DCP house with ultra modern extension - thoughts?

[wylie]

Firstly, I'll start by saying I think this house looks amazing, and if you check the current street scape compared to what it looked like prior to the renovation, well, it is a big improvement, and I like it a lot, but I do wonder about why BCC insists on keeping a street scape as "timber and tin" when they are happy to approve this. It's not like the addition is "hidden" behind the original house and it certainly isn't keeping the street scape "original"...

It popped popped into my inbox yesterday. It is in DCP precinct (which clearly is why the "original" house was kept).

http://www.realestate.com.au/proper...f=ebrochure.premiere-to-property-details-page

This is the link to what it looked like until the renovation -

https://www.google.com.au/maps?q=&l...015&ei=1HedUcG2FcLriAfE8YGIAw&ved=0CCwQxB0wAA

I'm unsure from the listing what the upstairs rooms are in the original house, but I'm guessing maybe it is the children's wing because the original house was facing one street and it seems the new entry runs between the pool and the garage from what was the side street.

I think it looks amazing, but I'm undecided about whether BCC's plan of having DCP areas is really served by having such an obvious "new build" with the old house on the front, so changed that is is almost silly to have made them keep it.

The downstairs of the "original" house is brand new and I don't know if the upstairs would have VJ walls or if they have simply kept the facade.

If it wasn't on a corner block it would not look so disjointed, but being on a corner, why would council not just have let them do a whole new build and not have this mismatch?

I'm curious to know what others think of this? I love the house, but for me, it would be annoying to have the old facade there just because it could not be removed.

The house we sold last year in a DCP area will have an ultra modern extension, which I think looks silly. There are numerous similar ultra modern additions on 30s and 40s houses dotted around our area, so this is not a new idea, but what do others think?

BCC wants the "timber and tin" street scapes to be saved, hence the DCP overlays. Should BCC insist that people can only add ultra modern additions if they cannot be seen from the street? And if this is allowed, doesn't it make a mockery of keeping the street scape?

 

[L and P]

It's so ridiculous isn't it.

When we renovated our house we had to pay the council for special permission to reopen our front verandah to the original look. That was annoying I can tell you.

I think the council just makeup the rules as they go along. We are desperate to move our house which is in a DCP. We are slowly becoming one of the few original houses in the street.

I did enquire with a town planner a couple of years ago who wouldn't even take on the job of trying for us as he was sure we wouldn't get approval and would be wasting our money.

The house you've linked to looks pretty awful to me. Hardly preserving the character of the area.

* sorry- that turned into a little whinge about my circumstances didn't it

 

[moyjos]

I am actually really surprised they were allowed to have that garage facade on the side acces.

Even back in the 80's Dad was not allowed to knock down our garage out the back lf our Clayfield corner block house to build a colourond double garage. He had to build a "in keeping with the area" structure. Dad did suggest a weatherboard facade (he wanted to use the existing material) but BCC knocked it back.

Ended up with a double carport with "lace work" Dad eventually walled it in.

 

[westminster]

In many other heritage overlay areas the extensions need to blend with the area - I'm surprised it was allowed too.

However I do like the style of it inside.

There was a landmark case a while back where a home owner got around a council decision to maintain the streetscape by putting a photo of the original on the front wall of a new build. I wonder if I can find it for you - I thought it was a god awful idea.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/08/29/1156816895648.html

 

[Aaron_C]

My house is an original Edwardian with a modern extension - but you can't see anything from the front like the ones above. I am a bit torn on this issue as on the one hand I think I should be able to build whatever I like on my land but at the same time having the whole area preserved does add value to the area over the long term in my view.

 

[LJW]

Hey Wylie

I actually quite like the fact that they've combined a contemporary (yet sympathetic) extension with the original pre-1946 workers cottage.

Based on the application details from pdonline, the owner actually applied to have the existing house demolished as it was “derelict” and “structurally unsound” although there was no evidence to support the claim that it was structurally unsound. According to the information on pdonline, the application was “not processed”. Reading between the lines, I’d say the Council planner informed the applicant that it had 0% chance of being approved so the application was withdrawn so the DA Fee could be refunded.

BCC are quite strict when it comes to the retention of pre-1946 houses in a DCP and I can understand why it would not be supported by Council. The existing house is located within a relatively intact character area of Camp Hill, particularly along Tarana Street, so the house should be retained. Besides, it wouldn’t take much to return the workers cottage to its original appearance (a coat of paint and the reinstatement of the original front verandah).

By the way, the proposed house extension that you see on the real estate photos was not approved by Council town planners. Under the Residential Design – Character Code, the following building work is exempt from assessment against the Code and does not require town planning approval:
- raise an existing house (height less than 8.5m)
- build underneath
- enclosed extensions at the rear of the building.

While the extension is visible from the street, for the purposes of the Character Code, the extension was at the “rear” of the original building, which is orientated towards Albert Street, so the extension required building certification only.

 

[lizzie]

I'm with the majority on this ... that little (crappy) house looks awful - will always look awful - and was nothing more than a (crappy) little house.

I can understand in beautiful heritage areas, where the architecture is worthy of saving, including where there are rows and rows of little miners cottages - but not something like the above example.

Why can't modern architecture be as worthy - oh - it is! I loved the rest of the example house.

 

[RPI]

We had a similar one through the office today. Put it through DA though as the certifier wouldn't let it go through without one.

Although the regs talk about extensions to the rear not needing DA under the character code, a corner block has a primary and secondary frontage.

I would not have been comfortable putting that through. The materials are doable as a contemporary interpretation but the roof form not, nor the veranda materials.