Rejected on demo in DCP area

[Mitch1]

Hi All, it's been a While since I have had a question to post (and also don't have enough knowledge to give!) bought First IP. In brisbane Art Deco/stucco house with red tiled roof that has 2 units, a 2 bedroom and 3 b/r but on single title. LMR zoned. House pretty grotty, but stable, broken asbestos in back section and about 75k worth of retention wall work on boundaries to protect further earth movement, house just starting to show signs of being affected by this, but doubt it would be considered structurally unsound yet!

Town planner suggested applying to demolish as not timber and tin. Then apply for multi unit. Demo applied for using 1.3 on demo code as only timber and tin pre 1946 is effectively protected. 2 letters opposing demo. 1 from neighbour whose house has been on market for months stating the uncertainty of what is going to happen has reduced her hse val. By 100k and the other by a lady who walks her dog down that street and likes the pre 46 stucco character.

Council has rejected demo on character. However, it is not timber and tin as stated in the criteria for demo's in DCP areas that are zoned LMR.

We are going to appeal based on that and are getting a heritage architect and environment and planning lawyer.
Question is, is this just a ruse by council to avoid giving an answer to appease the objectors or are we in a lose lose situation? Has anyone had experience on this with Brisbane city C. As I say it's a first foray!

 

[wylie]

RPI from this forum is the person to call. This is what he does (among other things).

 

[Mitch1]

Hi Wylie, thank you for your input will give that a go!

 

[RPI]

Cheers.

There are some planners in Council who don't agree with the regulations. It is absolutely ridiculous, if they don't like it change the rules. You have an acceptable solution, you meet it, you get approved. Unfortunately it ends up costing you more and then the tax payer. I can probably guess the name of the delegate who rejected it.

I am an P&E court most weeks at present.

Unfortunately it is a waste of money that you should never have had to spend. It will end up being around $5,000 but gets resolved quickly. Although I could run the appeal through my law firm without engaging a barrister, engaging the guy we do shows the council we mean business and they normally roll over before we even step foot in the Court, as he will get legal costs against them if we got to hearing the appeal.

It normally goes like this (typical costs below but they do change)
Engage law firm to act, we research and prepare brief for Barrister ($1,500)
Law firm briefs Barrister who writes notice of appeal seeking indemnity legal costs ($2,500).
Pay P&E appeal fee ($517.40)
Serve Council with Notice of Appeal.
Council writes to us saying they will not oppose orders allowing the appeal on the basis that each party wears their own costs and providing draft approval conditions.
Appeal allowed and you get your approval.

A colossal waste of time and money on everyone's part. I have been down the political pressure route on this by harassing different councillors but it is hit and miss, even more time consuming and may not get a result.

It is wrong that you have to go through this and our council rates are wasted on it also.

 

[Mitch1]

Hey there RPI,

Yep, wasting time and money...council called to offer me the opportunity to withdraw demo app. As it would be refused. I had to write and say thanks but no thanks, formal answer needed for appeal. Got the rejection next day..

Even though we have an acceptable solution under 1.3 as it is pre 46 stucco and tile in LMR, is ther a chance it can still be refused and what grounds do they use if this happens do you know? My hope obviously is that it is cut and dried due to the code so just trying to figure out if it is that 'simple'!

 

[RPI]

If you PM me the address, I will give you an opinion back through the forum (sans identifying info) as to whether there are any issues.

regards

 

[RPI]

Comments on the house.

1. Not a tin roof but tiles so that helps.
2. There is probably weatherboards underneath that stucco, that is a bit of a negative.

However, there is no timber and tin character present, so your that demolition of the house will not result in the loss of traditional timber and tin building character is a strong argument.


There is a very good chance that the Council legal practice will not fight an appeal and would just allow the appeal. If so that would be the $5kish costs I was talking about before.

In the event that they did not and it went to a full trial you would be looking at costs
Law Firm $20-$25k
Barrister $35-$50k
Heritage Architect $10k
Town Planner $5k (not me has to be independent)

I think it is unlikely that it would progress to that, but you would need to spend the $5k to find out. You could then make the decision at that stage whether to progress.

If there was no chance that there was weatherboard underneath the stucco then there would be almost no chance they would fight the appeal.

good luck

 

[Mitch1]

Re demo app

Cheers for that
Am still thinking we have a reasonable appeal case as per your own statements and as you said, even if it were timber under the stucco, it is certainly no longer recognisable as a timber structure....am in the mood to find out that answer with a sledgehammer about now
I also reckon the significant setback of the property on the site is a huge negative in their claim of character as majority of pre 46 are close to the street as per their character definitions. It is the only house on the street set back like that. Wonder would they turn that around and say this is a good thing that adds to the character??!! Would really be peeved if this went all the way to court....