News - 19 June 2010 - Neighbouring house looks set for demolition
This story from The POST newspaper suggest that owners of houses near The Cliffe are also now looking for demolition permits for homes without any plans for redevlopment....
The Post Newspaper – 19 June 2010
New home sparks heritage fall-out
A century-old house that its owners fear will be put in the shade by an enormous new riverfront home in Peppermint Grove is at the centre of an argument over the suburb’s heritage.
The fed-up owners of the two-storey 1910 house now want sell up and move out, and before they go they want a demolition permit for their house.
But the house is in the top category of the municipal heritage list.
It is one of the oldest surviving pre-World War I houses on The Esplanade, a council staff report says.
The owners say the council has not previously denied demolition, the house has lost its heritage value, and refusal would create a precedent.
But councillors say most local people want to preserve their heritage homes, especially those in the top category.
The house is next door to a vacant site at 10 The Esplanade, where approval was recently given for a new home for Barry Patterson, chairman of Sonic Healthcare (POST, 22/10).
Number 12 has had associations with several Peppermint Grove families over nine decades, according to the report.
Category 1 houses are important to the shire’s cultural heritage values on one of its primary streets, it says.
It says Cat 1 buildings should be retained, as their character creates the atmosphere of Peppermint Grove.
Houses can be altered and extended in a discreet way so that a significant part of the original building is retained, it says.
“This (demolition) application is very important to us,” owner Terry Walsh, a retired Supreme Court judge, told a council committee meeting this week.
“We don’t wish to demolish or intend to demolish. We intend to put the house on the market – perhaps next week.
“We don’t have any intention of demolishing this house ourselves. At our age it would be ridiculous.”
He said the couple wanted to put the house on the market with its demolition approval in place to maximise the value of the 1680sq.m block.
It would be important to give a buyer the option of demolishing and hopefully some buyer would want to keep it, Mr Walsh said.
The larger block next door sold for $4.5 million in 1999.
“From a heritage point of view I don’t think the house has a very great significance,” he said.
“There are houses all around that have been demolished. Why is a precedent being set? Our house is not a heritage house by any stretch of the imagination.”
He said it had diminished heritage value because it had been modified inside and out. Tuck-pointing had been painted over, internal walls demolished and open plan kitchen and dining areas created. At the back, two bedrooms had been turned into one and a rear kitchen taken out.
“The whole house has been radically changed, both from the streetscape and internally,” Mr Walsh said.
“Our house is cold and uncomfortable. It is not in accordance with what people want these days.”
He said under the planning code, new houses were permitted to cast a shadow over 25% of a neighbour’s block. The Patterson house will cast a shadow over 23.6% of the Walsh block.
“That 23.6% is where we live, where the sun comes into the family room and bedroom. It does affect us,” he said.
“It’s going to be very cold when it’s 23.6% in shade.
“The bottom of the (new neighbours’) garage comes up to our roof – then there are two storeys on top of that.
“In any event we feel that the law says we are entitled to demolition approval.
“There is nothing unusual about demolishing an old house in Peppermint Grove – as far as I know, none has been opposed.”
The council has obtained legal advice on the issue but cannot release it. From comments made by councillors at this week’s meeting. It appears the council legal advice disagrees with Mr Walsh’s opinion.
“Further down The Esplanade there is not much left in the way of heritage houses,” Mr Walsh said.
“If the council refuses permission it means that we are going to put the council and ourselves to considerable legal expense.
“A fair hearing will not necessitate us going to the State Administrative Tribunal to get an order. It’s a path we don’t want to take, but if we have to, we will.”
Councillor Karen Farley said: “We don’t get applications of this nature this very often. People want to preserve heritage homes.”
She said new owners of the house could themselves apply for a demolition permit, and this would be considered on its merits, along with an application for a new house on the site.
Councillor Rachel Thomas said: “The argument appears to have changed to an economic hardship argument.
“We should consider if the heritage values are so significant as to warrant refusal.”
Category 2 houses had been demolished, not Category 1, she said.
She said owners of heritage houses could get matching funding for restoration.
Committee chairman Dominic Ward said the new heights would make little difference to the shade on the house.
The committee rejected a recommendation that the council refuse planning permission for demolition, and instead voted to defer the application until it had arranged for a heritage assessment of the house.
