Character Issues Reponse

Page 2

   to Crystal Street in the south, including 9-73 Maple Street and 19 Crystal
   Street, as shown on Heritage Overlay Map OM3.2 is retained and protected;
   ii. business, community and residential buildings from the early to mid-twentieth
   century, which influence the character of the area are retained;
   iv. Development reflects country town character elements reminiscent of
   Cooroy’s heritage characteristics;
   v. Development maintains and reflects the historic architectural features in
   Cooroy including the traditional building designs of a predominately low rise
   and low impact scale, typified by lightweight construction, with a timber frame,
   generally raised above ground on stumps, many featuring verandah elements,
   sunhoods and awnings to window and wall openings and simple roof designs,
   either gabled or hipped. Typical materials used include timber for cladding and
   corrugated iron for roofs;
   viii. Development along Maple Street, south of the business centre maintains a
   domestic scale and form consistent with the Queensland vernacular with
   landscaped setbacks and front yards without front fences, and low impact
   domestic scale buildings that contribute to the open character of this part of
   the character area;

Specific Outcomes O5, O6 and O7 of the Heritage Overlay state:
Retention, relocation & demolition
O5 The valued streetscape character within character areas are protected through
the retention of buildings that contribute positively to that character.
Adaptive reuse
O6 Character buildings are conserved and protected by adaptively reusing such
sites, provided any new use—
    a) does not impact on the cultural heritage significance of the site;
    b) respects the valued streetscape character;
    c) is compatible with the amenity of adjacent uses; and
    d) provides for adequate buffer areas and buffer elements between nearby
    uses.
Building Works within character areas
O7 Building works to premises within character areas, are designed to be
sympathetic to the valued streetscape character through—
    a) respecting the form, bulk, scale and height of heritage sites or character
    buildings within the streetscape;
    b) complementing original roof forms and pitch within the streetscape;
    c) conforming with the original fencing, veranda and façade design and
    detailing within the streetscape;
    d) using materials that reflect the valued character; and
    e) retaining existing mature vegetation around the site




                                   19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 2 | P a g e

Page 3

The proposed development does not adequately respond to the Overall and Specific
Outcomes of the Heritage Overlay as it does not provide for the retention of the existing
building. It is noted that the following comments were provided in response to a pre-lodgement
meeting held 26 November 2019.

The site is also included in the Heritage Overlay (Character Area) for Cooroy under the
Noosa Plan. For this area, the Noosa Plan seeks to protect the streetscape character
area by retaining the existing buildings that contribute positively to the character. Review
of the site and existing house following the meeting shows that the existing building is
of a Queensland vernacular style timber and iron house on stumps with many features
typical of this era and which contribute to the character of Maple Street. It is therefore unlikely
Council would support relocation or demolition of the existing house. It is therefore recommended
that the existing house be retained for the proposed medical use.

Furthermore, the Structural Engineering Report (Bligh Tanner - 24 February 2020) identities the
purpose of the report to assess the existing structural condition of the property and identify
any visible structural issues. In its conclusion the report states:
“….the visible original structure appears to have been constructed using quality timber
and workmanship resulting in a dwelling that has weathered well.”

There were no visible structural concerns that would preclude a continued use of the
building.

It is accepted that additional development works may be required in addition to the retention
and use of the existing building to enable the provision of a medical facility of the size and
scale proposed. However, the proposed design of the existing building is not sympathetic of
the existing streetscape character in that it does not adequately respond to Specific Outcome
O7 of the Heritage Overlay due to:
  • The bulk and scale of the proposed development;
  • The roof form not complementing those within the streetscape;
  • Conform with the façade design and detailing within the streetscape;
  • Utilise materials that reflect the valued streetscape (particularly the extensive use of flat
       sheet cladding)
  • Retention of existing mature vegetation

Information Required
1. An amended application which provides for the retention of the existing building on site.
2. Additional built form to be consistent with Specific Outcome O7 of the Heritage Overlay;
including identification and retention of existing mature vegetation.

Issue
The report provided by Vault Heritage Consulting is titled as a Heritage Impact Assessment
(HIA). However, it does not include the basic requirements of a HIA. In general a HIA would




                                    19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 3 | P a g e

Page 4

   be a much more detailed report including sections showing an understanding of the
   significance of the place (and its significance in the Character Area), analysis of heritage (or
   in this case character) issues affecting the proposal, detailed assessment of the impact of the
   proposal (in this case the impact of removing a place from the Character Area and re-siting in
   an alternate Character Area) as well as an investigation of all options to retain and reuse with
   removal as a last resort. There are industry standard guidelines for Heritage Impact
   Statements regarding development on State Heritage Places and these are generally adapted
   to meet requirements for local heritage/character reporting. Also, the Burra Charter principles
   are not considered at all in the report.

   Information Required
   3. An updated HIA which includes:
       a. Assessment of the significance of the site and its significance in the Character Area;
       b. Analysis of heritage (or in this case character) issues affecting the proposal;
       c. Detailed assessment of the impact of the proposal (in this case the impact of removing
       a place from the Character Area and re-siting in an alternate Character Area)
       d. An investigation of all options to retain and reuse with removal as a last resort.
       e. Consideration of the Burra Charter principles.

   Issue
   The elevated built form of the building and the associated egress verandah are likely to result
   in unreasonable bulk and loss of privacy to the adjoining properties to the south and east of
   the site. It is noted that renders have not been provided for these elevations.

   Information Required
   In conjunction with Item 2, an amended built form which addresses Specific Outcome 7 of the
   Heritage Overlay and the privacy and visual amenity of adjoining properties.”

2. Applicant’s part Responses in relation to expressed concerns regarding relocation of character
   house and related traditional character aspects of current proposal:
   As outlined in the opening section of this correspondence, VAULT will address the various issues
   raised regarding the proposed relocation of the subject character building while also responding
   to the related traditional character design issues raised by Council. Given the sequential nature of
   the various traditional character issues raised, for the purpose of clarity, it is proposed to address
   these issues in the same order as outlined in the preceding section (and in the Information
   Request letter itself).

      Council commentary: “The proposed development does not adequately respond to the Overall
      and Specific Outcomes of the Heritage Overlay as it does not provide for the retention of the
      existing building. It is noted that the following comments were provided in response to a pre-
      lodgement meeting held 26 November 2019.”




                                       19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 4 | P a g e

Page 5

Response: Irrespective of the outcome of the November 2019 prelodgement meeting (which
VAULT did not attend), it is considered that the Applicant is still entitled to apply for the
demolition / removal of a character building situated within the Cooroy – Maple Street
Character Area – as their preferred redevelopment strategy in order to initiate a new medical
centre on the subject site. In this regard, it is noted that the Assessment Table 13 of the
Noosa Plan (Categories of development and assessment for the Heritage Overlay—
Development Other Than A Material Change Of Use) includes a category of assessable
development entitled: “Carrying out building work if demolition, relocation or removal of a
building” – see extract below.




Consequently, while Council may have previously advised the Applicant that the proposed
relocation of the subject house was not likely to be supported (i.e. during the November 2019
prelodgement meeting), that preliminary advice certainly does not preclude the Applicant
from subsequently making a development application proposing that exact outcome and
seeking assessment by Council of such a proposal against the relevant Heritage overlay code.
It follows that the observation made – that Council had previously offered a view contrary to
the basis of the current proposal – also does not absolve Council of its obligation to undertake
the appropriate planning assessment of that development application.

Council commentary: “The report provided by Vault Heritage Consulting is titled as a Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA). However, it does not include the basic requirements of a HIA. In
general a HIA would be a much more detailed report including sections showing an
understanding of the significance of the place (and its significance in the Character Area),
analysis of heritage (or in this case character) issues affecting the proposal, detailed
assessment of the impact of the proposal (in this case the impact of removing a place from the
Character Area and re-siting in an alternate Character Area) as well as an investigation of all
options to retain and reuse with removal as a last resort. There are industry standard
guidelines for Heritage Impact Statements regarding development on State Heritage Places
and these are generally adapted to meet requirements for local heritage/character reporting.
Also, the Burra Charter principles are not considered at all in the report.
Information Required
3. An updated HIA which includes:
a. Assessment of the significance of the site and its significance in the Character Area;
b. Analysis of heritage (or in this case character) issues affecting the proposal;
c. Detailed assessment of the impact of the proposal (in this case the impact of removing
a place from the Character Area and re-siting in an alternate Character Area)




                                19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 5 | P a g e

Page 6

d. An investigation of all options to retain and reuse with removal as a last resort.
e. Consideration of the Burra Charter principles”

Response: Setting aside the obvious professional smear included in this Item of Council’s
Information Request letter and outlining the alleged inadequacies of the heritage reporting
prepared for the current application, there appears to be some equally obvious shortfalls in
the author’s own understanding of both the provisions of Council’s planning scheme in
relation to the Heritage overlay (and corresponding Heritage overlay code) as well as relevant
heritage assessment requirements and processes more broadly.
Please note the following:

It is noted that Section 13.16.2 (f) (iii) of the Noosa Plan outlines a list of six (6) local heritage
places situated within the Cooroy-Maple Street Character Area; as follows:
“iii. Heritage Sites within Schedule 3 of the planning scheme are protected including—
a. Former Cooroy Butter Factory (Art Gallery), c.1930 – 11 Maple Street;
b. Former Ferguson’s Auctioneer’s Office, c. 1910 – 21 Maple Street;
c. The Memorial Hall, c.1926 – 23-29 Maple Street;
d. Cooroy Post Office, c.1914 – 33 Maple Street;
e. Methodist (Uniting) Church and Church Hall, c.1911 – 51 Maple Street;
f. Peachy’s House, c.1929 – 68 Maple Street.”

It is further noted that the subject site at 45 Maple Street, Cooroy has not been identified in
this planning scheme extract as one of the local heritage places located within this particular
Character Area. It is acknowledged that the subject house is definitely an early residential
building (i.e. a character building) and is situated within a designated character area under the
Heritage overlay (refer to relevant definition: “character buildings means buildings within a
character area that contribute positively to the identified character of the area and may
include buildings that represent periods or styles that predominate within the character area
but have not been listed as a heritage site.” – refer to see Heritage Overlay general
provisions; Part 13, Division 5 of the Noosa Plan).

However it is also noted that the simple inclusion of the subject house in this overlay as a
character building located within a designated Character Area does not miraculously elevate it
to classification as a heritage place under the planning scheme - as has erroneously been
suggested in the Information Request letter, which is why the subject site continues to be
excluded from the list of Cooroy heritage sites detailed above. It follows that, as the subject
house is definitely not a heritage place, it also does not have any cultural heritage significance
attributed to it that could potentially inform the supposed requirement outlined in the
Information Request letter for: “Assessment of the significance of the site and its significance
in the Character Area;” (Item 3 (a)). Hence this alleged “issue” raised by Council is considered
to be ill-founded and based upon a significant misreading of the relevant planning scheme
provisions applicable to the subject site.




                                  19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 6 | P a g e

Page 7

Similarly there cannot realistically be any sound planning basis for the corresponding reporting
requirement requested; that being ”Analysis of heritage… issues affecting the proposal;”
because there is no heritage place involved in this application and therefore no corresponding
cultural heritage significance impacted upon by this proposal or other heritage issues
otherwise affecting the proposal. The attempted regulatory overreach documented here is
quite clearly based upon some confusion amongst Council officers between “character
buildings” and “heritage places”, which are not actually the same thing irrespective of whether
they are both mapped in Council’s Heritage overlay. Insofar as any of the issues that are
actually relevant to the planning assessment of this application, such as the potential impact to
the Cooroy-Maple Street Character Area arising from the proposed relocation of the subject
house from that area; it is considered that those matters have already been comprehensively
dealt with in the streetscape analysis already provided to Council in the lodged Heritage
Impact Assessment.

Council commentary: Item 3 (c) of the Info Request requests “Detailed assessment of the
impact of the proposal (in this case the impact of removing a place from the Character Area
and re-siting in an alternate Character Area).”

Response: It is considered that this aspect of the proposal has already been similarly
addressed through the streetscape analysis included in the submitted Heritage Impact
Assessment, which clearly demonstrated that the traditional character at the northern end of
the Cooroy-Maple Street Character Area has been already substantially eroded by prior
contemporary redevelopment on adjacent sites such that the proposed removal of the subject
house would not generate a significant or meaningful loss of traditional character from that
Character Area.

While it is acknowledged that the nomination of a future recipient site within another
character area mapped elsewhere in the Heritage overlay (where the subject house will
ultimately be relocated to) is yet to be made by the Applicant, it would be considered
beneficial to that nomination process if Council’s assessment personnel were, at least,
moderately familiar with the parts of the planning scheme relevant to that ancillary
development assessment process. This would allow for an “In Principle” determination
around the proposed relocation of the subject house to be struck between Council and the
Applicant having due regard for the relevant provisions of the Noosa Plan actually applicable
to this relocation proposal.

Council commentary: Item 3 (d) of the Info Request requesting the “An investigation of all
options to retain and reuse with removal as a last resort;”

Response: This aspect of the proposal will require architectural / building assessment input
from other members of the Applicant’s consultant team, which will be provided separately as
another component of the Applicant’s Information Request response. Notwithstanding that
forthcoming analysis prepared by others, it is understood that the feasibility of the potential




                                19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 7 | P a g e

Page 8

      adaptive reuse of the subject character house as the basis for a medical centre was thoroughly
      investigated much earlier in the development proposal process for this site. Following those
      preliminary investigations, it was resolved that this character building is not suitable or
      potentially adaptable for that proposed land use due to the practical / logistical issues such as
      the inadequacy of the domestic floor framing to support large and heavy radiology imaging
      equipment as well as the process of installing such substantial machinery within this building,
      which would necessitate the dismantling of substantial portions of the house first.

      What is more difficult to understand is Council’s apparent strong opposition to a proposal by
      an established provider of medical services which would facilitate the local community of
      Cooroy gaining access to modern radiology imaging services within a precinct of that town
      already substantially occupied by a private hospital and associated medical services operations
      housed in an array of contemporary buildings adjoining the subject site. The pragmatic
      considerations of installing the requisite radiology imaging equipment and providing for the
      required compartmentalisation and/or screening internally for same within the subject
      character house have already determined as likely to exceed any practical basis for adaptive
      reuse of this character building. This is why the Applicant has sought to house these vital
      medical facilities within a purpose-built and appropriately detailed medical centre structure
      that also incorporates a moderately pitched, hipped roof form and key character detailing
      elements, such as an entrance “verandah” addressing the Maple Street site frontage and
      lattice screening suspended from the eaves, as an acknowledgement of and in order to
      respond to the Character Area contextual setting of the subject site.

      Council commentary: Item 3 (e) of the Info Request suggests that “Consideration of the Burra
      Charter principles” require consideration as part of the current proposal.

      Response: At the risk of having to repeat an earlier Response, this requirement included in
      Council’s Information Request letter would appear to be ill-founded. In this regard it is noted
      that the Preamble of The Burra Charter advises that:
      “The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or
      undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and
      custodians.” (Page 10).

      As noted previously; the subject site is not presently identified as a local heritage place – see
      extract from Section 13.16.2 (f) (iii) of the Noosa Plan (above) – so it isn’t actually a “place of
      cultural significance” per se and consequently the heritage conservation principles of the Burra
      Charter are simply not applicable to Council’s further assessment of the proposed relocation of
      a traditional character house from one character area to another.

3. Conclusion:
   The content of the Information Request correspondence is considered to be a very disappointing
   attempt by Noosa Council to thwart this project and the related enhancement of medical services
   made available in Cooroy based predominantly upon an elaborate misinterpretation of the




                                       19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 8 | P a g e

Page 9

regulatory scope of the Noosa Plan in relation to the relevant heritage and character provisions
actually applicable to this proposal.

It is concluded that the submitted proposal for the relocation of the subject character building at
45 Maple Street, Cooroy and its replacement with a contemporary medical centre of a traditional
built form and compatible detailing represents an entirely appropriate development outcome
that complies with the relevant Overall and Specific Outcomes of the Heritage overlay code. The
resultant development outcome will continue to present traditional building character along
Maple Street and within the broader Character Area of Cooroy; as mapped in the Heritage
overlay.

We trust that the preceding part responses to the Information Request letter of 8 May 2020 will
assist Council in its further assessment of the current proposal for the redevelopment of the
subject site as a modern medical centre and will facilitate the approval of the proposed
redevelopment of the subject character house; as per the lodged proposal documentation and
subject to the Applicant’s nomination of a suitable recipient site for the character building located
elsewhere within the overlay.

Yours sincerely,




Malcolm Elliott
Director




                                   19125 20200601 45 Maple Street, Cooroy_Heritage Info Req. response 9 | P a g e