A 7-Degree Angle, Heritage Battles, and Housing in Melbourne
- James Lesh
- 9 minutes ago
- 3 min read
The recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision in Berak v Port Phillip CC VCAT 678Â is the latest flashpoint in the debate about heritage, planning and housing.
At the heart of this dispute is a seemingly modest single-bedroom extension in Elwood, which, despite council approval and only one objector, was rejected due to its "visual impact," specifically its non-compliance with a 10-degree sightline guideline in the local planning scheme.
This case, highlighted byThe Age, exposes the challenges local councils face in balancing conservation with the evolving demands of homeowners for modern living.
Left: Existing Home. Right: The Proposal. Source: The Age.
Heritage Workshop's analysis of the VCAT planning tribunal decision points to several key issues: sight lines, visual bulk, concealment, second-storey setback, and the interface between new and old architecture.
VCAT was presented with the proposal, the council’s independent written heritage advice, and the local objection. Crucially, VCAT found the council’s written heritage advice, supporting the extension, did not include sufficient reasoning to support the exercise of discretion to the local heritage planning scheme.
No further heritage advice was tendered to VCAT. Council did not bring their heritage advisor to the hearing for questioning. The homeowner did not have their own heritage advisor. A lack of comprehensive heritage advice appears to have significantly influenced VCAT's decision to apply the rules and disallow discretion.
The City of Port Phillip's planning scheme, with its strong heritage overlay and supplementary heritage design guidelines, was central to the VCAT's deliberations. While the council had exercised discretion to approve the application, VCAT ultimately placed greater weight on a to-the-book interpretation of the local heritage policy, particularly the 10-degree sightline guideline for "significant" local heritage places.
The proposed addition's eave line at 11.9 degrees and roof gable at 17.2 degrees were deemed a clear non-compliance, pushing it close to the 18-degree sightline reserved for "diverse streetscapes" and non-significant places.
Left: Proposed front (east) elevation. Source: VCAT. Right: City of Port Phillip Heritage Design Guidelines.
A critical finding by VCAT was that the streetscape of 5 to 17 Cyril Street, where the property is located, was considered "consistent" rather than "diverse." This determination was based on the immediate surrounds, which largely present a single-storey form to the street, despite some double-storey additions at the rear of other properties being "substantially concealed."
The presence of a more prominent second-storey addition at 7 Cyril Street was dismissed as an anomaly and not a contributory factor to the heritage precinct. This strict interpretation of "consistent streetscape" further solidified the application of the 10-degree sightline and the disallowance of the planning application.
In a statement to The Age, the City of Port Phillip, through Mayor Louise Crawford, acknowledged VCAT's decision, stating that it reflected a different weighting on the intactness and character of the street. However, the council does not anticipate changes to the planning scheme. She added that this particular decision does not have wider implications for Melbourne's growing population.
Our analysis points to a broader issue for local heritage planning. On a case by case basis, we believe that exercising discretion to planning schemes and heritage guidelines can lead to positive heritage outcomes – conserving and enhancing significance, while modernising and adapting heritage places for the future.
In the heritage context of Cyril Street, Elwood, a modest single-bedroom upper-floor extension could be hypothetically supported. But the design needs to be appropriate for the heritage context and significance.
Discretion must be based on comprehensive, robust and evidence-based heritage advice. In parallel, homeowners benefit from engaging their own heritage advisors, because this enables a fuller case to be put to council – and VCAT – when discretion is exercised.
The challenge lies in developing and implementing heritage planning policies and home designs that allow for thoughtful integration of new structures within heritage contexts, ensuring that our cities can grow and densify, without sacrificing their valuable pasts.
