Here is a story from Margie Lane, one of our favorite clients. We think this is a really important story and Mal purchased Margie’s home before I came into the business as a full-time architectural adviser.

It is a mixed story – the joy of finding a home that you truly want to buy and the difficulties that may await you as a period home renovator and then, hopefully, the joy again upon the completion of something special.

We thank Margie for her story and we hope it doesn’t discourage period home buyers from a big step, but enlighten you as to what you may encounter on the other side when renovating that “quaint” home.

This is the story of council’s rejection of our council planning application and VCAT hearing for the house that Mal bought …

Our simple desire was to renovate this charming, albeit run down, single-fronted terrace in South Melbourne. With a teenage daughter living at home and older kids with their own children coming to stay from time to time, our hopes for extending the amenity of the property were perhaps a little optimistic, but having spent more than $1 million on the purchase, we felt that three bedrooms were indeed essential (at the very least for resale value). So our wish list included three bedrooms (including a small bedroom with ensuite and a master bedroom and ensuite upstairs), two downstairs living areas and a guest powder room.  Although single fronted, the total site area is 272.6 square metres, so there was a fair bit of room to work with. We also had a north-facing backyard (one of our primary criteria when buying) and planned to maximise light within the house.

However, there was the issue of the dreaded heritage overlay, which we initially thought would primarily restrict our ability to change the front of the house.  But we had underestimated how much this would limit the scale of the amenity (ie the number of rooms) that we were planning to produce.

In a short space of time, we and our architect became very familiar, with the help of our town planning consultant (Urbis), with Heritage Overlay Schedule 3 (HO3), which seeks to “conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance … due to the area’s ability to inform present generations about a way of life now past, when communities were to a large extent self-contained as a consequence of limited personal mobility.”

We also knew that the Port Phillip Council are particularly conservative. In early discussions, they were keen to encourage a greater setback of the first storey extension than we had planned and used the example of the adjacent dwelling as an example of what they would prefer to see, which we knew would only accommodate one bedroom and small bathroom upstairs.

Of particular concern was the requirement that upper storey additions must be sited within an “envelope” created by projecting a sight line from 1.6 metres above ground level to the front parapet or gutter and taken from a point where the footpath meets the property line directly opposite the site; or within an “envelope” created by projecting a line of 10 degrees from the height of the base of the front parapet or gutter line on the main facade and extending to the rear of the heritage place. This meant that in order to comply, we could not fit a master bedroom, ensuite and second bedroom upstairs.

But all was not lost, for the Heritage Overlay also indicates that “in exceptional cases located in a diverse streetscape and the design of the proposed addition is considered to be an appropriate contextual response, the upper story may be sited at a line of up to 18 degrees from the height of the base of the front parapet or gutter line on the main facade of the heritage place”.

So, we were advised to employ the services of a Heritage Architect (Bryce Raworth) to assist with an application to VCAT in the likely event that our planning application to council was rejected.

Following a multitude of meetings and spilled cups of coffee over plans, a range of alternatives were drawn up and options considered, including different roof types (traditional 28 degree pitch roof; a lower pitched roof; skillion or mansard), materials to the first floor, the wall height and overall roof height, the setback from the east side boundary of the first floor addition and the setback from the front wall of the building to the first floor.  We also considered building a third bedroom and bathroom atop the garage as many do in this area, but we did not want to create more shading into the backyard or obstruct views of the city.

Our aim was to find the right balance between the desired accommodation on the site and the recognition of Council policy and a solution where the visibility of the addition was kept to a minimum.

Gradually, we shifted from our original ‘ideal’ design alterative, increasing the setback from the front wall of the cottage to almost eight metres in order to minimise visibility and reduce visual bulk.  The Heritage Architect’s report argued that the redevelopment realises the potential of the site whilst ensuring there is no impact on the heritage significance of the building and the overall Henderson Street streetscape. In particular, he noted that the site is small, and it is not possible to accommodate the typical requirements of a modern family on the site without some first floor component. 

As expected, the council refused to grant a permit and we proceeded to VCAT after addressing several objections by adding screening to further limit overlooking.  The hearing was not conclusive and ended with the magistrate intending to view the site and give it further contemplation.

After four long weeks of waiting for the final decision, we were elated to hear that VCAT found our proposed redevelopment acceptable with regard to heritage considerations, that it has been well designed as a polite insertion within its environment, with appropriate regard for Council’s policy in relation to setbacks and height of rear upper floor additions; rendering the first floor substantially concealed from the sight line of a person standing on the opposite side of the road.  VCAT came to the conclusion that strict adherence in this instance would not be appropriate and Council’s decision to refuse to grant a permit was set aside!