By Corey Everitt
A granny flat on the Harkaway property of a significant historical studio has been denied by VCAT after it was determined to be detrimental to the heritage value of the site.
7-13 Baker Street is referred to as ‘The Studio’, a hundred-year-old heritage property that was once the studio of world-renowned Australian artist Jessie Traill. In 2014, it was renovated before being sold to the current owner for more than $2 million in 2021.
The applicant wished to add an external Dependent person’s unit or granny flat within the property. As this proposal required the removal of vegetation on Green Wedge Zone with both a Heritage Overlay and a ‘Significant Landscape’ Overlay, it was required a planning permit to build.
It is a heritage site as Traill lived and used the property as a studio in the later part of her life, Traill was famous for her etchings and printmaking with works displayed in galleries from Paris, London to Melbourne. She rose to prominence during the inter-war period, in the First World War she volunteered for the Voluntary Aid Detachment working in hospitals servicing the front in France.
Casey Council failed to decide on the application prior to VCAT, but argued against the proposal in the hearing.
The proposal sought to add a small unit to the land, as well as a carport, a pool house, a swimming pool, a basketball court and a front fence.
The impact on the surrounding vegetation of The Studio, – an explicit element to its definition as a heritage site – was a central part of the dispute.
Presiding member Michael Deidun was ‘not persuaded’ by the applicants submissions regarding this matter, believing the immediate heritage landscape was ‘seriously threatened’ by the proposal.
The level of removed vegetation, as well as the extent of its potential built-form, Diedun said the site will, “no longer be read in a setting amidst native vegetation, on one’s approach to the Studio.”
The applicant submitted the proposal as in the character of recent, nearby developments in Harkaway. Diedun was not swayed, saying the proposal was not supported by comparison to the ‘worst examples’ in the area and that it is contrary to the neighbourhood.
Deidun ruled in the council’s favour to deny a planning permit as he could not, “support the impact on the significance or character of the heritage place, the extent of proposed built form, or the extent of vegetation that is sought to be removed.”
The applicant also sought to have the council reimburse for legal fees as the council failed to decide an outcome on the original application, this was agreed to by prior consent between both parties at a total of $1825.40.
