Unbelievable - QLD Govt puts stop work order on Highgate Hill House Demo

Government stops work on Highgate Hill homes

I have been doing lots of media about this site lately, but it is not one that either my town planning practice or my law firm has been involved in.

It was
1. Not in a traditional building character overlay (so demo without council approval unless other overlay applies).
2. Not in the pre-1911 building overlay (so demo without council approval unless other overlay applies)
3. Not heritage listed (so demo without council approval unless other overlay applies)

Developer buys it knowing all of this (so I assume), rightly gets demolition approval by a private building certifier months ago (Oct -Nov I am told)

Last week NIMBY's decide to start a protest about not demolishing the house (which my feeling is more about the 5 storey units the site is zoned for than saving this house) and the media gets involved.

Council brings in a new Temporary Local Planning Instrument in over the weekend that has zero effect on stopping the work.

Now the State Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection has issued a stop work order under the Heritage Act. Power to do so to stop work that may destroy or reduce the cultural heritage significance of a place. Check out the photos of the dwelling and I would love to hear anyone's opinion on what "cultural" heritage this property holds. (criteria in s 35 of https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/Q/QldHeritageA92.pdf)

By issuing a stop work order, because it is not on the heritage register, the minister must then apply to put it on the heritage register.

It also stops work for 60 days unless a decision is made earlier by the Heritage Council.

My understanding is that engineers have determined that the building is in such poor state structurally that it can't be restored anyway (pre-1911 overlay in that zone would not have stopped the builder removing the building and placing it on another site in Brisbane in the traditional building character overlay).

 

Saw you on TV few nights ago. If I was the developer I would have moved in there asap Monday morning and started ASAP!

 

Why is the link not working? I found the article myself and am unsure as to how they can stop work if the developer has met planning requirements. Is there provision for compensation to developers where these "mistakes" occur?

 

Highgate Hill homes: Government issues stop work order

updated link as they closed comments

 

Yeah sorry about that. I have a great face for Radio.

I would normally have demolished in October/November when he got it. BUT you would assume that since they had a legal permit to do so and had a couple of years then do it when convenient. From now on I will be telling my clients to roll the excavator on to site and through the middle of the property as soon as you get the approval. Don't clean up straight away, don't do it neat just trash it so no one can back track.

 

It does not matter what any of us think, really, but....

Rampant development is not good, but that the same time, if the laws are planned, and someone follows the law and get approval via a lawful process, a vocal minority should not be able to turn this around & if someone made a mistake, or wants to now delay, then they should foot the bill for doing so. I must have missed the part where this properties significant history/heritage was explained.

 

Why?

 

Why what ???

if the former, because what will that change, if the latter, you have to be pulling a leg...

 

While I agree that the developer is acting within the law and has every right to demolish the property(s) I think they're only meeting resistance because of what they have planned. Creative planning, a design sympathetic to the surroundings and community consultation would have went a long way but there's no time for that, they want to capitalise on the "boom"....

 

Its pretty ugly. So it sounds like there is no DA to build yet - still going through the process?

 

By the way, I am all for keeping old Queenslanders etc. I have never once put an application through for demo where there was any character in the street left, or if there was character, the individual house had any character. Have knocked back work on many occasions when people have asked to do the same.

But in this instance the demo approval was lawful.

AND

DA
A004268429

for the new unit development was submitted on 26 November 2015.

So this was not a new thing.

 

and going through the file there was pre-lodgement meetings generally supporting the proposal in June and October last year.

 

Don't you hate it when Councils back-flip after giving you good feedback and encouragement from pre-lodgement meetings!
Some of these are really just political footballs leading up to Council elections.

 

Regardless of the outcome, someone or someone(s) in Brisbane City Council has screwed up big time.

 

It begs the question, were these houses missed when the heritage listing was done or were they objected to by the owner as causing too much financial hardship (& the argument accepted)?


Always interesting when you do a little bit of digging: Linky

and to the planning report: Lanky - A004268429

 

Gee I wish I could say what you said, but I can't, so I won't.

But if it sounds like a duck and it looks like a duck, but I don't have any evidence it is a duck it may well be chicken or a fish.

 

There was no heritage listing, no had ever bothered and I can see why. They weren't in the pre-1911 building overlay in Brisbane City Council's City Plan 2014

So they either
1. missed that it was pre-1911 when doing the mapping;
2. Didn't know (records are not great from them and many lost in flood);
3. Or made a reasonable assessment that there was nothing of the 1911 building left worth saving

 

@RPI - there's a little bit of fretwork left in one of the gables but it'd get more value being put into a restoration rather than trying to save these asbestos ridden houses.