VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference Nos. P783/2023, P785/2023 & P867/2023
Permit Application no.  PDPL/01350/2021	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – Port Phillip Planning Scheme – Heritage Overlay (Schedule 442) – significant graded building – part demolition – alterations and additions – sightlines – clause 15.03-1L	
 
ApplicantS		

P783/2023	Judith Solomon & John Slattery	
P785/2023	David Fetterplace	
P867/2023	Elham Williams	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Port Phillip City Council	

Respondents		
P783/2023	Elham Williams	
P785/2023	Elham Williams	
P867/2023	David Fetterplace	

SUBJECT LAND	16 Reed Street
ALBERT PARK VIC 3206	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	13 & 20 February 2024	
DATE OF ORDER	8 May 2024	

CITATION	Solomon v Port Phillip CC [2024] VCAT 420	

OrderS
Application P867/2023 
1	By agreement, application P867/2023 is withdrawn.  
Application P783/2023 and P785/2023
Permit granted
2	In application PDPL/01350/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is varied.
3	In planning permit application PDPL/01350/2021 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 16 Reed Street, Albert Park, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows the following:
•	Clause 43.01-1 – Part demolition
•	Clause 43.01-1 – Construction of buildings and works 
•	Clause 43.01-1 – External alterations
•	Clause 43.01-1 – External painting

Cassandra Rea
Member	

Appearances
For Judith Solomon & John Slattery (P783/2023 Applicant)
For David Fetterplace (P785/2023 Applicant and P867/2023 Respondent)	Hamish Balzan, Senior Urban Planner, Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd
In person	
For Elham Williams (P867/2023 Applicant, P783/2023 Respondent and P785/2023 Respondent)	Andrew Clarke, Director, Clarke Planning Pty Ltd	
For Port Phillip City Council	Anita Rozankovic-Stevens, Major Projects and Appeals Advisor	

Information
Description of proposal	The application seeks the part demolition of a significant-graded heritage building and construction of alterations and additions to existing dwelling, including solar panels. 	
Nature of proceeding	Applications P783/2023 & P785/2023 
Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the decision to grant a permit. 
Application P867/2023
Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the conditions contained in the permit.	
Planning scheme	Port Phillip Planning Scheme 	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – schedule 1 
Heritage Overlay – schedule 442	
Permit requirements	Clause 43.01-1 – Part demolition
Clause 43.01-1 – Construction of buildings and works 
Clause 43.01-1 – Domestic services, if visible from the street
Clause 43.01-1 – External alterations
Clause 43.01-1 – External painting	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 15.03-1S and 15.03-1L and 43.01	
Land description	The subject site is located on the south side of Reed Street between Pickles Street and Foote Street.
The frontage is 10.06 metres and side boundary lengths of 42.25 metres, with an overall area of approximately 425 square metres.
A single storey Victorian dwelling with several outbuildings is currently on the land.
Vehicle access is via Cameron Place. 	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied, 10 February 2024  	

Reasons
What are these proceedings about?
1	These proceedings relate to a proposal to partially demolish parts of the existing significant-graded heritage dwelling and construct an extension to the dwelling.
2	Port Phillip Council (‘Council’) has issued a Notice of Decision to Grant Planning Permit PDPL/01350/2021 (‘NOD’). 
3	Two applications have been lodged by the owners of 14 and 18 Reed Street, Albert Park (P783/2023 and P785/2023) to review the decision of the Council. 
4	The ground the owners of 14 Reed Street, Albert Park seeks to rely upon:
The proposal fails to provide an acceptable built form outcome and is not in accordance with Clause 15.03 (Heritage) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
5	The grounds the owner of 18 Reed Street, Albert Park seeks to rely upon:
The proposal fails to respond to and respect the heritage context of the neighbouring surrounding development.
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant policy, purposes and requirements of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
6	The permit applicant, as respondent to the above application for review, lodged a review of proposed conditions under section 80(1) (P867/2023) opposing condition 1(a) relating to the setback of the bathroom from the eastern title boundary. 
7	As a preliminary matter, the respondent sought to withdraw the conditions appeal as the condition subject to contest related to a siting requirement. Since the grant of the NOD, Amendment VC243 has modified the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’) and a planning permit is no longer required in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (‘NRZ1’) for the extension of a dwelling.  Consent was granted by all parties to withdraw this proceeding in recognition that the Scheme no longer requires a planning permit under the NRZ1.
8	A planning permit is still required under Heritage Overlay – Schedule 442 (‘HO442’).
What are the key issues?
9	In determining the key issues arising from this proposal, I must decide whether to grant a permit and, if so, what conditions should apply to a permit. I must address whether the permit application will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Scheme.
10	Having regard to the relevant matters under the Heritage Overlay and associated policy provisions, including submissions, supporting material, and documents, put to me by the parties and my inspection of the site and surrounds, I consider the key issues in this matter are:
•	Is the proposed demolition an acceptable heritage outcome?
•	Is the proposed extension to the dwelling and other buildings and works acceptable?
11	In summary, I have determined to vary Council’s decision. As proposed, I find that the proposed extension will impose too greatly on the original significant fabric. I will direct the Council to issue a planning permit with a condition that seeks to align the east and west setbacks of the rumpus room in line with the north-south ridges on each side of the building to be retained so that where the extension sits above the original fabric, it will be centrally sited and partially screened by the existing transverse gable roof.  A further condition will require the rumpus room wall to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from the southern side of the chimneys to create distinct separation between the chimneys to be retained and the new addition behind.
12	The effect of the conditions will assist in retention of more original fabric and further reduce the amount of visibility of the new addition, as viewed from Reed Street, thereby responding to the relevant heritage policy and recognising the significant grading of the building. 
13	I set out my reasons for these findings below.
WHAT IS THE RELEVANT PLANNING CONTEXT?
14	The subject site is located with HO442 which relates to Albert Park Residential Precinct. The site is significant graded. An extract of the grading map is below: 

Above: Figure A. Site identified in bright red showing site as significant and the gradings of nearby properties. 
15	HO442 is bound by Kerferd Road, Beaconsfield Parade, Pickles Street, Nelson Road and Bridport Street. The Statement of Significance (‘Statement’) for HO442, as included in the Port Phillip Heritage Review, states the precinct is of historical, aesthetic and architectural significance to the City of Port Phillip.
16	At section 6.33.6 the following extract identifies ‘What is Significant?’:
The Albert Park Residential Precinct, nominally bounded by Kerferd  Road, Beaconsfield Parade, Pickles Street, Nelson Road and Bridport Street, covers the most intact portion of an area that largely developed from the mid 1870s to the early 1890s. Formerly occupied by low-lying land that was flood prone in parts and elsewhere occupied by a military battery, the area underwent little residential development until military presence with withdrawn and land reclamation commenced in the early 1880s. Today, it remains strongly characterised by late Victorian housing, which demonstrate a broad range of typologies: from the humblest single-fronted timber cottages through to larger villas in brick and timber, to grander double-storey brick terraces and townhouses.
17	The Statement provides the following explanation of ‘Why it is Significant?’:
Historically, the precinct is significant as an early, ambitious and notable attempt to encourage residential development beyond the boundaries of the Emerald Hill township of 1852. The gradual expansion to the south, southeast and southwest of the original settlement, over several successive phases, is significantly demonstrated by the building stock itself. The prominent streets closest to Emerald Hill and St Vincent Place (such as Nelson Road, Cardigan Place, Dundas Place and Park Street) remain strongly characterised by 1870s development, while the more intensive development of the 1880s Boom period is more evident in the smaller streets to the south and south-west. The subsequent infill of Edwardian housing, most notably apparent in the precinct’s south-eastern corner (between Phillipson Street and Kerferd Road), demonstrates the last significant phase of residential settlement in the precinct, concentrated in its outermost edges.
The predominantly residential character is enhanced by a number of contemporaneous non-residential buildings, such as churches, schools and shops, which provide evidence of the expansion of community facilities during the precinct’s key phase period of development over the last three decades of the nineteenth century. 
Aesthetically and architecturally, the precinct is significant for its fine collection of late Victorian dwellings. These demonstrate a range of typical housing types of the 1870s and ‘80s: modest single-storeyed cottages in both timber and brick (mostly concentrated in the south-east and south of the precinct) as well as grander villas, double-storeyed terraces and townhouses (mostly concentrated in the east of the precinct). Although these exist both as cohesive strips (e.g. single rows of terraces or cottages) and as more heterogenous streetscapes (with a mixture of dwelling types), they are nevertheless unified by their closely comparable dates and by their frequently consistent scale, form, materials and detailing. Considered collectively, the late nineteenth century housing in the Albert Park Residential Precinct represents one of the finest, more extensive and most varied collections of 1870s and 1880s dwellings in the City of Port Phillip.
18	HO442 is implemented through Clause 43.01.  The relevant purposes of the Heritage Overlay are:
•	To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
•	To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.
•	To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
19	A permit is required pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 for the following aspects of the application:
•	Part demolition of a building;
•	External painting (retrospective);
•	Construction of external alterations; and
•	Construction of buildings and works, excluding the swimming pool, fences and domestic services not visible from the street.
20	Clause 43.01-8 includes decision guidelines which must be considered, as appropriate, before deciding on an application:
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
•	Any applicable statement of significance (whether or not specified in the schedule to this overlay), heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
•	Any applicable heritage design guideline specified in the schedule to this overlay.
•	Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.
•	Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the location, style, size, colour and materials of the proposed solar energy system will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. 
21	Clause 15.03-1S seeks to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. Relevant strategies include:
•	Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places that are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific or social significance.
•	Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values.
•	Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place.
•	Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements of a heritage place.
•	Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced.
22	The local policy outlined at Clause 15.03-1L (the heritage policy) that applies to all land located within a Heritage Overlay specify the following general strategies:
Conserve and enhance Significant and Contributory buildings as identified in the incorporated document in Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map.’ 
Conservation of heritage places and new development are guided by the statement of significance, the urban context and any relevant documentary or physical evidence.
Encourage high quality, contemporary design responses for new development that respects and complements the heritage place by using a contextual approach that:
•	Responds to and reinforces the contributory features of the heritage place, including:
•	Building height, scale, massing and form.
•	Roof form and materials.
•	Siting, orientation and setbacks.
•	Fenestration and proportion of solid and void features.
•	Details, colours, materials and finishes.
•	Conserves and enhances the setting and views of heritage places.
Maintain the integrity and intactness of heritage places.
Conserve and enhance the significant historic character, intactness and integrity of streetscapes within heritage precincts including:
•	The layering and diversity of historic styles and character where this contributes to the significance of the precinct.
•	The consistency of historic styles and character where this contributes to the significance of the precinct.
Avoid development that would result in the incremental or complete loss of significance of a heritage place by:
•	Demolishing or removing a building or feature identified as Significant or Contributory in the incorporated document in Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map.’
•	Altering, concealing or removing a feature, detail, material or finish that contributes to the significance of the heritage place.
•	Distorting or obscuring the significance of the heritage place by using historic styles and detail where these previously did not exist.
23	Relevant strategies relating to demolition, include:
Prioritise the conservation, restoration or adaption of a heritage place over demolition.
Discourage the complete demolition of any building or feature that contributes to the significance of a heritage place unless the building or feature is structurally unsound and the defects cannot be rectified.
Avoid demolition where it would result in the retention of only the façade and/or external walls of a Significant or Contributory building.
Support demolition of part of a Significant or Contributory building or feature if it will not adversely impact upon the significance of the place and any of the following apply:
•	It will remove an addition or accretion that detracts from the significance of the place.
•	It is associated with an accurate replacement, or reconstruction of the place.
•	It will allow an historic use to continue.
•	It will facilitate a new use that will support the conservation of the building. 
Avoid the demolition of a Significant or Contributory building unless new evidence has become available to demonstrate that the building is not of heritage significance and does not contribute to the heritage place.
24	Relevant to this application are the following conservation strategies:
Encourage the accurate restoration or reconstruction of heritage places to a known earlier state, particularly publicly visible features such as…. Roof materials and details.
Conserve original colour schemes and ensure new colour schemes are appropriate to the architectural style of the building where external paint controls are triggered.
25	Alteration strategies are:
Discourage alterations to:
•	Contributory fabric, the principal façade, roof or any walls or surfaces visible from the public realm including a side street or laneway for Significant and Contributory places.
•	Any feature, detail, material or finish specified in the statement of significance for Significant places.
Support alterations to visible or contributory fabric of Significant or Contributory places if it will not adversely impact upon the significance of the place and any of the following apply:
•	It will allow an historic use to continue.
•	It will facilitate a new use that will support the conservation of the building. 
•	It will improve the environmental performance of the building.
26	Additions strategies are:
Support additions to residential buildings that are:
•	Substantially concealed when viewed at natural eye-level from the opposite side of the street.
27	To assist in the assessment of ‘substantially concealed’ additions, the policy guidelines stipulate sightlines, as follows:
Containing additions to a residential heritage place within the following sightlines:
•	A 10 degree sightline as shown in Figure 3 if the associated building is within a heritage streetscape with a consistent scale, or is a Significant place.

Above: Figure 3. 10-Degree sightline in streets with consistent scale, or a significant place.
•	An 18 degree sightline as shown in Figure 4 if the associated building is within a heritage streetscape with a diverse scale and is not a Significant place.

Above: Figure 4. 18-Degree sightline in streets with diverse scale and not a significant place.
•	A sightline taken from across the street in a narrow street less than 5 metres (Figure 5) or for the building types shown in Figure 6.

Above: Figure 6. Sightline for sites with transverse gable.
28	The preferred location of roof decks and terraces are set out in the following policy:
Encourage roof terrace and roof decks to be sited so that they are concealed when viewed from the street and, when on a corner, from the side street (excluding a laneway).
Ensure that roof terraces and roof decks are set back from chimneys, parapets and other roof features, for example roof lanterns. 
29	Clause 15.03-1L also requires decision makers to consider the Heritage Design Guidelines (Guidelines).
30	The following explanation is given for how to apply the Guidelines:
The Guidelines set out preferred approaches and techniques that will support the achievement of the strategies and outcomes sought by the State and local heritage policy in Clause 15.03 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (the ‘Heritage Policy’) for development or subdivision of land subject to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (the ‘Heritage Overlay’).
The Guidelines are not exhaustive. Other approaches may be considered, if it can be demonstrated that the outcomes sought by the Heritage Policy and the Heritage Overlay will still be achieved.
31	For significant graded heritage places, the following demolition guideline applies:
For Significant places, the extent of demolition will be guided by the Statement of Significance and decided on a case-by-case basis. The aim should be to conserve all buildings and other features identified as contributing to the significance of the place.
32	The basis for the demolition guideline is:
Good design will protect existing fabric and understand that heritage significance relates to the building as a three-dimensional form and also carefully considers the impact of demolition upon internal spatial quality and the relationship between the interior and the façade. For this reason, these guidelines strongly discourage full demolition or extensive demolition that leads to ‘facadism’ where, for example, only the external walls are retained.
33	The Guidelines provide the following statements for alterations and additions to significant places:
For Significant places, avoid alterations or additions that would alter, conceal or remove contributory features whether or not they are visible from the public realm.
For both Significant and Contributory places, new work should be distinguishable from old, while being sympathetic with the significant fabric. This can be achieved by: 
•	Making new material recessed or providing a clear visual break between old and new. 
•	Using a similar material, but with a different texture, or using a similar, but simplified design. 
•	Avoiding inappropiate [sic] contrasts between old and new fabric.
•	Avoiding the use of faux historic detailing
The height of the addition and front setback is guided by the degree of concealment encouraged by the Heritage Policy. 
In determining the degree of concealment required for new work, the Heritage Policy has regard to: 
•	The level of significance of the building (Significant, Contributory or Non-contributory) and, 
•	When the property is located within a heritage precinct, the consistency or diversity of the streetscape. 
In determining whether a streetscape is consistent or diverse, consider only the buildings on the same side as the subject building and within the immediate surrounds. Other considerations include: 
•	Whether the site is elevated above the street. 
•	Whether the roof of the proposed addition has a sympathetic contextual form (for example, a hipped form if the original house has a hipped roof or where this is a characteristic of the area). 
•	Whether oblique views are limited, for example, by higher buildings on adjoining or nearby sites.
•	Whether the roof form or height, parapet or any other feature of the existing building will assist in concealing the addition.
•	Whether the addition will be seen within the context of taller buildings visible in the background. Visible additions may be considered when the heritage place is situated on a site or within an area where higher density development is encouraged, or the additions are in accordance with specific development guidelines for the heritage place.
For additions to single middle-block residential buildings:
•	Full concealment for a Significant place or in a consistent streetscape as encouraged by the Heritage Policy may be achieved by containing the addition within a 10 degree sightline as shown in Figure 3.1 or by using ‘across the street’ sightlines as shown in Figures 3.2, 3.3 or 3.4. 
•	Partial concealment in a diverse streetscape within a heritage precinct as encouraged by the Heritage Policy may be achieved by containing the addition within a sightline of up to 18 degrees as shown in Figure 3.5. The significance of the heritage place and the streetscape context will determine the extent of the variation from 10 up to 18 degrees.
34	The sightlines in the Guidelines are the same as the Heritage Policy, although there are subtle differences in the wording with regards to the extent of concealment. The Heritage Policy requires ‘substantially concealed’ whereas the Guidelines seek ‘full concealment’ for a significant place or in a consistent streetscape and ‘partial concealment’ in a diverse streetscape. 

Above: Figure 3.1. Sightline based on 10 degrees from the Guidelines.

Above: Figure 3.2 and 3.3. Applicable ‘Across the street’ sightline from the Guidelines.
APPLYING THE HERITAGE POLICY
35	I have been advised that there is no data sheets or other information identifying the significant parts of the building or explanation for the significant grading of the property. Additionally, the heritage policies and guidelines cited above, do not create any meaningful distinction between the assessment of significant graded fabric, as compared to contributory graded fabric. 
36	I must consider the policy presented before me.
37	I also note that the Heritage Policy and Guidelines outline performance standards, but I recognise that these performance standards may not cover every scenario. As such, every decision should be determined on its own merit.
38	During the hearing parties referred to nearby development approvals, including:
•	20 Reed Street, Albert Park
•	23 Langridge Street, Middle Park
•	4 Reed Street, Albert Park
•	6 Reed Street, Albert Park
•	8 Reed Street, Albert Park
39	I have not found the information presented to me in those other cases helpful to my determination as the facts and circumstances for each application is different to the one before me, so far as:
•	23 Langridge Street, Middle Park is located in a different heritage place, has a different roof profile and typology as a single fronted building;
•	20 Reed Street, Albert Park is not yet constructed and the angle of the roof and ridgelines appear to be at different heights to the building subject to review; and
•	4, 6 and 8 Reed Street, Albert Park all have a different roof profile and typology as single fronted buildings.
40	It was also common ground that the site contributes to the significance of this precinct. This part of the Statement of significance was highlighted by a number of parties:   
… Aesthetically and architecturally, the precinct is significant for its fine collection of late Victorian dwellings. These demonstrate a range of typical housing types of the 1870s and ‘80s: modest single-storeyed cottages in both timber and brick (mostly concentrated in the south-east and south of the precinct) as well as grander villas, double-storeyed terraces and townhouses (mostly concentrated in the east of the precinct). Although these exist both as cohesive strips (e.g. single rows of terraces or cottages) and as more heterogenous streetscapes (with a mixture of dwelling types), they are nevertheless unified by their closely comparable dates and by their frequently consistent scale, form, materials and detailing. Considered collectively, the late nineteenth century housing in the Albert Park Residential Precinct represents one of the finest, more extensive and most varied collections of 1870s and 1880s dwellings in the City of Port Phillip.
Plans Assessment 
41	During my assessment of the plans, it is apparent to me that the architectural plans contain errors, including:
•	The demolition of roof material to accommodate the skylights and the potential change to the rear hip profile to accommodate skylights is not shown.
•	The skylights are not shown on the elevations.
•	Additional demolition to the rear of the building is shown which does not exist.
•	Fences to be demolished are not shown.
•	The south elevation of the house does not show the original dwelling in the background.
•	The chimney siting and breadth. 
42	As I am aware of these errors, I have factored these elements into my assessment. I will impose conditions to rectify these discrepancies. 
Is the proposed demolition an acceptable heritage outcome? 
43	The Heritage Policy and Guidelines both discourage extensive demolition that leads to facadism whereby only the external walls are retained. I note that no internal controls exist for the site. Therefore, I am unable to consider the internal demolition or re-arrangement of the internal walls. 
44	Council has supported the extent of demolition on the basis that the proposed demolition to the rear of the building will allow the building to remain intact and concludes that the building will maintain its integrity. 
45	The applicant from 14 Reed Street made no direct reference to the extent of demolition as its submission is based upon the location of the proposed addition. I note that the effect of locating the addition consistent with the submissions of the applicant from 14 Reed Street would result in less demolition and more original fabric to retained. 
46	The applicant from 18 Reed Street submits that the extent of demolition results in ‘little more than the façade and essential parts of the roof to support the façade being retained.’  This applicant is also critical of the demolition of the internal roof valley and the positioning of the roof terrace/ deck in proximity of the chimneys to be retained.
47	The respondent submits that the extent of demolition are parts of the building that does not contribute to the heritage place as they are not visible from the street, and this approach to demolition in residential heritage precincts is common.
48	The parts of the significant-graded dwelling to be retained is demonstrated by the east elevation below:
Above: Figure B. Extract from decision plans showing the original building to be retained shown in green.
49	Much of the roof volume will be removed to accommodate the terrace and rumpus at first floor level. The roof will be re-clad and five skylights will be inserted into the roof which results in modifying the rear roof hips. 
50	I find that the extent of demolition, especially to the original roof volume, is contrary to policy which says ‘avoid demolition where it would result in the retention of only the façade and/or external walls of a Significant or Contributory building’.
51	I acknowledge that the location of the demolition will generally not be visible from the street.  However, I am concerned with the extent of demolition to the roof associated with this significant graded building. 
52	I have imposed conditions that will effectively retain the original roof form on the north and south roof faces so that demolition of the original roof is limited to the rear portion of the roof inside the internal valley so that the original roof can be read in a three dimensional form.  Furthermore, I find that the retention of the side hips will assist in mitigating the visual impact from the addition, which is discussed below.
Is the extension to the dwelling and other buildings and works acceptable? 
Siting of the extension
53	As stated above, the Heritage Policy states that new additions should be substantially concealed from the streetscape.  The parties had differing views about what sightline applies for the site.
54	The applicants to proceedings P783/2023 and P785/2023 state that a 10-degree sightline ought to apply on the basis that the site is significantly graded and sits within a consistent streetscape. Compliance with the 10-degree sightline would result in the setback of the first floor past the southern section of the dwelling to be retained. 
55	The respondent and Council are satisfied that the sightline associated with a transverse gable applies and submit that the renders below demonstrate substantial concealment. The respondent states that it is the shoulders of the building (the north-east and north-west corner) of the addition that is potentially visible from the streetscape.

Above: Figure C. Renders of the proposed extension submitted to Council during the processing of the application. New built form circled in red for clarity.
56	Notwithstanding whether Figures 3, 4 or 6 of the Heritage Policy applies, in all examples, the preferred location for the proposed addition is to be rear of the original heritage fabric. 
57	I accept the respondent’s submission that the policy does not require full concealment of additions, and in some circumstances compliance with any of the sightline tests nominated above may still result in views. The key word in the Heritage Policy is ‘substantially’ concealed.
58	I also agree with the summary of Heritage Policy by the applicant from 18 Reed Street that ‘it is policy to conserve and enhance the significant historic character, intactness and integrity of streetscapes within heritage precincts and to avoid development that would result in the incremental loss of significance of a heritage precinct’. 
59	I am conscious that this site is a significant graded building in a relatively consistent heritage streetscape of a consistent scale.  The southern side of Reed Street comprises of four contributory graded buildings and a row of six significant graded buildings plus the side wall of significant graded property at 42 Foote Street. 
60	The Guidelines state for significant places to ‘avoid alterations or additions that would alter, conceal or remove contributory features whether or not they are visible from the public realm.’   
61	Having regard to the strategy, policy and performance guidelines of both the Heritage Policy and the Guidelines, I find that the extent of the new addition above the original fabric is too great. Specifically, I am concerned with the breadth of the rumpus room as it presents to Reed Street. 
62	I am satisfied however that the impact from the encroaching rumpus room can be resolved by permit conditions that will have the effect that the east and west setbacks of the rumpus room in line with the north-south ridges on each side of the building to be retained so that where the extension sits above the original fabric, it will be centrally sited so as to be substantially screened by the existing transverse gable roof.  

Above: Figure D. Condition to be imposed showing the location of the north and south setback of the rumpus rooms [in red] to be in line with the north-south ridges on each side of the building to be retained
63	In formulating the location of the proposed first floor building envelope, the rumpus will be sited in accordance with the Figure 6 sightline where it is directly behind the transverse gable. With the removal of the shoulders of the rumpus room (i.e. the north-west and north-east corners), the sightline to the addition will be extended so as to ensure that from the streetscape, the upper level is substantially concealed.  Whilst it would not meet the Figure 3 sightline that applies for significant graded buildings or streetscapes with consistent form, I consider an approach that is a hybrid between Figure 3 and 4 as appropriate given the location of the buildings at 14, 16 and 18 Reed Street on boundary and in a continuous row reduces potential views to limited vantage points in the streetscape.  
64	In accordance with the policy, I will impose a condition requiring the north facing staircase and rumpus room walls to be plain wall. 
Chimneys
65	With respect to the proximity of the new addition to the chimneys, I find that there is insufficient clearance between the north wall of the rumpus and the southern side of the chimneys.  I measured the break to be 0.88 metres on the west side and 0.75 metres on the east side. This separation would further be reduced by protruding gutter. In both instances, the original fabric will be obscured by the new addition behind. The Guidelines seek to recess new material and provide a clear visual break between old and new. I will impose a condition that requires a minimum separation of 1.0 metre between the southern side of the chimneys and the northern rumpus wall. This should be sufficient at roof level to ensure the new addition will be recessed from the heritage fabric to be retained. 
66	The policy also directs roof terraces to be set back from chimneys and parapets. I am not clear of the purpose of this policy. The plans show that the finished floor level of the terrace will be 1.9 metres below the ridgelines of the roof. Given the sunken nature of the roof terrace, this will ensure that there is no perception outside of the site that the proposed roof terrace will be sitting in the internal valley of the roof. I therefore find no heritage reason to alter the location of the roof terrace. 
Cameron Place Building
67	The applicant from 18 Reed Street suggested that the double storey studio building facing Cameron Place would be contrary to the heritage character and impact on the backyards and landscapes of the sites at 14-20 Reed Street.
68	Given Cameron Place is not located within HO442, the building’s contribution in the context of Reed Street is the correct location to consider potential impact on heritage character. As such, I do not consider that the double storey form located adjacent to Cameron Place has an impact on the heritage place nor do I consider the private views within the precinct as being influential in defining heritage character. 
External Painting
69	During the hearing there was discussion whether the recent external painting that has occurred on the site should be included as a part of this application. Fulsome submissions were not put before me on whether the colour scheme is appropriate from a heritage perspective. A condition can be included on the planning permit that requires plans to be updated to show the colour scheme and require demonstration that the colour scheme is appropriate to the architectural style of the building, as specified in policy. 
Roof Alterations
70	The re-cladding of the roof to slate was acceptable to Council subject to the type of slate appropriate to the heritage precinct being specified. It was not clear to me whether the slate cladding would constitute restoration or reconstruction, in accordance with Council’s conversation strategies. However, I find this external alteration acceptable.
What conditions should be imposed?
71	In addition to matters raised above, a few other conditions have been imposed. 
72	In recognition that the permit triggers have changed due to Amendment VC243, Council presented draft conditions that removed reference to conditions that related to siting requirements and privacy screens as they were no longer in the ambient of discretion. This is appropriate.
73	I will not include conditions relating to the protection of the street tree and water sensitive urban design as they do not relate to the heritage trigger. 
74	The condition requiring the location of all plant, equipment and domestic services to be sited so not to be visible from Reed Street is appropriate. It is not appropriate to impose conditions to require these elements to be concealed from private property as sought by the applicant from 18 Reed Street, as this is beyond the scope of the Heritage Policy. 
75	The applicant from 18 Reed Street suggests a condition be imposed on any planning permit that requires a structural report to be submitted to ensure that the original fabric is not lost during construction activities. The respondent submits that this is not necessary as the endorsed plans and conditions will provide clear parameters regarding the extent of demolition. 
76	Given the extent of demolition proposed and works located in proximity to original chimneys that contribute to the significant grading of the property, I consider it appropriate for the structural methodology to be documented prior to the commencement of construction to demonstrate the careful approach necessary during construction to avoid loss of original material.
Conclusion
77	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. I will direct a planning permit to be issued with conditions outlined in my reasons above.

Cassandra Rea
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PDPL/01350/2021	
Land	16 Reed Street
ALBERT PARK VIC 3206	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Clause 43.01-1 - Part demolition
•	Clause 43.01-1 – Construction of buildings and works 
•	Clause 43.01-1 – External alterations
•	Clause 43.01-1 – External painting	

Conditions
Amended Plans Required
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and an electronic copy must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (prepared by Planning and Design - dated 30 January 2023) but modified to show:
a.	Without any reduction in any setback, the east and west setbacks of the rumpus room to be in line with the north-south ridges on each side of the building to be retained so that where the extension sits above the original fabric it will be in line with those ridges. 
b.	A minimum setback of 1.0 metre from the southern side of the existing chimneys to be retained and the northern wall of the rumpus room. 
c.	The first floor north elevation of the dwelling to comprise of solid wall without any windows for any part of the elevation that is not between the two north-south ridges of the original roof form
d.	Nomination of the type of roof slate, appropriate to the heritage precinct.
e.	A report by a suitably qualified structural engineer outlining the methodology for the preservation of the existing building to be retained, including but not limited to, the extent of demolition allowed by this permit, the support of the chimneys and the change of the roof material.
f.	The location of all plant, equipment and domestic services (including air conditioning, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) to be sited so not as to be visible from Reed Street. 
g.	External paint scheme appropriate to the style of the building and the heritage precinct.
h.	The location of any fences (not visible from the street) to be demolished. 
No Alterations
2	The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Port Phillip Planning Scheme specifically states that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
No change to external finishes
3	All external materials, finishes and colours as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
Walls on or Facing the Boundary
4	Prior to occupation of the development approved by this permit all new or extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or a laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face and all joints must be tooled or pointed also to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Painted or rendered or bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
No Equipment or Services
5	No plant, equipment or domestic services (including any associated screening devices) or architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan are permitted, except where they would not be visible from a street frontage (other than a lane) or public park without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Time for Starting and Completion
6	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a.	The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
b.	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing:
•	before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the use or development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and
•	within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

– End of conditions –