You are here

Development Application Modern House in Dewar Terrace

Submitted by webmaster on Mon, 28/05/2012 - 12:39am

An Impact Assessible development application A003347610 has been submitted for the character protected area adjoining a heritage place in the traditionally character street of Dewar Terrace (recognised by the Westside Character Precinct of the Sherwood-Graceville Neighbourhood Plan).


This DA is by the same developer who subdivided the original heritage block into very small parcels of land trying to squeeze a profit.  The original heritage building was not restored, however it was recently sold following subdivision into 3 blocks.  The other block had a house non-compliant with the Sherwood-Graceville neighbourhood plan by invoking the previous Local Area Plan rules.  The original "heavily wooded" grounds mentioned in the heritage listing were important as they were part of the original native trees of the area, kept by the original owners of the house.  Both before and during the subdivision of the grounds these trees and shrubs were deliberately removed, even after local long time resident complaints to council and it is now cited that the remaining trees and shrubs are no longer relevant and so should be completely removed to allow this development to proceed.


This new DA calls for a 3 storey building adjoining the heritage residents.  The formal period for submissions has not yet opened, however public submissions can still be made via council's website.





I am a Scott Street resident and also a professional town planner.  I would encourage WTAG, and the writer of the above piece in particular, to consider the facts and make them available to all readers in addressing this subject in the future.
The article suggests or implies the owner of the historic site referenced in the article is somehow acting outside City Plan in acquiring and subdividing the site. In fact, City Plan permits and anticipates the resubdivision of larger residential parcels and establishment of small lot houses on the resulting lots. It also puts in place a range of assessment criteria for development adjoining heritage places. I presume these criteria have been complied with by the applicant in relation to the subdivision and previous small lot house approvals, or Council would not have approved them.
My husband and I have lived in Scott Street for thirteen years,  and the redevelopment is welcomed by us and at least a proportion of our neighbours.
I would  ask you to consider that in any future comments on this application. We will be making submissions in support of the proposal.

I'd suggest you read the council website records before jumping to assumptions about approval histories - you will see that council were trying to get design adjusted.  As a town planner you will also realise how flawed the system can be at times, especially with the large reductions of council planning staff over the last 18 months.
Note this area is also covered by the special Westside Character Precinct designed to preserve the spacious streetscapes - we participating in this planning, so we know what the rules are. 
The scale, form, mass and rhythm of buildings and setting reflect the scale, form, mass, rhythm and setting of nearby pre-1946 buildings in the street Characteristic streetscape attributes of the area are to be preserved including large backyards, generous building setbacks and mature large trees. A higher proportion of open space and landscaping relative to built form are maintained
Where the site does not contain a pre-1946 house: The design of new buildings complements the character of pre-1946 houses in the street:
Building height consists of a maximum of two storeys and is within 20% of the eaves height of buildings on adjoining properties Roof forms are hips, pyramids or gables with a pitch of between 20° to 30° or within 10% of the pitch of other pre-1946 houses in the street.
The building contains a verandah facing the street of a similar configuration to other pre-1946 houses in the street
There are many other clauses that are also applicable.  We are associated with people who teach town planners.  We hope you also take into account the facts when making your submission.

27 June 2012


Pi Home Pty Ltd
PO Box 1774


Permit Type: DA - SPA - Carry out Building Work, DA - SPA - Material Change of Use

Description of Proposal: House on a Small Lot adjoining a Heritage Place
Address of Site: 228 Dewar Tce Corinda Qld 4075

Real Property Description: Lot(s) 4 on Survey Plan 246268
Application Reference: A003347610


Dear Sir


RE: Information Request under Section 276 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009


It is considered that the proposed contemporary design of the dwelling is inconsistent in form and materiality specifically identified in the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan. The dwelling lacks traditional elements such as roof form, front verandahs, front external timber staircases, front fence and the carport/garage dominates the street. For this reason the proposal in its current form is not supported unless the following amendments to the design are proposed:


1. Submit amended drawings and elevations to indicate the following:

a) Provide the dimensions of the front setbacks of the adjoining properties to assess Performance P1/Acceptable Solution A1.2 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan.

b) The roof form is not sympathetic with adjoining buildings in the street, detracts from the streetscape and does not meet Performance Criteria P2 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal is to incorporate eaves to the front and sides of the house at least 300mm.

c) The proposed carport is located in front of the house, dominates the appearance and setting of the house when viewed from the street and does not meet Performance Criteria P3 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan. Remove the parapet to the carport, incorporate eaves and a hip or gable to the roof. Furthermore, if a carport is to be proposed it is to be unenclosed, and the northern side wall and timber battening enclosure is not supported. If a garage is to be proposed it should be recessed at least 1m beneath the upper level of the house to reduce the dominance of carparking in compliance with Performance Criteria P7 of the Residential Design – Small Lot Code.

d) Incorporate a front fence that is low and transparent and is consistent with the traditional fencing in the area. The proposed rendered block wall fence does not meet Performance Criteria P4 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan.

e) The lack of building elements that reflect traditional building character gives the appearance of a monolithic form at the front of the dwelling and does not meet Performance Criteria P6 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan. The roof form is to incorporate hips, pyramids or gables and attached verandahs and widows / doors (which will
facilitate casual surveillance of the street) to the front of the  dwelling to be consistent with the character components of pre-1946 houses in the street such as and in line figure h1 of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan. Provide a revised
streetscape elevation including the adjoining houses demonstrating how the proposed design compliments the character of pre-1946 houses nearby in the street.


f) The parapet elements of the front of the dwelling and to the side of the carport are not supported and are to be removed. The proposed materials to the front of the house are generally supported though could be rearranged to complement the character of pre-1946 houses in the street to be in accordance with Performance Criteria P7 of the West Side Character Precinct of the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan.


g)The alignment of roof and parapet to the front wall as illustrated in the west elevation appears inconsistent with the roof and walls of the north elevation which indicate an eave overhang. Please provide a fully coordinated set of drawings of the proposal.


Please note that unless a response is provided within the prescribed response period of six months, this application will lapse.


Please phone me on the telephone number below during normal business hours if you have any queries regarding this matter.


Yours sincerely
Peter Richards
Urban Planner
Development Assessment Planning Services South
(07) 3403 5594
Development Assessment Branch