the chief executive heritage department of environment … · built-in timber furniture; ... from...

of 48

The Chief Executive Heritage Department of Environment and Heritage Protection GPO Box 2454 Brisbane Qld 4001

21 January 2018

RE: 388 & 404 Bowen Terrace New Farm

I write as the owner, resident and care taker of 388 Bowen Terrace, New Farm. Neighbour to 404 Bowen Terrace, New Farm. I submit that the properties should not be entered on the State Register as they do not meet the state threshold indicators of the criteria. Furthermore I refute the reasoning in the current application for why it does meet the criteria.

The importance of this property has continually been over inflated and exaggerated since the application for the development application was lodged by me the current owner. Prior to this application the property was of little importance to the Brisbane City Council, the State Heritage Council, Dr Riddell, or the Australian Institute of Architects. Its new found importance has only emerged as the property is considered, by a small minority, to be “under threat”. The property cannot be objectively assessed with this attitude or view point. A property also can never be objectively assessed by a Zealot given the nature of their fanatical and uncompromising pursuit of their ideals. I think this understanding needs to kept in mind when assessing much of the evidence being relied upon in regards to this property in both this application and the reports relied upon for the recent court case regarding the development application. These reports have been provided by me to the State Heritage Department to help assess the importance of the property.

Furthermore I believe the driving forces behind both this application and the objection to the previously lodged development approval are only interested in the fact that it is a Dods’ house and that all other supporting reasoning for its importance are inflated in order to protect the primary goal and belief that “if it’s a Dods it can’t be touched”.

Simply being a Dods house should not be enough of a reason to satisfy the criterion or thresholds of the State Register and I implore those assessing the application to explore this ideal.

This property was purchased by me after I received advice from the Brisbane City Council that the proposed development (move the house forward to Bowen Terrace and build on the residual land) achieved all the desired outcomes of the city plan. This advice can be seen in Appendix A. The council negotiated draft conditions and submitted various request for information and these were resolved and agreed upon and it was evident an approval was imminent. At this point the media were used to bully the City Council into changing their position on the application and the properties inherit value then changed to being of a political nature and vote buying.

The only real argument the City Council could use, now that they had changed their positon on the application, was the reduction in set back from the street was in conflict to the scheme. This was their only opportunity to win the case in a court room. All other elements of the application were considered to be acceptable and this is evident in the Judgment. The Judgment has also been provided by me to the State Heritage Department to help assess this application. Many of the same

of 48

criteria and reasoning have been commented on within the judgment and I implore those assessing this application to explore the Judge’s comments in regards to these.

The Judgement determines that the applications was in conflict with the scheme as the proposed 6 meter set back would significantly alter the setting. This still allows for an application for the house to be moved closer to the street with a less radical setback to be lodged and possibly approved.

A small minority therefore still consider there to be a threat to the property and this is the real reason an application has been made for the State Register in the hope that a further layer of control may restrict development or even renovation/extension activities. The reality is though there is no threat to property under its current heritage restraints and controls and the house and property does not meet the State’s threshold or significance indicators. This again draws back to the fact that some people have a subjective view and belief that because “it’s a Dods it can’t be touched”.

Unfortunately the majority of Dods’ finishes and fine detailing have been removed and replaced with Albert Kuceli’s preference of finish and this is a determent to the property. It is now a poorly finished replica of a Dods house at best. Not one internal room has been left untouched and the majority of the houses internal finishes have been completely changed with no recognisable Dods features at all. The same can be said for the outside finishes with the majority of them being changed.

SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion A The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history.

As per the current application Fenton (1907) is important in demonstrating the evolution and pattern of Brisbane’s history in the continued growth of suburban New Farm in the first decade of the 20th century when Bowen Terrace was considered to be one of Brisbane’s most prestigious residential addresses; and the early-twentieth-century practice in Brisbane of setting substantial middle-class suburban homes within gardens designed for display, recreation and entertainment. Built for a director and local manager of tea merchants Atcherley and Dawson, it reflects the development of Brisbane as a commercial centre from the 1890s, not only as headquarters of Queensland companies but also as a branch centre for overseas and interstate companies.

My Opinion. The property does demonstrate the evolution and Pattern of Brisbane’s history and growth in some ways, as do many other properties, but it is not important, critical or rare in doing so. There is much evidence for and against this ideal in Joint Expert Reports.

of 48

Criterion B The place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage.

As per the current application Fenton is important as a now rare example of acclaimed architect RD Dods’ first quality timber houses from the middle period of Hall & Dods’ practice 1901-1909 during which Dods’ most interest houses were designed.

My Opinion. Fenton is a property designed by Dods. It is not an important or special example and it widely neglected and forgotten from all works and publication in relation to Dods for this reason. There are many fine, rare and special examples of Dods’ works that are important in demonstrating his works, but this property is not one of them. Is it the intention that every single Dods’ property is listed? Furthermore the property has been heavily altered over the period of its life. It was quite unrecognisable until Albert Kuceli renovated (not restored) the property. The property now presents as a cheap Italian knock-off of a Dodds’ house rather than a fine example.

Criterion D As per the current application the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places.

Fenton is a fine, substantially intact example of the high-quality residential work of Dods that is characterised by a pervading sense of tradition, solidity and an honest use of materials. The high-set timber house has deliberately oversized timber elements and openings; steep dominant roof with pedimented gables to the entrance porch and verandah piazza; finely-detailed joinery including built-in timber furniture; a well-considered service zone; and an interior layout that optimises cross ventilation and solar orientation.

My Opinion. The above is mostly true however there is no finely detailed joinery remaining. However this is not a class of cultural place.

Criterion E As per the current application the place is important because of its aesthetic significance.

Sited well back from the street in a large and attractive garden, Fenton is important for its Federation aesthetic which successfully combines Arts and Crafts and Classical elements in a high-set house with dominant roof. It is notable for its fine craftsmanship, skilful arrangement of informal and formal living spaces and sense of simple elegant suburban domesticity as well as the studied asymmetry of its principal elevations, the louvered enclosure of its rear verandah and its unconventional but rational planning.

My opinion. Aesthetically every single detail of the property and its gardens has been in some way altered and very much for the worse. It now presents as an insult to Dods and definitely does not meet the criteria for aesthetic significance.

Criterion G The place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

of 48

As per the current application Fenton is important for demonstrating the success of Albert Kuceli as a post-war Italian migrant who played an important role in the development of New Farm in the latter years of the twentieth century.

My opinion. A prime example of trying to make the property something it’s not.

Criterion H The place has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland’s history.

As per the current application. Fenton has a special association with Edward Granville Theodore as his home when he was premier of Queensland, including the substantial extent of its original garden and remnant elements of his study/library; as a fine example of a residence designed by influential Brisbane architect R.S. Dods, for a friend and golfing partner, and fellow resident of New Farm; and as a continuing client.

My Opinion. There is absolutely nothing left of the original garden or Theodore’s study. It has an association with Dods but not a special one in any way. His relationship with Trude is over inflated in order to try and meet this criterion. Much evidence of this can be found in a simple inspection or in the Joint Expert Reports and the Judgment

The Current House and Garden

Much of the application and the belief around the importance of this house rely heavily on it being a Dods’ house and being largely intact. The structure and floor plan are largely intact, but nothing else is. There are many Dods’ houses that are more intact, better documented and are far more important examples than this one.

Yes, the dominant roof is there but has been largely altered with the removal of the vented ridge, the change to Brunswick green corrugated iron. The removal of the Piazza and the now horrid roof connections as the result. The gable rolls removed from the front porch details and other altered details.

The oversized posts are there but all detailing regarding them has been altered.

Of the other important details there is not much left.

Internal Detailing.

Every Room internally has been significantly altered. The VJ and associated detailing has been removed/covered in every room with the exception of the hall way and dining room. Other than the layout out, there is no sign of Dods.

of 48

The Mantle pieces have been removed from the kitchen and the brickwork repaired with contrasting bricks. Solid render has been used to line the face of the fireplace up to the ceiling and again to line the internals of the fireplace.

New mantle pieces have been installed in the dining room and main bedroom. These show no age at all. They are wired with lighting and modern fixings have been used.

of 48

Built in Joinery

The built-in joinery in the Drawing Room was not an installation by Dods. It is evident given the nature of construction, the types of timber used and the apparent age of the built-in furniture that it was likely a Kuceli installation. Its style is also very contrasting to the adjacent built-in shelves that were most definitely a Dods’ installation. Furthermore they are not depicted in Riddel’s conjectural floor plan from when he visited the property in 1986 presumably because it wasn’t there, and furthermore it has not been revised upon further visits. Conjectural floor plan below.

of 48

Drawing Room Joinery

On the left is a set of shelves with VJ lining to the backs and the doors of the cupboard section below. This is presumably a Dods’ installation and presents as it should of 111 years of age. To the immediate right is a new door with breeze through above and side board installation. It is of much newer construction and methods, presents with no age and of differing timbers. It has been cut into VJ which is evident through its connections. In the top right corner of the opening of the side board a much wider VJ can been seen that was used to close the gaps created by the imperfections in the installation.

The rear of the side board is lined with a ribbed or “Regency Profile“ Tongue & Grove this in total contrast to the rest of the house.

of 48

Modern Timbers and Construction

Ribbed “Regenecy Vj profile

of 48

Wider Vj necesitaed by retrofit of built in furniture.

Built-in Joinery Bedrooms and Linen

All built in cupboards to bedrooms and service zones have been removed and replaced as per image below.

of 48

Windows

Other than the two bay windows and the double hung windows in the main bedroom every other window in the house has been changed and the detailing lost with them. Furthermore of those remaining the internal sills, architraves and mouldings have been changed and modernised.

of 48

Doors

The internal doors have been remade and are of newer construction and lack any signs of aging that 111 years of use would expect. They have not been planned, re-hinged or rehung. It’s not apparent if they are proper replicas or if they are of the chosen finish that Albert Kuceli decided upon. There are also spares of these and far more of them than what were required by the original floor plan. I would presume theses are Kuceli installation and of his chosen finishes.

Back Door, part of new extension. Not original

of 48

Laundry Door, part of new extension. Not original

of 48

En-suite Door Rear Bedroom, not original.

of 48

Bedroom Door, Presents as new

of 48

Main Bedroom Door, Presents as new.

of 48

Dining Room Door, Presents as new.

of 48

External Features

Again bar the two bay windows and double hung to the main bedroom windows have been changed.

Drawing Room windows changed.

of 48

Rear Door, stair window and cladding changed.

Bathroom window changed.

of 48

Side verandah changes

of 48

New curtain wall and windows to underside.

New Kitchen Window Installation

of 48

External Detailing

Generic Verandah Brackets and Capitals have been used throughout.

of 48

Weatherboards removed replaced with fibre cement.

Altered dowel and handrail detail throughout.

of 48

Altered Stairs

of 48

Altered Verandah details

Non-mitred corner stops.

of 48

Altered eaves details.

Altered Gable Details

of 48

Corner Stops on weatherboards.

of 48

Incorrect weatherboard connections.

of 48

Roofs and Gables, Eaves.

of 48

The Soffits are asbestos linings and not original detail.

of 48

Theodores Library.

There is nothing remaining of Theodore’s Library. The argument regarding paint is incorrect and does not prove the ceiling or cornice suggested. Furthermore, the verandah would not have been water proof and the idea of a ceiling in the make shift room is not likely. The framing is of recent construction with F8 treated timber and can be seen on the labelling of it. It has been constructed using a pneumatic nail gun and is on top internal retaining walls that are of new construction evident of the external ground level being lifted.

Theodore’s Library Constructed on modern treated timber, likely Kuceli Installation.

of 48

Nail Gun Used to Construct.

of 48

Suggested cornice paint line is above the joist on the western wall.

of 48

Suggested cornice paint line argument does not work for this section of the wall.

Furthermore, the process of retaining the undercroft, restumping the house and changing the position of the front curtain walls would not have been possible without the complete removal of Theodore’s library. There are comments on this made by the Judge in the ruling of the Development application.

of 48

Connection to grounds and The Gardens

The house’s connection to the surrounding grounds has been seriously altered.

It’s very apparent the level of the front garden has been raised and no longer is representative of what was once there. I am assuming that the bulk of the excavation of the swimming pool and other imported soils have enable the front yard to be raised and largely flattened out. It would have previously fallen to the street from the house. This can easily be seen in the photograph of Mossleigh below with the Fenton to the left.

of 48

The stance of the house is now not even remotely close to what was intended. The front stairs have been significantly altered to adapted and it is not possible for any original planting to be in place due to the increased ground levels throughout.

The following images show how the yard itself has been retained at its new levels.

of 48

The garden is now even higher than the brick line of the front fence which is now failing under the load of the garden that it was never designed to retain.

of 48

The undercroft of the house has also required to be retained to accommodate the increased ground level as depicted in the images below.

of 48

The Failing Front Fence.

Falling over under the weight of the raised ground level.

The Fence has been assessed by an engineer and the report can be found in Appendix B

of 48

Significant cracking.

of 48

Appendix A

Pre lodgement advice.

PRELODGEMENT MEETING RECORD COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

MEETING DETAILS: Application Number: A004246772

Applicant: Plan A Group Pty Ltd PO Box 3059 SOUTH BRISBANE BC QLD 4101

Meeting Date & Time: 05 November 2015, 02:00 PM

Meeting Location: Development lounge

In Attendance: Council: Applicant: Kaye Atkins, Planner Adam Nagel, Plan A Group Callan Bennett, Architect

SITE DETAILS: Address of Site: 388 BOWEN TCE NEW FARM QLD 4005

Real Property Description: L13 RP.54676

Zone: LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2 OR 3 STOREY MIX) ZONE

Name of Ward: Central

Proposal:- Alterations to Heritage Place- Subdivision- Multiple Dwelling

City Plan details: Zone: LMR2 Low medium density residential (2 or 3 storey mix) Neighbourhood Plan: New Farm and Teneriffe Hill neighbourhood plan (Low medium density living precinct - NPP-002)

Type of application required: Alterations to Heritage Place – Impact assessment

Key issues identified by the applicant for discussion: - Repositioning of Heritage Place on the site - Alterations to Heritage Place - Building height for Multiple dwellings

Signed Date 05/11/15

DisclaimerThe aim of a prelodgement meeting is to provide initial advice on nominated major issues relevant to a development proposal to assist in the timely processing of applications. It cannot replace the in-depth investigation normally associated with the formal assessment of an application and consideration of any public submissions. While the advice is given in good faith, it in no way binds a decision by the Council.

Please note that as this is a Council document it will be subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2009.

Please note a copy of this page will be provided to the relevant Ward Councillor for THEIR INFORMATION ONLY.

PRELODGEMENT MEETING RECORD – COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

388 BOWEN TCE NEW FARM QLD 4005

BCC ref: A004246772 Page 2 of 4

Detailed description of proposal - Alterations to Heritage Place- Subdivision- Multiple Dwelling

Supporting information provided for discussion The following plans were provided as part of the prelodgement meeting request:

- Site Plan SK01 Issue A - Floor Plan SK02 - Proposed Upper Floor Plan SK03 - Proposed Upper Floor Plan SK04 Issue A

Meeting outcome The following prelodgement advice is provided in relation to the prospective purchase of the subject property.

Issues discussed at meeting Key issue:

Repositioning of Heritage Place on the site - In principle, Council’s Heritage Team has no objection to the repositioning of the house

on the site, towards Bowen Terrace. - The applicant would need to provide further details prior to the approval regarding

method of shifting, reconstruction of fireplaces, new subfloor structure, retention of significant vegetation, details of the garage, etc. Note the applicant advised during the meeting that a Heritage landscape architect has visited the site and determined limited valuable vegetation.

- Applicant to note that the repositioning the Heritage Place on the site will trigger impact assessment, and comments made by submitters will be taken into account in the assessment of the application.

- It is recommended that the applicant brief the local ward councillor on the proposal prior to lodging the application.

Alterations to Heritage Place - Limited details have been provided on the plans regarding the proposed alterations to

the Heritage Place. Noted that the applicant is designing the scheme following discussions with Council’s Heritage Team.

Building Height for Multiple Dwellings - Under the neighbourhood plan, for sites over 1000m2 with a frontage of greater than

20m, building height is permitted to be 3 storeys and 9.5m to the underside of the ceiling of any habitable room. The existing site is over 1000m2 as existing.

- A 3 storey building would need to ensure acceptable impacts on the Heritage Place. - Proposed Multiple dwelling would trigger impact assessment under the level of

assessment table for the LMR2 zone. The neighbourhood plan does not change the level of assessment.

- Note that the neighbourhood plan has requirements for private open space, gross floor area and site cover.




Note: An in-depth assessment has not been carried out for the proposed development. The meeting has addressed the key issues/matters that have been identified by the applicant on the DA enquiry form.

Other Key Matters Road widening

- Council mapping does not indicate future road widening of Oxley Lane affecting the subject site.

- Under the Streetscape hierarchy overlay, Oxley Lane is identified as a ‘Laneway’, which does not trigger verge width widening.

Miscellaneous Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) Council does not undertake water and sewer assessment of any planning applications lodged on or after 1 July 2014. On this basis it is highly recommended that you contact QUU to discuss any water and sewer issues that may affect development of this site. Whilst not a legislative requirement it is highly recommended that you obtain a Service Advice Notice (SAN) from QUU prior to lodging your development application with Council. If you do this it will negate the need of any potential modification to a planning approval being required due to water sewer issues.

State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) Where an application is required to be referred to the State government as a concurrence or advice agency Council recommends early discussions with those agencies to minimise the state assessment period and potential delays relating to providing responses to their information requests.

Please note: Applications submitted after 2 December 2013 are required to address the SingleState Planning Policy (http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/policy/state-planning/state-planning-policy.pdf).

Electronic Application Submission It is recommended that applications are lodged electronically. Electronic versions of the required IDAS forms are available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning website: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/forms-templates/sara-idas-forms.html. Forms and plans should be lodged in PDF format.

All electronic applications are to be lodged through Smart eDA (electronic lodgement) [email protected]. You must provide an email address that Council will use as the primary form of correspondence. This address will be required on all Council and IDAS forms.

Eligibility for on-street residential parking permits in BrisbaneResidents of new multi-unit developments and student accommodation (Rooming Accommodation) located within a regulated parking traffic area or a residential parking permit area where development applications are lodged after 31 March 2015 will not be eligible for on-street residential or visitor parking permits.




It is recommended that this restriction be taken into consideration when proposing a performance outcome for the number of on-site resident car parking spaces. Any development seeking a performance outcome must clearly justify the number of car parking spaces against the Brisbane City Plan 2014 and this may only be supported in exceptional circumstances.

For further information about the location of traffic and resident parking permit areas in Brisbane, visit www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and search for ‘parking permits’. For details about on site car parking requirements for developments, visit www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and search for ‘City Plan factsheets’. To read more about the Taskforce and its recommendations, visit www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and search for ‘parking taskforce’.

of 48

Appendix B

Engineers Report Front Fence

Our Ref: 171205adminmjkinv1 Your Ref: 06 December 2017 Duncan Allan, DB Realty & DB Services Pty Ltd, [email protected]

388 BOWEN TERRACE NEW FARM. FRONT FENCE Duncan We visited the site today and inspected the front fence / retaining wall. The wall is brick construction and is retaining about 700 of garden. Refer attached sketch. The piers, that are integral with the retaining wall and support the fence, are leaning towards the street by about 90mm. The lean is because of the earth pressure on the retaining wall. We consider the wall to have structurally failed because of the amount of lean. The wall and piers should be demolished and replaced with a new reinforced brick or block wall. When required, we can provide you with structural details for a new retaining wall fence. Yours faithfully, OPTIMUM STRUCTURES PTY LTD

MURTY MCKEAGUE RPEQ 3530

IVAN McDONALD ARCHITECTS PTY LTD ABN 43 108 020 284

1

171112-1.1-171219 19 December 2017 Chief Executive Heritage Department of Environment and Science GPO Box 2454 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Attention: Sean O’Keeffe Dear Sean, RE: HERITAGE SUBMISSION IN RELATION TO NOMINATION OF FENTON TO THE

QUEENSLAND HERITAGE REGISTER ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF 404 BOWEN TERRACE We act on behalf of Marie Rosbrook, the owner of the property at 404 Bowen Terrace, New Farm. Pursuant to s.41 of the Queensland Heritage Act, we have reviewed the above nomination and have assessed the cultural heritage significance of the 404 Bowen Terrace component of the proposed heritage listing against the provisions of s.35 of the Queensland Heritage Act. Our assessment is set out below. 1. The nomination proposes a heritage register boundary that includes both 388 Bowen Terrace

(Lot 13 on RP 54676) and 404 Bowen Terrace (Lot 2 on RP 54676). From 1907 to 1938, both of these sites were on one title and were the original site of Fenton. In 1938, the third owners of Fenton, the Steindls, had demolished part of the rear “piazza” of Fenton and subdivided the property to create the current 404 site. Shortly after, the current brick house on the 404 site was built.

2. The current tennis court on 404 Bowen Terrace was never a part of Fenton as there was insufficient land width for a tennis court until after the “piazza” was demolished. The current low brick fence to the Bowen Terrace frontages of both 388 and 404 Bowen Terrace is not original to Fenton but is a later fence believed to have been built in the 1930s. This fence has been altered over time to incorporate a new vehicular access to the 404 site and a new pedestrian entry to the 388 site. The existing 404 pedestrian entry and path is believed to be the early Fenton pedestrian entry point.

3. Fenton is currently entered on the Brisbane City Council heritage register and included on the

Brisbane City Plan Heritage overlay as a local heritage place but only to the extent of the current 388 Bowen Terrace site.

4. 404 Bowen Terrace is not entered on the Brisbane City Council heritage register and is not

included on the Brisbane City Plan Heritage overlay as a local heritage place but is included on the Brisbane City Plan Traditional Building Character (TBC) overlay. As a pre-1947 house within the TBC overlay, the existing 404 Bowen Terrace house is under demolition control.


2

5. In determining boundaries for State heritage registered places, we acknowledge the

Queensland Heritage Council’s guiding principle:

A heritage boundary is determined by the cultural heritage significance of the place and such immediate surrounds as are required for its conservation.1

6. The cultural heritage significance of Fenton purported in the nomination’s statement of cultural

heritage significance makes no reference to any aspect of the 404 Bowen Terrace site and does not rely in any way on the 404 Bowen Terrace site to support the purported satisfaction of criteria (a), (b), (d), (e), (g) and (h). This is not surprising as it is our assessment that no such significance exists in relation to the 404 Bowen Terrace site for the reasons set out below.

7. There is no suggestion in the nomination, and there is no evidence, that any event or person associated with the 404 Bowen Terrace site since it was first created in 1938 is important in Queensland’s history such as to satisfy any of the assessment criteria.

8. There is no suggestion in the nomination, and there is no evidence, that the existing building

on the 404 Bowen Terrace site is of any architectural, aesthetic, creative or technical significance such as to satisfy any of the assessment criteria.

9. The ca.1930s altered front brick fence across the 404 Bowen Terrace site is a minor and

ancillary site element that does not satisfy any of the assessment criteria in its own right. In any event, there is a sufficient extent of this fence across the 388 Bowen Terrace site to amply demonstrate any aspect of cultural heritage significance that might be considered relevant.

10. The fact that the 404 Bowen Terrace site was once part of the original Fenton grounds is not,

of itself, sufficient reason to include the 404 Bowen Terrace site as part of the Fenton listing. If such were the case, every other early house that once existed on a larger site would also need to have its original larger site listed. For good reason, this is not normal heritage listing practice and occurs only in very special circumstances where there is some clear and unequivocal aspect of significance that exists beyond the normal curtilage of the place. In the case of Fenton, there is no such clear and unequivocal case for a broader curtilage set out in the nomination and, in our opinion, no such case exists.

11. If the rationale for nominating the 404 Bowen Terrace site as part of Fenton is to stifle any

limited future development potential on the rear of the 404 site, then that is not a relevant consideration in relation to the s.35 tests of the Act. In any event, if 388 Bowen Terrace is entered in the register, any future development on 404 Bowen Terrace would be regulated as development adjoining a State heritage place under State Code 14: Queensland Heritage.

12. If the rationale for nominating the 404 Bowen Terrace site as part of Fenton is to facilitate the

future amalgamation and original open space of the 404 and 388 sites, then that is a hypothetical, speculative and somewhat fanciful proposition given the demolition control over the 404 Bowen Terrace house. In any event, should such an outcome ever come to fruition, only at that time should consideration be given to entering the unified site in the register.

13. If the rationale for nominating the 404 Bowen Terrace site as part of Fenton is to facilitate the

reconstruction of the partially demolished Dods “piazza” at the rear of Fenton, then, again, that is not a relevant consideration in relation to the s.35 tests of the Act and would not, in any practical sense, be able to achieve such an outcome given the existing lot boundaries and separate ownership.

1 Defining boundaries: an illustrated guide Queensland Heritage Council 2007 p.3


3

14. If the rationale for nominating the 404 Bowen Terrace site as part of Fenton is to preserve the

existing borrowed view of the rear of Fenton from Oxley Lane across the rear tennis court of 404 Bowen Terrace, then that is not an aspect of significance identified in the nomination and is not considered to be an aspect of significance that satisfies any of the s.35 criteria.

15. Fenton has been sited on its current lot since 1938 and has developed its own identity and

character over time in that lot configuration. Fenton on its 388 Bowen Terrace site has sufficient immediate surrounds for its conservation. The adjoining 404 Bowen Terrace site is not required for Fenton’s conservation and contains no fabric of sufficient cultural heritage significance as to warrant listing the 404 site as a part of Fenton.

Based on the above considerations, it is concluded that the 404 Bowen Terrace site does not satisfy any of the s.35 assessment criteria of the Act and does not meet the requirements for entry in the Queensland Heritage Register. Furthermore, entry of the 404 Bowen Terrace site in the register would not be consistent with the Queensland Heritage Council’s heritage boundary guiding principles and would create an unnecessarily large boundary which would make future development processes unwieldy and would be difficult to defend at appeal. We trust this submission assists the nomination process. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely

Ivan McDonald Architects

National Trust of Australia (Queensland) is dedicated to the protection, conservation and celebration of environmental , bui l t and cul tura l heri tage .

Brisbane Office: 19/25 Mary Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 | Tel : + 61 7 3223 6666

E: heri [email protected] | W: nationaltrustqld.org.au/qld ABN 85 836 591 486 | Chari ty Number CP5350

Heritage Department of Environment and Heritage Protection GPO Box 2454 BRISBANE QLD 4001 15 December2017 Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Application to list Fenton on the Queensland Heritage Register (Application #650078) Thank you for asking the National Trust of Australia (QLD) to comment on the proposed entry of Fenton on the Queensland Heritage Register as a State Heritage Place. Fenton is located at 388 and 404 Bowen Terrace Street, New Farm. The National Trust of Australia (Queensland) has reviewed the application and notes that the information presented in the proposed listing is sufficient for the National Trust of Australia (Queensland) to support the application to list Fenton on the Queensland Heritage Register. However, the National Trust of Australia (Queensland) recommends that the assessment of the place against the criteria should be more robust. In particular, we recommend that the setting of the house and the contribution of its garden to the heritage significance of the place be considered in more detail and given greater prominence in the assessment against the criteria. Important elements of the detailed history and description of Fenton presented in the proposal are not adequately captured in the assessment against the crite ria. We note that Fenton was the recent subject of an appeal in the Queensland Planning and Environment Court (Alloa Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2017] QPEC 051 (16/2828) Jones DCJ 25 August 2017) and that a large aspect of the court proceedings related to the contribution of the garden and the setting to Fenton’s heritage significance (see attached court proceedings for more detail). Given this, we feel that it would be prudent to ensure that the assessment of the place against the criteria is clearly, robustly and explicitly set out in the citation.

mailto:[email protected]

http://nationaltrustqld.org.au/qld

National Trust of Australia (Queensland) is dedicated to the protection, conservation and celebration of environmental , bui l t and cul tura l heri tage .

Brisbane Office: 19/25 Mary Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 | Tel : + 61 7 3223 6666

E: heri [email protected] | W: nationaltrustqld.org.au/qld ABN 85 836 591 486 | Chari ty Number CP5350

Please contact the National Trust of Australia (Queensland) on telephone 07 3223 6666 should you wish to discuss this further. We would be more than happy to provide more detailed recommendations if required. Yours sincerely,

Jane Alexander Advocacy Advisor The National Trust of Australia (Queensland)


http://nationaltrustqld.org.au/qld

John Macarthur B.DesSt (Hons 1), M.DesSt UQ, Phd Cantab, FQA, FAHA Professor of Architecture Director of Research, School of Architecture Director ATCH research centre 6th December, 2017

Re: Fenton Fenton, 388 and 404 Bowen Terrace New Farm

(HRN): 650078

The Executive Officer Heritage Branch Dept of Environment and Heritage Protection [email protected] I write in strong support of the entry of Fenton in the Heritage Register of Queensland. I am a professor of architectural history at the University of Queensland and a Life Member and former President of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. I have been elected as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities for my research in architectural history. I am also a former member of the Heritage Register Advisory Board advising the Heritage Council of Queensland, and have acted as independent assessor for the Heritage Council. I also write as a long term resident of New Farm. It is my view that Fenton meets all of the criteria for entry on the Heritage Register. The proposed listing makes a thorough and well evidenced account of the cultural heritage significance of Fenton. But allow me to make particular mention of Criterion B. RS Dods is one of the most significant architects to have practiced in Queensland at any time, and one of the most significant in his period at a national level. Any substantial largely intact work of Dods is highly significant as built evidence of his well-deserved reputation as one of the great architects of Queensland. Fenton, as a very intact example of what Dods is best known for, his timber houses, is of particular value. The statement at Criterion E well states the aesthetic value and greater cultural significance that Dods was able to give the private residences of the period. Yours truly,

Mrs Judith P. Noble

ATT: Executive Officer, Heritage Branch Department of Environment and Heritage Protection GPO Box 2454 Brisbane, QLD 4001 E: [email protected] RE: Heritage Register Number 650078 Fenton 388 and 404 Bowen Terrace New Farm, QLD 4005 Date: 14/12/17 To Whom It May Concern: Please find below my submission regarding Heritage Register Number 650078. My husband John Alexander Noble and I were the owners of Fenton during 2012-2013. It is a beautiful home and my husband considered it the finest house that he had ever lived in. It is the house where he died. Fenton has a beautiful “feel” and the design is both highly practical and very modern for its era. The house is masterfully sited, captures good breezes from the river and has lovely cross-ventilation which make summers pleasant rather than stifling. The verandahs make the best possible use of each aspect; capturing north-eastern sun on a winter’s morning, sheltering from the afternoon sun from the west with vertical louvres and offering a deep, cool space on the southern side of the house from which to enjoy long views of the private garden. We enjoyed the wonderfully crafted interiors with intact timber panelling, custom-made brass window and door furniture, the generous double-hung windows to modulate breezes, and the beautiful timber joinery that includes original details such as the felt-lined cutlery drawers. Fenton has gracious public living spaces yet retains the intimacy of its private spaces due to the clever layout of the house. The fireplaces in the living room and bedrooms provide heating during Brisbane’s winter and my husband John loved the warmth, sounds and light of a fire during his last months in the house. John and I felt privileged to have lived in this outstanding Dods’ designed home. The history of Fenton and the stories of previous owners were palpable. The garden and tennis parties of yesteryear are easy to imagine in this house as are the meetings once held by Theodore in the dining room with its secret cupboard. The gardens were a great source of joy for my husband and I and created both a verdant outlook and maintained our privacy from neighbours and the street. We considered ourselves custodians of this beautiful home and I commend wholeheartedly the application for Fenton to be listed on the State Heritage Register.


1

Heritage

From: Arno John King

Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2017 7:13 PM

To: Heritage

Subject: HRN 650078 - Fenton

In relation to HRN 650079, I consider that the garden at Fenton does satisfy the cultural heritage criteria:

It is important because of its aesthetic significance, providing a lush green frame to the house when seen

from Bowen Terrace; screening out neighbouring properties; and providing a cool, green oasis in the

neighbourhood. Some of the plants date back to the early decades of development, and the remaining

plantings are generally true to the period and character of the original garden. The Jacarandas tree (a noted

feature of the early garden), make a great contribution to the streetscape when in full flower.

It is important for its strong or special association with the lives and work of many keen gardeners who

developed the garden over many decades. Their work in the garden is documented in many newspaper

articles and photographs and the plants that they grew are pictured and noted, providing an accurate account

of changing tastes over the decades.

It has a strong or special association with E G Theodore whose work in, and love for the garden is well

documented, and who used the garden for receiving guests.

Regards

Arno King

Executive Officer, Heritage Branch Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

GPO Box 2454 BRISBANE QLD 4001

ChrisRowbotham

IwriteinsupportoftheApplicationtoregisterNo388BowenTerrace,NewFarmontheQueenslandHeritageRegisterwithQHCFileNo:650078 Theresidence‘Fenton’previouslyalsoknownas‘Almaden’wasthefamilyhomeofmygrandfather(E.G.Theodore)andtheearlychildhoodhomeofmymother(Myra)andherthreesiblings(John,MonicaandNed).Ihaveattachedsomeearlyphotographsofthehomeandfamily.Whatisstrikingaboutthephotographsishowlittlethehousehaschangedintheyearssincetheyweretaken.WhilstthehomehasobvioushigharchitecturalvaluehavingbeendesignedbyRobinDods,italsohaskeyhistoricalsignificancetoQueensland.ItwasthehomeofE.G.Theodore,QueenslandPremierfrom1919until1925.Hewasatthetime(andremainstothisday),theyoungestpremierinAustralia’shistory.Whenhelivedthere,henamedthehome‘Almaden’afterthesmalltowninhisNorthQueenslandelectorateofChillagoe.AlmadenisclosetothetownofChillagoeandclosetothemineswhereE.G.TheodoreworkedinhisyouthpriortofoundingtheAWA/AWU(AmalgamatedWorkersUnion).Someofthehome’shistoryisrecordedinmymother’smemoir“MyFatherDaughter”whichwaswidelyquotedbyRossFitzgeraldinhisbiographyofTedTheodore.Intheviewofourfamily,itisimportantthatthehousegainstheprotectionofaHeritagelistingtobothpreserveanimportantperiodofQueensland’searlyhistoryandalsotopreservearesidenceofhigharchitecturalsignificancethathasremainedlargelyunchangedsinceitwasbuilt.Belowareaseriesoffamilyphotographsofthehousetakenduringthetimemyfamilylivedthere:

the chief executive heritage department of environment … · built-in timber furniture; ... from...

Documents