We live in a Demolition Control Precinct and the residents in our street have very strong opinions about protecting the existing dwellings, most of which were constructed pre-1946 or pre war. The intent of the Demolition Code is to maintain the character of the pre-war streetscapes by controlling demolition, relocation and removal of buildings that contribute to the traditional character of the street or area.
Sometimes, however, demolition protections are not enough to save some of these houses. People can and do find loopholes in local laws. After a long and hard battle with Council this worker's cottage was permitted to be demolished and a new double-story house is now being constructed in it's place.
 |
| The 2nd story is yet to go up. Nice view of a block wall! |
That sucks to the extreme. I have no other words...
ReplyDeleteHow could they justify removing that lovely workers cottage for some concrete monolith that no doubt will not be in keeping with the streetscape? Our neighbours at our last house (on a small lot) raised their postwar house and added a huge deck that overlooked our lounge room. Being a metre away we couldn't even have a private conversation. Needless to say not long after that we started looking to move, it just took a few years to find a house that was right and I am thankful Betsy has good distance from the neighbours on both sides. I would be devastated to lose all the sunlight too from a close build, that would almost be worse than the loss of privacy. mel x
ReplyDeleteThe old woman who lived at No 26 was so devastated to see her friend's house removed she left strict instructions in her will that her own home would not get into the hands of the same developer (who apparently owns a number of houses in our street.) She recently passed away and her house quietly sold (without a real estate agent) to a young couple about to start a family. xx
ReplyDeleteThat is such a shame.
ReplyDeleteI wish that historical preservation societies were more prominent and had more power in Brisbane.
I hope that they are at least recycling all the old timbers and windows.
That's a pretty tight setback (1m). We lived in a newer estate in Victoria for a while and the lack of privacy drove me bonkers. I hope the new house doesn't dominate it's neighbours too much :-(
ReplyDeleteThe whole DCP thing is a joke and I'm convinced you can do anything depending how deep your pockets are! It is disgraceful that pre-1946 homes can be demolished. Meanwhile, we are attempting to reinstate the original character features of our home, enclose our verandah which was originally enclosed, repair our baludstrades and relocate our front stairs and yet this has been deemed unacceptable by town planners and we have had to endure a risk-smart application, setback relaxation, town planning application and partial demolition application along with all the associated fees!
ReplyDeleteDo you notice it's usually the "uglier" worker's cottages that are the first to be dozed. We need to keep a diverse range of homes, it's our state's history. We are happy to have saved (for the time being) two house that fit the usual demolish mentality.
ReplyDeleteAppalling and incomprehensible, I agree. But everyone doesn't share our views - a while ago I had this rather pointless and badly-worded exchange on a real estate agent's blog, with people (including the agent) arguing that our pathetic heritage protection legislation had gone "too far".
ReplyDeletehttp://thebuzz.beesnees.com.au/2013/06/houses-versus-land-when-do-heritage-protections-go-too-far/
But - if you understand the underlying driver for their arguments (profit) it all becomes a bit clearer.