Press - 1 January 2010 to 25 June 2010
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.
The POST Newspaper – Letters - 29 May 2010
We must decide on our heritage
Brian Waldron
Woolloomooloo
As a community, we must decide if heritage really means something to us. If it doesn’t matter, then everything is going along just fine.
But if we do believe that our built heritage is important, then we have to take steps now to save it.
Local government authorities, like the Shire of Peppermint Grove, must ensure that its municipal heritage inventory is respected and upheld by its town planning guidelines.
Again and again we are told the “council is not obliged to take any notice of its own heritage report”.
It accepted Ian Hocking’s report that The Cliffe was a unique building in good condition that should be retained in its current location.
And while the council acknowledged it could rescind the present demolition permit, it hasn’t even debated the merit of doing so.
Instead, in February, it issued a 12-month extension on the demolition permit for The Cliffe, even though no plans for its replacement had been submitted.
Now it’s happening again, with parts of another category 1 building being demolished to be replaced by a plaque and a photo, with councillor Rachel Thomas saying “we are limited in what we can do”.
If there is nothing to be done let’s rid ourselves of the pretence that there is.
If the council can rescind demolition permits or not approve the demolition of heritage buildings, then let that debate happen in council meetings.
If Peppermint Grove were to incorporate its heritage inventory into its town plan, then all residents could be confident the suburb would retain its unique character, and people buying into the area would come to appreciate that owners of heritage buildings in the shire are custodians of these community assets and had not simply bought a piece of land to develop as they choose.
Such an approach wouldn’t leave anyone homeless. There are many other parts of the city where these new homes could be built. They do not have to replace the existing heritage housing of Peppermint Grove.
POST Newspapers 8 May 2010
New push to end Cliffe saga
Peppermint Grove wants to solve its heritage headache over The Cliffe.
Shire president Brian Kavanagh said he would seek a meeting with the property’s owner, Mark Creasy, and shire CEO Anne Banks-McAllister in the next two weeks.
Mr Kavanagh said he believed a sympathetic new owner was the only way the 1894 Bindaring Parade jarrah homestead could be saved.
He said Mr Creasy could be persuaded to sell the house at the right price.
“The shire doesn’t have the funds for this but we would be willing to work with someone who wanted to buy the house to restore it,” he said.
Last August the shire resolved to back a report that found the property had significant heritage value and should be repaired and restored on site.
Its heritage protection was removed in 2008 after 14 years of lobbying by Mr Creasy.
The POST Newspaper – Letters - 10 April 2010
The Cliffe was in top condition
Brian Waldron
Woolloomooloo
Shortly after The Cliffe was sold to Sharon and Mark Creasy by the McComb family in 1995, Subiaco architect Marcus Collins inspected the property at the Creasys’ invitation.
In the POST (11/7/1995), Mr Collins was reported as saying: “It’s an essential part of the architectural history of the state.
“The house is in outstanding condition. It’s absolutely beautiful. The original kitchen and bathroom fitting are still there.
“The walls, ceilings, skirting and tiling were largely original. Until the Creasys bought the property it was occupied by a family and it’s in wonderful condition.
“If someone wanted to restore it or adapt it to more modern living, it would not take much work.”
Twelve years later, on August 30, 2007, Colin Barnett, in his capacity as MP for Cottesloe, introduced a grievance motion regarding The Cliffe, and told the Legislative Assembly:
“It looks impressive from a distance, but on closer inspection it is obvious that it is in a state of disrepair. In fact, it is uninhabitable.
“The ceilings have collapsed, and there has been further recent damage, and the floors are uneven. It is essentially falling down.
“It was never the grand house that people might imagine. It is quite basic and simple inside.
“The amount needed to restore the house to a habitable condition – not into a modern family home, but just to make it safe to live in – is estimated at $2.8 million.
“The Creasys have absolutely no intention of spending that amount of money on this old, dilapidated wooden structure.”
In 2009, Ian Hocking and Associates provided a report of the state of The Cliffe to the Shire of Peppermint Grove. Hocking noted considerable degradation in the building, although he also reported that it was in good shape considering its age. He put the cost of full restoration at about half Mr Barnett’s twoyear-old estimate of the cost of making it “habitable”.
Clearly, since purchased by the Creasys, what was a “beautiful house in wonderful condition” has fallen into disrepair. Indeed, the so-called “dilapidation” of the building was the reason given for removing the property from Western Australia’s Heritage Register.
Any heritage property suspected of demolition by neglect can be acquired by the state under the provision of section 73 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.
While Mr Collins’ 1995 assessment may not oblige the state to acquire the building, it is reason enough for the Heritage Minister to investigate this matter further and to place a conservation order on the property while this investigation takes place.
POST Newspapers 3 April 2010
Second Cliffe demo permit
A second demolition licence has been issued to the owner of The Cliffe.
The licence was not recorded in a report to Peppermint Grove councillors that would normally be published in the shire’s monthly meeting agenda.
Development services manager David Chidlow said the error was caused by staff changes.
The decision to issue the licence was made by shire CEO Anne Banks-McAllister. It is valid for a year.
POST Newspapers 20 March 2010 - Letters
Was The Cliffe report ignored?
Brian Waldron
Woolloomooloo, NSW
I was interested to read, in the agenda for the shire of Peppermint Grove meeting of February 15, that the Future Options Study (on The Cliffe) was on the shire’s website and no feedback had been received.
I don’t recall the council ever asking for feedback on the report at the time of its publication or any time since. (I went to the website to check that was the case, but the report was no longer listed under What’s New.)
Had the shire sought comments on the report I would have had little to offer. The report, by Ian Hocking and Associates, seems thorough and detailed and I can find no fault in it.
I am surprised, however, that Mr Hocking’s report received no comment from either Premier Colin Barnett or Energy Minister Peter Collier.
In August 2007, Mr Barnett told the Legislative Assembly, the amount needed to restore the house to a habitable condition -– not into a modern family home, but just to make it safe to live in – was estimated at $2.8 million.
In May 2008, Mr Collier informed the Legislative Council, the house was in extremely poor condition, requiring more than $3 million to make it safe and habitable.
Mr Hocking’s report, completed in 2009, said that The Cliffe was in sound condition for a building of its age and that restoration, including the jarrah shingle roof, would cost around $1.48 million.
If Mr Hocking’s assessment is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, I am surprised that neither Messrs Barnett nor Collier have come forward to comment about the huge variation in costs.
If Hocking is correct, then aren’t both Messrs Barnett and Collier wrong in what they told Parliament before they voted on the house’s removal from the heritage register?
Both men have said their cost estimate came from Mr Colgan, who is, in Peter Collier’s words, an expert builder with long experience in remediation of heritage-value buildings.
I understand that Mr Colgan provided a report for the Office of the State Solicitor following a legal action brought by Sharon Creasy, wife of Cliffe owner Mark Creasy.
Like Messrs Collier and Barnett, Mr Colgan hasn’t made any comment to Peppermint Grove about the costs included in Mr Hocking’s report.
I don’t know if it was the costs raised in the Parliament and attributed to Mr Colgan that swung the vote for the removal of The Cliffe from the heritage register.
All I know is that a respected heritage architect like Mr Hocking has produced a detailed report that says the cost of restoration of The Cliffe is about half what Parliament was told.
The POST newspaper 19 February 2010
New Pep Grove push for Cliffe
Peppermint Grove councillors have now opposed Premier Colin Barnett and voted to push for the reinstatement and restoration of The Cliffe.
They want shire president Brian Kavanagh to seek a meeting with house owner Mark Creasy and the WA Heritage council to discuss options.
Mr Barnett succeeded in getting Parliament to remove the historic weatherboard home from the WA Register of Heritage Places when he was an Opposition backbencher in 2008.
It was the second time the supposedly watertight and permanent preservation listing of the Peppermint Grove heritage house had been lifted.
It first fell off the list in 2004, after a technicality was discovered in the way the original listing was processed.
It was relisted and then, after years of petitioning by the owners, it was dumped in a bi-partisan parliamentary move by Mr Barnett that sparked a controversy about the relationship between Cliffe owner Mark Creasy and Mr Barnett.
Allegations, which were sent to the Corruption and Crime Commission by Cliffe supporters last year about Mr Barnett’s involvement in the delisting, were investigated by a parliamentary committee and found to be baseless.
Peppermint Grove’s decision to seek to preserve The Cliffe was prompted by a new 1202-signature petition to save the building from demolition and restore it to its former glory.
After the property was struck from the Heritage Register in August 2008, the shire undertook a $25,000 study.
Shire president Brian Kavanagh said the report’s findings that the building had significant heritage value were adopted by the shire.
In a report presented to the council, CEO Anne Banks-McCallister said: “It is clear from the council’s decision that the shire’s preference is for The Cliffe to be reinstated and restored on site.
“To this end it is recommended that the shire president request a meeting with the owner and the Heritage Council.”
Mr Creasy has a demolition licence from the shire, which expires next month.
Mrs Banks-McCallister said an application for renewal of the licence was being considered.
The SYDNEY MORNING HERALD 4 Jan 2010
Old houses are environmentally-friendly
BY KATE CLARK
(Kate Clark is director of the Historic Houses Trust of NSW.)
I was recently in Hay in a heatwave visiting Bishops Lodge. Built in 1888, the iron house was designed by the architect John Sulman to combat the Riverina summer heat.
On one of the hottest days this year, the interior of the house felt cool, despite it being built of lightweight corrugated iron and bereft of air-conditioning. Its deep verandas shaded the rooms, its shutters kept out direct sunlight, and natural Cyprus pine sawdust packed its walls and improved the insulation.
Often built at a time when energy was expensive, older buildings use natural heating, cooling, light and ventilation. They do not rely on the grid to let occupants cope with the heat because they have windows that open, and a smaller ratio of glass-to-walls, which reduces the temperature increase inside. Deep verandas cool older houses and wider overhangs minimise heat from the sun. Living rooms on the first floors of Victorian terraces often catch the breeze and escape radiant heat from the ground.
The Bureau of Statistics tells us that one in seven houses built in Australia simply replaces an existing house. Not only will the demolished house have been smaller, it will have consumed less energy. Think of all the energy that goes into those new buildings replacing the old. The building industry is a significant contributor to global resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, along with household energy use.
Building construction consumes 32 per cent of the world's resources, including 12 per cent of its water and 40 per cent of its energy. Buildings also produce 40 per cent of the waste that goes to landfill dumps and 40 per cent of air emissions. Household energy use contributes about 9.5 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse emissions.
Left unchecked, the energy consumption of our building industry and housing seem destined to continue to rise. Not only has the average floor area of new dwellings increased by about a third since 1986-87 but the number of people in each dwelling has reduced. We build the largest houses in the world - 44 per cent bigger than they were a quarter of a century ago.
Concrete production alone has increased 400 per cent since 1970 - accounting for an estimated 6 per cent of human-related carbon emissions. Home builders often claim their new buildings are more energy efficient but older houses have a role to play in retaining Australian heritage and reducing our emissions.
A study by the British Empty Homes Agency, New Tricks with Old Bricks, estimates that reusing empty homes could save 35 tonnes of carbon dioxide a property by removing the need for the energy expended on new building materials and construction.
They compared old and new buildings and found that not only did older buildings emit less carbon dioxide, but even a well-insulated new home would take several decades to make up for the large amount of embodied carbon dioxide used in its construction.
It is time to rethink our love of new homes and rediscover the old. And if you must build new, there are significant lessons to be learnt from the past. There is no better place to start than traditional bush architecture, and its construction techniques have never more relevant.
Think of corrugated iron. It is low maintenance, durable and recyclable. Add a veranda for natural ventilation and shading. Collect and store water from large roofs. Consider using earth in building, with its minimal embodied energy and heat storing thermal mass. Use timber - the most common frontier building material now recognised as a carbon-capturing renewable resource with low embodied energy and excellent insulation.
Being environmentally responsible begins at home. Old houses, as well as their potential heritage significance, have immense value environmentally as well as historically. If you seek proof, call in to Australia's oldest surviving homestead, Elizabeth Farm, at Parramatta. On a warm day, sit on its cool, shady veranda and understand that old and green belong together.
