as heritage items of State significance. 6 The site is within the Singleton Heritage Conservation Area. The part of George Street where the site is located is characterised by one and two storey commercial buildings, which are built either to or set back from the street alignment. Planning controls 7 The site is in Zone 3 (Business Zone) under Singleton Local Environmental Plan 1996. The proposal is permissible with consent. 8 Clause 16(3) of LEP 1996 provides: Except as otherwise provided by this plan, the Council shall not grant consent to the carrying out of development on land to which this plan applies unless the Council is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with one or more of the objectives of the zone within which the development is proposed to be carried out. 9 The objectives of Zone 3 (Business Zone) are: (a) to provide for commerce, retailing, offices and other similar commercial development and services in suitable locations, (b) to maintain and enhance the character and amenity of commercial areas, to promote good urban design and to retain heritage values where appropriate. 10 The site is in the vicinity of a number of heritage items identified in LEP 1996. Clause 27 provides: The Council shall not grant consent to development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item unless it has made an assessment of the effect the carrying out of that development will have on the heritage significance of the item and its setting. 11 The site is within a Heritage Conservation Area under LEP 1996. Clause 28(3) states: When determining a development application required by this clause, the Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. 12 Cl 32 of LEP 1996 applies to development along major roads including the George Street. Cl 32(2) provides

[24]

The single storey element of the existing structure has little if any aesthetic heritage value. The very poor physical condition of both the single and two storey structures is agreed to have reduced the buildings to a non viable economic prospect for renovation. This, coupled with the extent of modifications made over time to both single and two storey structures are agreed to have rendered them to a situation in which demolition is justifiable. The only point of difference between Dr Pollard and Ms Azzi in regard to the existing structures is that Pollard considered the two storey element to contribute positively to the overall streetscape - largely by virtue of its textures and generally vertical character. The existing two storey building's height was considered by him to assist in the streetscape., as it offered something of a visual "step" to the grander scaled Mechanics Institute building adjacent. In this regard Pollard considered that a new structure incorporating some taller element would be preferable to the informally low scale new building. In the applicant's Statement of Heritage Impact, p14 the two storey section of the existing building has lost most of its heritage significance due to the alterations and additions over time, but due to the surviving dentil detailing to the upper gable facing George Street and the surviving chimney top it was assessed as having low local significance. However the value of its contribution when weighed against the poor condition of the structure was considered by Dr Pollard to be insufficient as to require retention of the structure. 21 Dr Pollard's main concern was the replacement infill building as originally proposed (exhibit A) as he did not consider it would have an acceptable impact on the significance of the conservation area for three main reasons: the proposal should be setback to provide greater visibility of the former Mechanics Building and reflect the change in the grid pattern occurring on the corner, the materials and detailing of the proposal are not adequate, and the landscaping and vista to the former Patrick Plains Shire Council building along Kent Street. 22 During the hearing the heritage experts prepared a further joint report (exhibit 10), which outlined agreed principles for an amended design that sought to address the concerns about the original proposal. 23 The amended application was renotified and a number of submissions were received which reiterated the concerns of the original proposal. Dr Pollard and Ms Azzi prepared a further joint report and generally agreed that the amended proposal was acceptable subject to some further minor amendments, which have been incorporated into conditions.

[36]

Overall, the quality of the construction of the building and extensions is generally poor and details of the existing foundations are unknown. On this basis, we consider that any refurbishment and/or upgrading of the existing structures could not be certified to comply with current Structural Engineering and Building Code of Australia Standards. 27 It is not unusual that a pre-1900s building may not meet current standards. I do not accept that it would not be feasible to upgrade the building to meet these standard but the question is whether it is reasonable to do so given the likely costs and the significance of the building. Council did not raise issue with the Structural Report and I accept Dr Pollard's evidence that while the two storey element contributes to the Singleton Conservation Area, its contribution when weighed against the poor condition of the structure is insufficient to require retention of the structure. 28 The question then becomes whether the replacement building will have an acceptable impact on the Singleton Conservation Area and the heritage items in the vicinity. The experts have agreed that the amended proposal is generally acceptable, although Dr Pollard maintained his concern about the setback to George Street. 29 I am satisfied that the form of the building is appropriate in the streetscape, which contains a mixture of one and two storey buildings with no consistent building setback to the street alignment. The single storey scale of the building will provide views of the former Mechanics Institute building and is similar in scale to the single storey building, which adjoins the former Mechanics Institute building to its south (76 George Street). The proposal is built to the street alignment. While I acknowledge Dr Pollard's opinion that the proposal could be setback from George Street to open up the corner and provide views of the former Mechanics Institute building, I accept that the proposal maintains the alignment of the existing building and has a similar setback to 76 George Street. The former Mechanics Institute building is setback further from the street and lined by two side laneways. This arrangement frames the former Mechanics Institute building and I accept Ms Azzi's opinion that this maintains the existing historical relationship between the site and the former Mechanics Institute and is appropriate in the streetscape. 30 The original proposal was tilt up slab construction, which Dr Pollard considered would not achieve appropriate detail or be characteristic of the Singleton Conservation Area. The proposal has been amended to be brick construction in different colours or rendered with details such as exposed downpipes and recessed faux windows. It is important that the colours, materials and details indicated on the plans (exhibit D) are implemented in the construction of the building and a condition is imposed to require this. There are also no details of the windows and doors on the George Street façade or the faux windows (decorative fillet lines) so a condition has been included which requires these details to be submitted for approval. 31 DCP 2009 identifies that views along Kent Street to the former Patrick Plains Shire Council are important to maintain. The proposed building does not obscure any views of this building. The rear of the site is currently vacant and unsightly. This area will be used for parking and as the drive though area for the bottle shop. The experts agreed that, subject to satisfactory landscaping, the view to former Patrick Plains Shire Council would be acceptable. A condition had been imposed to require planting of trees on the site and within the front planting area to screen and soften the parking area and the view to the former Patrick Plains Shire building. 32 The experts agreed that proper integration of signage into the building is important to the streetscape and is a requirement of DCP 2009. During the hearing they indicated appropriate location for signage (exhibit 16) but no details or size of the signage were specified. Due to the lack of detail I have not incorporated this as part of the approval and a condition has been imposed that a further signage strategy is required to be submitted for approval, which provides details of the signage. Clearly, an illuminated sign box projecting from the façade of the building would not be appropriate and any signage that faces or is viewed together with the former Mechanics Institute building should be carefully considered. 33 The proposal, if implemented in accordance with the conditions, will have an acceptable impact on the Singleton Conservation Area and the heritage items in the vicinity and meets the requirements of LEP 1996 and DCP 2009.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (161 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)