Council at its meeting of 7 August 2007 considered the matter of the bungalow at 12 park Ave but failed to make a definite decision, nevertheless at the same time created a clear impression that the bungalow would be demolished under delegated authority.
The issue in this development application is whether or not the bungalow ought be demolished. The applicant Mrs Miller, in speaking to the matter at the meeting, reasonably asked Council that it make a decision about the matter which is already prolonged and stressful for the applicants.
It is agreed on all sides that the bungalow itself is not a listed Heritage item, does not have a Interim Heritage protection order, is in a Conservation Area and is within the discretion of Council to determine. The issue is whether it is a contributory item to the conservation area, and whether a pre-war bungalow in a Conservation area is worthy of preservation.
Enough expert opinion has been sought for Councillors to form a view about the issue. The case for preserving the bungalow is put effectively by the NSW Heritage Office in their letter to Council of 5/7/7:
Park Ave demonstrates a range of building periods and styles from the Victorian to the late twentieth century. A mix of periods and styles is frequently a feature of conservation areas….
The Heritage Office considers that 12 Park Avenue is a good example of an inter-war Federation/California bungalow with an external appearance that has not been modified over time. In terms of building style and brickwork, 12 Park Avenue relates closely to the entrance arch of Goddard Park (dated 1926). No similarly strong visual link with the park is evidenced by any of the other houses in Park Avenue.
The Heritage Office also notes that the external appearance of 12 Park Avenue indicates that is has been very well-maintained and that it is currently in very good condition. It appears to be the best example of its period and type of house building in this street. Indeed, its presentation marks it as one of the best maintained houses in Park Avenue.
Based on the above observations and assessments, the Heritage Office considers that 12 Park Avenue is clearly a contributory item to the Park Avenue heritage conservation area…. The Heritage Office contends that 12 Park Avenue is clearly a contributory item to the heritage values of this conservation area for reasons of building style, representativeness, relationship to the park opposite, integrity, intactness and condition (as noted above).
As such, No 12 should neither be demolished nor unsympathetically altered. This office opposes its demolition when the capacity exists, due to its setback and large block, for rear extensions to this building to provide additional accommodation.
This seems to me to summarise the case for preserving the bungalow, and in the course of debate on the matter I urged that Council use the discretion it is agreed it has and make a decision on a matter that is already too long delayed, and therefore moved a Recommendation that the DA for 12 Park Avenue not be approved insofar as it involves demolition of the bungalow. This motion lapsed for want of a seconder, which failure on the part of Council to offer protection to the bungalow one could conclude means that Councillors and Council intend that the bungalow be demolished. This view would seem to be confirmed by the attitude of the Mayor and other Councillors during debate.
During the forum for public discussion, the Mayor effectively gagged the objectors, who have thus not yet had the opportunity to date to address the issue of the demolition of the bungalow, only the question of mediation at an earlier meeting. At the same time the Mayor and other Councillors took the opportunity to criticise Mrs O’Neill and other objectors and campaigners for their views and their opinions as expresssed in the press and elsewhere.
As an elected Councillor and member of the Greens, I expect that I will attract criticism from time to time, whether fair or unfair, however direct criticism of residents on the one side in this matter seems to me uncalled for and an exhibition of bias in the matter.
After failing to support my motion, I now believe Council is very much of a mind to permit demolition of the bungalow under delegated authority. This is a matter of concern as the Heritage protections of the Concord streetscape (essentially interwar) are weak under the current Council. If the Concord streetscape is considered of Heritage and aesthetic merit, and many of us would believe so, then this bungalow in a Conservation area at least ought to have been offered definite protection.
4 responses so far ↓
Gretel Miller // August 16, 2007 at 1:28 pm
As the applicant of the DA at 12 Park Ave, I can assure Councilor Rooney that the only impression I got from the council meeting, 7 August, 2007, is that the issue of demolition is in fact unclear. This lack of clarity can only be put down to non substantive comments and contributions made at the last minute by certain parties, (some who are ill informed). It certainly does not help when members of the Green party from outside the area, make their own personal ill informed public comments and use it for their own political agendas rather than allowing the DA to be determined on its merits without political pressure.
We like any other applicant can only rely on current Council regulations. These regulations provide that the dwelling at 12 Park Ave is not contributory to the Heritage Area and therefore it can be demolished. These regulations are based on a Heritage Assessment recently conducted in this particular area by the Council’s heritage consultant, Pamela Hubert. This assessment has been reviewed and agreed to by an independent expert appointed by council, Graham Brooks. For certainty we appointed our own personal Heritage Consultant to do the same. These three experts are the only experts who have done a complete assessment of the area. All other comments by other parties are based on only partial assessments and have been sought by objectors.
I must say that Councilor Rooney’s statement that the objectors present at the Council meeting, 7 August, 2007, were effectively ‘gagged’ is totally incorrect, and in some way shows his bias. Two of the objectors had opportunities to address the council. They were specifically asked by the Mayor if “they had anything new to add”. As I recall the answer was “no”. If they felt that they had not already addressed the issue of demolition that was their chance. They were also able to table two letters and a petition. Perhaps Councilor Rooney may like to review Council’s file on this DA, which contain the entire history of all submissions made by objectors. I am sure he will concede that the right of residents to object to a DA, has, in this case, been exercised to its full capacity.
As a resident of the Canada Bay area myself, (and not an aggressive “developer” as some people suggest) I certainly believe all residents have the right to view their concerns. What I do oppose however is anyone abusing this right. This is what has occurred in our case. Some objectors have knowingly and publicly, misrepresented and lied about our DA. This is plainly evident in the segment screened on the ABC program “Stateline”. Therefore I congratulate any councilor that criticises such behaviour and hope that is goes toward stamping out such behaviour for the future.
Bernard // August 16, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Mrs Miller,
thank you for your comment. I do welcome feedback and debate.
You are correct in saying that the issue remains under delegated authority. In moving a motion I created an opportunity for Council to come to a definite decision about the matter. Other Councillors certainly did not support my view and gave me the impression they were happy with demolition. But I guess that is a matter of opinion. At any rate, it remains to be seen what the final outcome is.
One of the problems with this DA has been the way Council has handled it, ie via ‘mediation’. This technique has been used successfully in other cases but it does seem to me that in this case it has made things worse, ie excessive delays and mounting feelings.
It now seems to me it is a responsibility of Councillors, after considering expert opinion, to come to their own view on such an issue of heritage. A case can be made either way, Councillors need to exercise their discretion to decide, based on their own views or policies on the question of Heritage, rather than continually going back to more and more Heritage consultants in a vain effort to reach consensus.
In a case like this one or other party is going to be disappointed and Councillors ought not attempt to shirk the need to make a decision.
I have consulted friends and colleagues in the Greens, people who have more experience both in Council and on Heritage issues than I do myself, but in the end it is up to me to form a view.
The debate has been at times robust but for my part I believe I have tried to be accurate and not to unfairly criticise either party.
michele mckenzie // August 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I would like to know the name of the council officer who told the applicants that they could demolish the house at 12 Park Avenue before they bought it.Why would a council officer mislead the applicant?
council regulations on the web site clearly show that a house in such good repair in a conservation area adjacent to a heritage item should not be able to be demolished.
Gretel Miller // August 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Perhaps if Cr Michelle Mckenzie took up our offer and decided to “engage in more dialogue” with us she would have more information than what is just available on a web page. She also would perhaps have a correct assessment of the condition of the premises and full understanding of Canada Bay Council’s regulations. It worries me to think that a person in her position limits her resources to the net and does not take up the offer of actually talking people.