HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT - strathfield.nsw.gov.au

Burlington Road HIS (1)Level 19, 100 William Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 Phone: (02) 8076 5317
HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush
CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Preamble 1 1.2 Authorship 1 1.3 Limitations 1 1.4 Methodology 1 1.4.1 Physical Evidence 2 1.4.2 Documentary Evidence 2 1.5 Site Location 3
2.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 4
2.1 Original Occupation 4 2.2 Early European Occupation 4 2.3 Mid-Nineteenth Century Strathfield 5 2.4 The Underwood Estate 6 2.5 Laying the Foundations of Modern Strathfield 8 2.6 No. 102 Burlington Road 9 2.6.1 Robert Trevethan and a Dwelling Called Candilgy 9 2.6.2 The Rofe Family and Camden Lodge 10 2.6.3 Bush Family 11 2.6.4 Heritage Listing and Fire 14
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT 18
3.1 The Site 18 3.2 The Dwelling 23 3.2.1 Exterior 23 3.2.2 Interior 29 3.3 Outbuildings 32 3.4 The Surrounding Area 34 3.4.1 The General Area 34 3.4.2 Burlington Road 35
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 38
4.1 Summary of Statutory Heritage Listings 38 4.2 Heritage Items in the Vicinity of the Site 38 4.2.1 Identifying the Items and Conservation Areas 38 4.2.2 Heritage Items 39 4.2.3 Conservation Areas 41 4.3 Integrity 41 4.3.1 The Site 41 4.3.2 The Dwelling 42 4.4 View Corridors Towards the Site 42 4.5 Assessment Under NSW Heritage Criterion 44 4.5.1 Criterion (a) 44 4.5.2 Criterion (b) 44 4.5.3 Criterion (c) 45 4.5.4 Criterion (d) 45 4.5.5 Criterion (e) 45 4.5.6 Criterion (f) 45 4.5.7 Criterion (g) 45 4.6 Statements of Significance 46 4.6.1 State Heritage Inventory 46 4.6.2 Revised Statement 46
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush
5.0 SCOPE OF WORKS 46
6.0 EFFECT OF WORKS 47
6.1 Effect of Works on the Site 47 6.1.1 Setting (Section 2.2) 47 6.1.2 Scale (Section 2.3) 49 6.1.3 Form (Section 2.4) 50 6.1.4 Materials and Colours (Section 2.5) 52 6.1.5 Alterations and Additions (Section 2.6) 53 6.1.6 Doors and Windows (Section 2.7) 55 6.1.7 Carparking (Section 2.8) 56 6.1.8 Fencing (Section 2.9) 57 6.1.9 Landscape Elements Including Paving and Driveways (Section 2.10) 58 6.1.10 Outbuildings (Section 2.11) 60 6.1.11 Modern Technologies (Section 2.12) 60 6.1.12 Demolition (Section 2.13) 61 6.1.13 Subdivision (Section 2.14) 61 6.1.14 Signage (Section 2.15) 61 6.1.15 Adaptive Reuse (Section 2.16) 61 6.2 Effect of Work on Nearby Heritage Items and Conservation Areas 62 6.2.1 Marlborough, No. 94-96 Burlington Road (I23) 62 6.2.2 Billesdon, No. 104-106 Burlington Road (I24) 62 6.2.3 Abbotsford Road Conservation Area (C2) 63
7.0 CONCLUSION 63
8.0 APPENDIX 1
Cover Image: Photograph of the front of Camden Lodge, 2009 Realestate.com.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preamble
This Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) has been prepared in conjunction with a Development Application for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and for new landscaping at No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush, New South Wales.
The site is located within the Municipality of Strathfield. The principal planning control for the site is the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The site is listed as a heritage item of local significance by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the LEP 2012, where it is identified as Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden, No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush (I24). The site adjoins other items listed by this Schedule and the Albert Road Central Conservation Area as it is defined by Schedule 5 Part 2 of the LEP 2012. Under Part 5.10 of the LEP 2012:
(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6). (5) Heritage assessment The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development: (a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or (b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or (c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.
The appropriate heritage management document in this instance is a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS). This statement has been prepared at the request of the owners of the site and accompanies plans prepared by LiteraTrotta (architectural) and Dangar Barin Smith (landscape).
1.2 Authorship
1.3 Limitations
An Aboriginal assessment and historical archaeology were not provided for.
1.4 Methodology
This statement has been prepared with reference to the NSW Heritage Manual update Statements of Heritage Impact (2002) and with reference to the Council planning controls listed under Section 1.6.
1.4.1 Physical Evidence
Site visits were carried out by Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning in 2021. Unless otherwise stated, the photographs contained in this statement were taken on these occasions.
1.4.2 Documentary Evidence
1.4.2.1 General References
• ‘Advertising (Domestic Wanted),’ Macleay Argus, 4 June, 1948, p.8. • (‘Advertising (Probate Jurisdiction), The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 May, 1937,
p.2. • Campbell, J.F., ‘Liberty Plains of the First Free Settlers, 1793’, Journal of the
Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol. XXII/V, 1936. • Coupe, Sheena and Robert, Concord- A Century History, NSW, Council of the
Municipality of Concord, 1983, p.16. • ‘Family Notices (Death of Mrs. Rofe),’ The Daily Telegraph, 16 April, 1928, p.5. • Fraser, H. and Joyce, R., The Federation House: Australia’s Own Style, NSW,
Lansdowne Publishing Pty Ltd, 1997. • ‘General Notes,’ Construction and Local Government Journal, 15 August, 1923,
p.18. • Hainsworth, D.R., 'Lord, Simeon (1771–1840)', Australian Dictionary of
Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lord-simeon-2371/text3115, published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 17 August 2021.
• ‘Heritage-listed mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February, 2012.
• John Sands Ltd, John Sands’ Sydney and Suburban Directories, NSW, John Sands Ltd, various dates.
• Jones, Cathy, Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road- homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd-homebush/
• Jones, Cathy, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road- homebush/marlborough-94-96-burlington-road-homebush/.
• Jones, Cathy, Strathfield-origin of the name. https://strathfieldheritage.com/buildings/strathfield/origin-of-the-name- strathfield/.
• Jones, Michael, Oasis in the West: Strathfield’s First 100 Years, Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1985.
• Khalil, Shireen, ‘NSW Land and Environment Court saves Camden Lodge heritage property,’ Inner West Courier, 9 July, 2014.
• No. 98-102 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-homebush- 105348548.
• ‘Obituary (Mr. A.C. Rofe),’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 December, 1933, p.19.
1.4.2.2 Historic Maps, Plans and Images • (Aerial photograph over the site and surrounding area), 1943, 1965, 1986 and
2005. http://www.spail.nsw.gov.au. • M.W.S.&D.B., Strathfield Sheet 9, 1894. Sydney Water Archives. • (Photographs of No. 102 Burlington Road, Strathfield), 2009.
www.realestae.com.au.
• Plan of the Parish of Concord, County of Cumberland, NSW, undated. NSW LPI. • Robert Trevethan his wife Milba Jane and children c. 1910-15. Australian
Trevathan Family. https://bimboe9.tripod.com/Australia.htm. • Underwood Estate, Homebush…., 1878. Homebush Subdivision Plans, State
Library of NSW.
1.4.2.3 NSW LPI Records • Certificates of Title Volume 354 Folio 109; Volume 494 Folio 239; Volume 524
Folio 33; Volume 542 Folio 175; Volume 680 Folio 66; Volume 2675 Folio 172.
1.4.2.4 Listing Sheets
• Billesdon- Federation Bungalow and Garden, No. 104-106 Burlington Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory, Heritage ID No.: 2450046.
• Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden, No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory Heritage ID No.: 2450045.
1.4.2.4 Council Controls
1.5 Site Location
No. 102 Burlington Road, Strathfield is located on the southern side of the road, between Bridge Road and Meredith Street. The site is identified as Lots 13–15 (inclusive) Section 12 D.P. 400.
Figure 1: Site Location. Whereis; annotation by WP Heritage and Planning.
2.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE
2.1 Original Occupation
While an Aboriginal history is not provided for, it is acknowledged that the traditional custodians of the Strathfield area are the Wangal people of the Dharug speaking language group.
2.2 Early European Occupation
The Colony of New South Wales was officially established at a place the colonists called Sydney Cove on 26 January, 1788. Ignoring the presence of the Aboriginal people, all land in the new Colony was declared to be Crown Land. While a magnificent site for a maritime city, Sydney did not possess the rich soils for the crop raising required to ensure the immediate survival of the Colony. Exploration inland lead to the discovery of Rose Hill (renamed Parramatta in 1791) where a second settlement was established in November 1788. Within three years, Parramatta had superseded Sydney as the most important settlement within the infant Colony. By 1791, the two settlements were linked by a rough track known simply as ‘The Path’ and later as Parramatta Road.1 Travelling conditions were notoriously poor along this major thoroughfare until rough stone paving was completed in 1820. The subject site lies just south of Parramatta Road. Reluctant to alienate land from the Crown during the earliest period of settlement, Governor Phillip used his power to grant land sparingly. Only sixty grants were made in the period leading up to his departure in December 1792. These first grants were located at Parramatta, the Field of Mars (North Ryde), Kissing Point (Ryde) and Prospect. The first land grants in the present-day Strathfield Council area were made in 1793 under the hand of Lieutenant Governor Grose. The modest grants of these settlers were located in an area that was subsequently named the Liberty Plains in honour of the fact that, with the exception of one emancipist, these families were the first free settlers in the Colony. The subject site is located on a grant of 160 acres made to Simeon Lord on 9 August, 1803, ten years after the grants on the Liberty Plains (Figure 2). Lord (1771-1840) had arrived in Sydney as a convict in 1791. Emancipated at an early date, he became a successful merchant, public auctioneer, retailer, sealer, timber merchant and captain’s agent. Lord also developed extensive pastoral interests.2 He was given a second, larger, grant of 300 acres within the present day Strathfield-Homebush area, south east of his 160 acre grant, bordering the Cooks River. Lord’s 1803 grant was small compared to others within the area, such as Captain Thomas Rowely’s 650 acre grant; Darcy Wentworth’s 920 acres; James Wilshire’s 570 acre grant; and the 450 acre Church Glebe. Over time, some of the original land grants were combined into larger estates. By the 1840s, the subject site had become part of the Underwood Estate, the property of James Underwood (1776?-1844), an emancipist and sometime partner of Simeon Lord who had achieved success as a shipbuilder, sealer, distiller and merchant.3
1 Sheena Coupe, Concord- A Century History, NSW, Council of the Municipality of Concord, 1983, p.16. 2 For further details, refer to D. R. Hainsworth, 'Lord, Simeon (1771–1840)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lord-simeon- 2371/text3115, published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 17 August 2021. 3 The early land title of the subject site has not been fully ascertained for the purposes of this statement.
Figure 2: Grants in the Strathfield Area. Undated Plan of the Parish of Concord, County of Cumberland, NSW. NSW LPI. Annotation by WP Heritage and Planning.
2.3 Mid-Nineteenth Century Strathfield
Little appears to have occurred on Lord’s grant during the first half of the nineteenth century. The mid-nineteenth century development of Strathfield was largely dictated by development of James’ Wilshire’s 1808 grant, which lay between Simeon Lord’s 160 and 300 acre grants. Wilshire’s grant was conveyed in its entirety to the wealthy emancipist, Samuel Terry in 1815, who subsequently name it Redmire, later Redmyre.4 The subdivision of this estate in 1866 would do much to determine the subsequent development of the area. Present-day Strathfield had been too distant from Sydney to be significantly affected by the rapid population expansion that had occurred since the late 1830s. The only subdivision within the present-day Council area prior to 1840 was the Village of St. Annes on the Liverpool Road (1837), an event that attracted little interest. Development was retarded by the severe economic depression of the early 1840s. What settlement existed, was clustered around inns and other service industries scattered along the Parramatta and Liverpool Roads (the latter had opened in 1814) and near the Homebush Racecourse, on Wentworth’s land (1841). When opened in 1855, the railway line between Sydney and Parramatta provided stations at Newtown, Ashfield, Burwood and Homebush; Strathfield lay just beyond the western limits of expansion that followed the opening of this line. Advertisements for the Redmyre Estate subdivision of the 1860s were aimed at the wealthy who had the means and opportunity to seek out a villa lifestyle.5 The Estate
4 Michael Jones, Oasis in the West: Strathfield’s First 100 Years, Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1985, p.27. 5 J.F. Campbell, ‘Liberty Plains of the First Free Settlers, 1793’, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol. XXII/V, 1936, p.328.
soon developed into the most exclusive part of the district. Among the residents were some of the most prominent families of Sydney society including members of parliament, senior public servants, surgeons, solicitors and businessmen. The Town and Country Journal described Redmyre in 1884 as:
‘This pretty suburb is about seven and a half miles from Sydney to the westward, and stands some 60ft above sea level. It is one of the nicest suburbs, looking so fresh and healthy. There is any amount of free foliage, which gives it a pretty appearance.’6
Some built large houses within park like surrounds; others left their land undeveloped and/or carried out further subdivisions, mostly comprised of large lots, the first occurring as early as 1872.
The name of the present-day Council area originates from the 1860s land sales. Walter Renny, painter and decorator and later Mayor of Sydney (1869-1870) purchased land on the Redmire Estate in 1868, building a house which he called Strathfieldsaye, possibly after the Duke of Wellington’s country mansion or, alternatively, for a migrant vessel of the same name.7 The name was later changed to Strathfield House. This estate was subdivided around the time that the area was incorporated as a Municipality (1885); the name was chosen for the new municipality.
2.4 The Underwood Estate
Little occurred on Underwood’s land during the above period. Following Underwood’s death in 1844, his estate was held in abeyance. In 1873, an Act of Parliament was passed placing the land into the hands of Trustees and freeing the land for subdivision and sale. The first subdivision of 1878, ‘the Village of Homebush,’ covered the largest part of the Underwood Estate. The subject site comprises Lots 13, 14 and 15 Section 12 of this subdivision (D.P. 400). Refer to Figure 3 below.
The land title for the subject property during the early 1880s is complex, demonstrating the often speculative nature of property market at this time. Lot 13 Section 12 was transferred from the Trustees of the Underwood Estate (William George Pennington, William Henry Mackenzie senior, Robert John King and Charles Wye Weeks) to Mrs. Minnie Todman, wife of George Todman of Burwood, landowner, on 19 August, 1881. Todman also purchased Lots 11 and 12 Section 12 on the same day. These were not the first lots that she had purchased on the Estate. On 23 December, 1880, she had purchased Lot 14 Section 12, also part of the subject site. Lot 14 had changed hands a number of times before Todman purchased it between 1878 and 1880.8 Todman in turn transferred Lots 13 and 14 to Henry Albert Uther, a Sydney gentleman, on 19 August, 1881.9 The land title of Lot 15 between 1878 and 1882 is unclear. By December 1883, it was also owned by Henry Albert Uther, thus bringing the three lots comprising the subject site under common ownership.10
6 Cited in Michael Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.33. 7 Cathy Jones, Strathfield-origin of the name. https://strathfieldheritage.com/buildings/strathfield/origin- of-the-name-strathfield/. 8 For transfers see Certificate of Title (C.T.) 354 Folio 109 (Lots 14 and 15); C.T. 494- 239 and 524-33 (Lot 14). NSW LPI. 9 C.T. Volume 542-175 (Lot 13) and C.T. Volume 524-33 (Lot 14). 10 C.T. Volume 680-66. The references to preceding titles are difficult to follow.
Figure 3: The Underwood Estate, Homebush…., 1878. State Library of NSW, Homebush Subdivision Plans; annotation by WP Heritage and Planning. Henry Uther (1843-1937) was the son of Reuben Uther, a wealthy merchant, manufacturer and landholder.14 During the early to mid 1880s, he built, and occupied, a substantial Victorian Italianate dwelling, Marlborough, on his Burlington Road land. This dwelling still stands to the east of the subject site..15 The footprint of Marlborough is visible in Figure 4, a survey of the area prepared for the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board in 1894. With the exception of a small outbuilding that
14 Cathy Jones, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96 Burlington Road, Homebush. strathfieldheritage.com. 15 John Sands’ Sydney and Suburban Directories. Uther is listed in this section of Burlington Road from at least 1887 in a property first listed as Marlboro House and later as Marlborough House.
straddles the rear boundary of what are now No. 102 and No. 104-106 Burlington Road, the subject site is shown as vacant land.
Figure 4:M.W.S.&D.B., Strathfield Sheet 9, 1894 (Detail only). The arrow marks Marlborough.
The subject site is outlined in red. Sydney Water Archives; annotations by WP Heritage and Planning. Uther would retain ownership of the subject site until 1916 and of the land on which Marlborough stands until his death in 1937.16 His descendants would own Marlborough until at least the mid 1960s.17
2.5 Laying the Foundations of Modern Strathfield
It was during the period of Uther’s ownership of the site that the foundations of present- day Strathfield were laid. As the population started to grow, the quality of the municipal environment was carefully guarded by the Council. When annexing Flemington Municipality in 1891, Council records indicate that their primary concern was the opportunity to close a number of noxious industries, which had been a ‘foul smelling nuisance’ to residents of Strathfield. Municipal improvements proceeded apace. In the three years between 1898 and 1901, roads were metalled, earthen footpaths provided and underground drains constructed. Strathfield Council took advantage of State government subsidies for street planting in the late 1880s and 1890s, continuing the programme on their own initiative when abandoned by the state in 1893. Given this activity, there can be little surprise that Strathfield had the highest housing values for the western sector in 1895. Strathfield residents joined their Council in the fight to protect their suburb. Residents protested vocally against the progressive establishment of sale yards and abattoirs at
16 (‘Advertising (Probate Jurisdiction), The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 May, 1937, p.2. 17 Cathy Jones, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96 Burlington Road, Homebush. strathfieldheritage.com.
Homebush by the State from 1901, fearing that the reputation of the area as a healthy suburb would be ruined, that property prices would be affected and that the enterprise would attract the ‘wrong type’ of resident. The abattoir, opened in 1910, however, would have had no apparent effect on the area, with the suburb still be described as ‘one of the choicest of Sydney suburbs’ in a 1918 Sydney suburban guide.18 Strathfield was thus at its ‘social peak’ from 1890 to 1900.19 It was during this period that the suburb became firmly established as a place of residence for ‘better class merchants and retired people.’20 From around 1905, however, the area began to support a higher density of population. High land values and the increasing costs associated with maintaining a large estate encouraged further subdivision. While following the existing pattern of ‘magnificent, modern homes’, the new houses built tended to be of smaller scale than the original mansions.21 Changes to the land taxation system and the increasing costs associated with maintaining a large estate encouraged subdivision. While generally following the existing pattern of ‘magnificent, modern homes’, the new dwellings were predominately of a smaller scale than the Victorian mansions.22 The quadruplication of the railway line (1892) and the availability of express services encouraged a period of rapid population growth. The population of Strathfield increased from 600 people in 1884 to 2,991 people in 1901, 3,670 people in 1908 and 5,550 people in 1915. Growth continued; during the decade 1911 to 1921, the population of Strathfield increased 88%, while the populations of neighbouring Enfield and Homebush increased by over 140%.23
2.6 No. 102 Burlington Road
2.6.1 Robert Trevethan and a Dwelling Called Candilgy
Marlborough was subdivided in 1916. The land comprising the subject site was transferred from Uther to Robert Trevethan, a gentleman from Homebush, on 9 June, 1916.24 Strathfield Council minutes record that Council approved the construction of a dwelling, at an estimated value of £1,850, on Treventhan’s Burlington Road land on 1 August, 1916. The Minutes note further approvals in 1917 and 1918 for a fernery and storeroom.25 No architectural plans from this period have survived and no references have been found in contemporary newspapers or journals to identify the architect (or designer) of the dwelling. Trevethan was a highly successful contractor:
‘Robert Trevethan (1859-1945) migrated from England. Trevethan found employment as a contractor and leased a blue metal quarry with his brothers at Dundas on Kissing Point Road. Around 1910, he moved to Minnamurra on the NSW South Coast, near Kiama and opened a blue metal quarry called the ‘Minnamurra Blue Metal Quarries Ltd’. Approaching retirement age, he sold his interests to the NSW Blue Metal
18 Harris, 1918 cited in Fox and Associates, Marrickville Heritage Study. Unpublished study prepared for Marrickville Council, 1986, p.36. 19 Michael Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.70. 20 ‘Centennial History of New South Wales’ cited in Fox and Associates, op.cit., 1986, p.76. 21 Harris, 1918 cited in Fox and Associates, op.cit., 1986, p.20. 22 Harris, 1918 cited in ibid, p. 20. 23 Ibid, p.33. 24 C.T. Volumes 524-33; 542-175; and 680-66. NSW LPI. 25 Cathy Jones, Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd- homebush/
Ltd (now owned by Boral Industries). Part of the old quarry is now known as Trevethan Reserve. Trevethan, having gained significant wealth, retired from business and settled again in Sydney…. Trevethan died in 1945 leaving an estate valued at £30,908.’26
Figure 5 provides a photograph of the Trevethan family around the time that the subject dwelling was constructed. Trevethan’s Burlington Road property is first listed in John Sands’ Sydney and Suburban Directories in 1918. Trevethan is listed as the occupant of the site, which was one of ten listings for the southern side of Burlington Road, south of Meredith Street, in this year. At this time, many of the properties in the street were identified by name. The subject property was listed as Canliddy in the Sands’ Directories of 1924 through to 1926. Local histories record the name of the property as having been Candilgy.27 It is not uncommon for Sands’ Directories to misspell or misprint names. The origins of the name are unknown.
Figure 5: Robert Trevethan, his wife, Milba Jane, and children c. 1910-15. Australian Trevathan Family. https://bimboe9.tripod. com/Australia.htm.
2.6.2 The Rofe Family and Camden Lodge
On 8 September, 1924, Candilgy was transferred to Ethel Rofe, wife of Arthur Camden Rofe.28 No advertisements associated with this sale have been located. Arthur C. Rofe is first listed at Candilly (sic) by Sands’ Directories in 1926. By 1932-3, street numbers had been allocated to this part of Burlington Road. The subject site was initially known as No. 74 Burlington Road. According to local histories, the Rofes renamed the site Camden Lodge. The property is never listed by this name in Sands’ Directories or in later death notices for Arthur and Ethel Rofe. Arthur Camden Rofe was the son of Arthur Rofe (d.1902), a well-known Sydney solicitor and investor. He either maintained his inheritance and/or was a successful investor in his own right. At the time of his death in 1933, his estate was valued at
26 Cathy Jones, Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd- homebush/ 27 Ibid. 28 C.T. Volume 2675-172. NSW LPI.
£187,409.29 At the time of her death in 1928 Ethel Rofe was described as a ‘native of Victoria’ who had lived in Sydney for 50 years:
‘…She was a well known worker for charity and during the war devoted the whole of her time to work in the Western Suburbs on behalf of patriotic funds.’30
The subject property was transferred Arthur following Ethel’s death. Arthur remarried in 1930 and died in 1933. Various members of the Rofe family would own the property until 1942. The Rofes owned the property during a period of steady growth within the surrounding area. In August 1923, Construction and Local Government Journal noted that:
‘Strathfield boasts of her well-kept boulevarded streets and picturesque homes. Ten years ago, the population was 4,500; it now numbers 9,000; whilst the number of buildings has increased from 900 to 1,775. The revenue of the council increased from £11,000 in 1013 to £22,000 last year, the rates included being £17,000.’31
During the Interwar period, Council, as had its nineteenth century predecessors, continued to actively maintain the qualities of the district. They responded promptly to the opportunities presented by the Local Government Act of 1919 by declaring (1920) almost all of the municipality to be a ‘residential district’. At the same time (1920), Council introduced a policy that there should be no more than twenty houses per ten hectares and resisted the flat building boom that swept throughout other Sydney suburbs. By 1930, a large part of the Strathfield Municipality had been built out; further construction of any significance did not commence until after World War II.
2.6.3 Bush Family
Camden Lodge was transferred to Albert Vivian Bush, a Strathfield carcass butcher, on 29 September, 1942.32 Little is known about Bush other than that he was associated with A.J. Bush & Sons, a large carcass butchering firm.33 No advertisements associated with this sale have been located. The Bushs occupied the property; Mrs. A.V. Bush of Camden Lodge advertised for domestic assistance in 1948.34 The Bush family would own the property until 2009. During the Post War era, the character of Strathfield Municipality began to change. In 1948, the Municipalities of Homebush and Enfield were consolidated into the Strathfield Municipality. The Municipality of Homebush had been largely developed by the employees of the local manufacturers; similarly, parts of Enfield had developed as a result of the railway marshalling yards. The amalgamations doubled the Council area and resulted in an increase in the population from 15,751 people in 1947 to 25, 829 people in 1954. This figure includes some growth in population within the original Strathfield area.35 Strathfield, particularly those areas close to the railway stations, began to be transformed after c.1970 when low rise residential flat buildings were erected. In more recent years, much larger residential flat buildings have been constructed.
29 ‘Obituary (Mr. A.C. Rofe),’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 December, 1933, p.19. 30 ‘Family Notices (Death of Mrs. Rofe),’ The Daily Telegraph, 16 April, 1928, p.5. 31 ‘General Notes,’ Construction and Local Government Journal, 15 August, 1923, p.18. 32 C.T. 2675-172. NSW LPI. 33 References in TROVE. 34 ‘Advertising (Domestic Wanted),’ Macleay Argus, 4 June, 1948, p.8. 35 Michael Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.133.
Figures 6 to 9 below provide a number of aerial photographs over the site from 1943 through to 2005, which show the footprint of the dwelling and provide some understanding of the changing a patterns of vegetation on the site over time. There is little vegetation on the site in Figure 6, taken in 1943, over twenty years after the dwelling had been built. There are trees along the eastern boundary. Whether or not, however, these were on the site or lay within the grounds of Marlbourgh to the east is not clear. There also appears to be a hedge along the western boundary. There is no evidence that the semi-circular driveway in front of the dwelling of later years existed at this time. In 1943, the driveway ran into the site along the western boundary; there is a separate pedestrian entrance near the north eastern corner of the site, which curves across the front lawn to front entrance into the dwelling. A straight path connects this pathway to the driveway. These two pathways are clearly narrower than the driveway and thus identifiable as pedestrian pathways with a reasonable degree of certainty. There is a tennis court on the eastern side of the dwelling and a service yard, with garage and what is likely the separate billiards room to the rear of the dwelling.
Figure 6: 1943. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
Figure 7: Aerial Photograph, 1965. The former pedestrian pathway across the lawn has been
replaced by a driveway. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
Figure 8: Aerial Photograph, 1986. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
Figure 9: Aerial Photograph, 2005. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
2.6.4 Heritage Listing and Fire
The site was listed as a heritage item by Strathfield Council in 1990. The property was sold to Ronney Oueik and his wife, Faten, in 2009. At the time of this sale, it was described as follows:
‘Camden Lodge is a magnificent example of a grand federation home of its era, steeped in history and retaining all its charm, character, features and massive gardens, it is one of the finest landmark homes in the area. Featuring 5 bedrooms, formal and informal living areas, large wrap around verandahs, magnificent rolling lawns, self-contained billiard room, circular driveway and drive leading to a double garage. In original condition and ready to be restored and updated, this is a home of wonderful proportions and potential. Purchase the whole property or separately with Camden Lodge being lots 2 and 3 on 1860sqm or lot 1 as a vacant block of 930sq.’36
The real estate advertisement provided a series of 21 photographs of the site, a selection of which are reproduced below (Figures 10 to 16). Given later extensive fire damage (see below), these photographs provide an invaluable record of the dwelling and its former garden setting.
36 No. 98-102 Burlington Road, Homebush. https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-homebush- 105348548.
Figure 10: Aerial view over the property in 2009. www.realestate.com.au.
Figure 11: Front elevation in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Figure 12: View across the tennis court in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Figure 13: Front hallway in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Figure 14: Dining room in 2009. www.realestat e.com.au.
Figure 15: Billiards Room in 2009. www.realestate.co m.au.
Figure 16: Bedroom in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Oueik lodged an application for the demolition of the dwelling and construction of a new dwelling with pool cabana and tennis court with Council in late 2010. The application was refused. The dwelling was extensively damaged by fire in February 2012 (refer to Figure 17) and has since sat vacant.37 Council refused a second application for demolition in late 2012, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Land and Environment Court.38.
37 ‘Heritage-listed mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February, 2012. 38 Shireen Khalil, ‘NSW Land and Environment Court saves Camden Lodge heritage property,’ Inner West Courier, 9 July, 2014.
Figure 17: Camden Lodge after the fire of 2012. ‘Heritage-listed mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February, 2012.
A DA was approved for the site in 2016 for the restoration of the dwelling and the construction of a new two storey pavilion to the rearm extending to the east of the dwelling. A Conservation Policy Statement was prepared by Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L at this time (DA 2015/111). Demolition works, approved by DA 2015/111, have been undertaken. The property is under new ownership.
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT
3.1 The Site
For the following, refer to Figure 18, an aerial photograph over the site and to the survey that accompanies this application. For the purposes of this description, the Burlington Road boundary is designated the northern boundary.
Figure 18: Aerial photograph over the site. SIX Maps; annotation by WP Heritage and Planning.
The site comprises three equal sized lots with a combined northern (Burlington Road) boundary of 45.72m; eastern and western boundaries of 60.96m; and a southern boundary of 45.72m. The total site area is 2,787.1sqm (by calculation). The site is level. There is a 600mm high brick wall along the front boundary. Low piers rise above the wall at regular intervals. The wall and piers are capped with moulded bricks. There are two openings in the wall; the wall returns into these openings. The wall is in poor condition. It is tilting and has been damaged by tree roots and vehicles. Temporary hoarding has been erected behind the wall. There are timber paling fences along the remaining boundaries. The dwelling on the site, described below, has a generous setback from the street. It is set towards its western boundary, from which it is separated by the driveway (once brick- lined) and a garden bed. There are the remains of a brick lined semi-circular driveway, connecting to the above, in front of the dwelling. A north-south running tennis court once lay on the eastern side of the dwelling. This part of the site is now vacant land. There are two small outbuildings- a brick garage and a wooden shed- described below, in the south western corner of the site. The location of trees on the site is as marked on the survey and as identified in a separate report prepared by Jacksons Nature Works. There are widely spaced irregularly planted trees along the front boundary, identified as a x Cupressocyparis leylandii, a Ficus microcarpa var. hillii and a Thuja arborvitae. There are a number of trees along the rear boundary (within the site and just beyond the boundary in the neighbouring property) including a hedge of 23 Cupressus sempervirens. There is otherwise no vegetation on the site (with the exception of weeds). Figures 19 to 29 below illustrate the general character of the site. Refer also to the photographs in the sections below.
Figure 19: Looking west along the brick wall along the front boundary.
Figure 20: One of the entrances into the property.
Figure 21: The Ficus microcarpa var. hillii near the western end of the front boundary. Figure 22: The Thuja arborvitae at the eastern end of the front boundary.
Figure 23: Damage caused to the front wall by the Ficus microcarpa var. hillii.
Figure 24: Looking east across the front yard.
Figure 25: Looking north towards Burlington Road across the location of the tennis court.
Figure 26: Looking south across the location of the tennis court.
Figure 27: Looking west across the rear yard toward the garage and shed.
Figure 28: Mixed planting on the rear boundary.
Figure 29: Looking north along the driveway on the western side of the dwelling. The driveway was brick lined and finished in gravel.
3.2 The Dwelling
3.2.1 Exterior
The dwelling on the site is a large free standing single storey building, once an example of the Federation Bungalow Style. As demonstrated by Figures 30 to 44 below, the dwelling has been extensively damaged by fire. The surviving walls are constructed of face brick; the brickwork of the front elevation is tuckpointed. Window openings have moulded brick sills in a dark contrasting brick. The brickwork beneath the gable on the western side incorporates a decorative brick panel. The northern eastern and western gables retain remnants of timber shingling and their wide bargeboards; the front gable is the most intact of the gables and incorporates a timber vent. Few door or window frames remain in situ. The roof cladding and structure has been completely removed. There are two tall slender brick chimneys with rough cast rendered detailing.
Figure 30: The front (northern) verandah and elevation (refer back to Figure 13 above for a photograph taken prior to the fire.
Figure 31: View east across the front elevation, showing the remains of the front verandah, the bay window on the western side and the inset front entrance. Note also the detailing to the chimney.
Figure 32: Detail of one of the front window openings (note the contrasting brick sill) and remnant
encaustic tiles. Figure 33: Front entrance and remnant tiles.
Figure 34: Southern end of the eastern elevation. Note the base of the verandah and the flashing,
marking the profile of the verandah roof.
Figure 35: Northern end of the eastern elevation. A set of timber framed multiple paned doors remains in place at the northern end. The toplight of the southern opening similarly remains in situ.
Figure 36: Detail of the bay window in the eastern elevation. Note the rough cast rendered band to
the top of the gabled bay. Figure 37: Northern elevation of the eastern bay.
Figure 38: Northern end of the western side of the dwelling.
Figure 39: Detail of the decorative brickwork beneath the gable in the western elevation.
Figure 40: Mid section of the western elevation. The edge of the verandah is visible.
Figure 41: Southern end of the western elevation.
Figure 42: Rear (southern) elevation.
Figure 43: East elevation of the rear of the building.
Figure 44: Southern facing elevation at the rear of the building with insitu timber framed casement window.
3.2.2 Interior
Figure 45: Floor Plan. Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L (DA 2015/111). The floor joist and floor boards have been removed; the ceilings and ceiling structure have been removed. The skirting boards and internal doors have been removed. Some of the architraves to doors and windows have been removed; remaining architraves are fire and weather damaged. There are the remnants of three masonry fireplaces. Figures 46 to 50 illustrate typical interiors.
Figure 46: Formal lounge room on the eastern side.
Figure 47: Front hallway, looking south. Figure 48: Formal dining room on the western side.
Figure 49: One of the surviving fireplaces; south eastern corner of the dwelling. Figure 50: Former bathroom on the western side.
3.3 Outbuildings
There is a free standing single brick garage in the south western corner of the site. The walls are constructed of face brick. The roof is pitched and clad in terracotta tile. There is a timber framed casement window with concrete lintel in the eastern elevation of the garage and a tilting door in the northern elevation. The northern and southern gable ends are lined with vertically orientated timber boards. There is a timber framed shed clad in Hardiplank (or equivalent) with a flat roof clad in Cliplok (or equivalent) on the southern side of the garage. There is a large opening with timber sliding doors on the eastern side. Refer to Figures 51 to 56.
Figure 51: Eastern elevation of the garage.
Figure 52: Northern elevation of the garage.
Figure 53: Garge interior showing the painted brick walls, cement floor with inspection pit and f/c (or equivalent) lined ceiling with cover battens.
Figure 54: Eastern elevation of the shed.
Figure 55: Shed interior with what appears to be doors from the dwelling.
3.4 The Surrounding Area
3.4.1 The General Area
As demonstrated by Figure 56, the site is located within a predominately residential area underlain by the late nineteenth century subdivision plan. Lots sizes vary, with some dwellings being built across more than one lot. Dwellings are free standing and one and two storeys in height. Most are of masonry construction, with hipped and gabled roofs clad in tile or slate.
Figure 56: Aerial photograph over the site and the surrounding area. SIX Maps; annotation in red by WP Heritage and Planning.
3.4.2 Burlington Road
Burlington Road is a long, straight, wide road that runs from Homebush Road in the east to Bridge Road in the west. The section of the road in which the site is located has footpaths and nature strips to either side of the road. There are regularly spaced street trees. This part of the street is characterised by free standing one and two storey masonry dwellings set within garden surrounds. Lot sizes vary; No. 102 Burlington Road is substantially larger than most lots. The immediately adjoining property to the east of the site is No. 94-96 Burlington Road. This property, known as Marlborough, is a substantial two storey Victorian Italianate Style dwelling set within landscape grounds. It is listed a heritage item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and is described further below. Continuing east, lie one and storey Post World War II dwellings in varying styles. The immediate adjoining property to the west of the site No. 104-106 Burlington Road. This property, known as Billesdon, is a large bungalow with prominent street facing gable set within landscaped grounds. It is listed a heritage item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and is described further below. Continuing west, lie one and two storey Post World War II dwellings in varying styles. Opposite the site lie one and two storey predominately Post World War II dwellings in varying styles. To the rear of the site lie No. 85, 87 and 89 Abbotsford Road, all free standing single storey (to the street) Federation /early Interwar period bungalows. These properties lie within the Abbotsford Road Conservation Area, described below. The dwellings on the lots adjoining the site subject site present rear yards and elevations to the site. Figures 57 to 63 illustrate the general character of Burlington Street in the vicinity of the site. Refer also to the photographs Section 4.4 below.
Figure 57: General view east along Burlington Road showing the general character of the street. The arrow marks the site.
Figure 58: No. 94-96 Burlington Road, adjoining the site to the east, from Burlington Road.
Figure 59: View towards Nos. 94-96 Burling Road from within the subject site.
Figure 60: No. 104-106 Burlington Road to the west of the site from Burlington Road.
Figure 61: No. 104-106 Burlington Road from within the subject site. The dwelling lies close to the side boundary and has been extended to the rear.
Figure 62: Opposite the site.
Figure 63: Dwellings to the rear of the site, within the Abbotsford Road Conservation Area.
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.1 Summary of Statutory Heritage Listings
No. 102 Burlington Road, Strathfield is: • Is listed as a heritage item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP 2012.
The site is identified as Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden (I24). It is ascribed local significance. All three lots comprising the site are included in the curtilage of the listing.
The site: • Is not located within a Conservation Area listed by Schedule 5 Part 2 of the
Strathfield LEP 2012. • Is not listed on the State Heritage Register under the NSW Heritage Act 1977.
4.2 Heritage Items in the Vicinity of the Site
4.2.1 Identifying the Items and Conservation Areas
For the following, ‘in the vicinity’ is determined with reference to physical proximity, the nature of the proposed works and existing and potential view corridors. There are no heritage items or conservation areas listed by the State Heritage Register, under the NSW Heritage Act 1977, within the vicinity of the site. For the following, refer to Figure 64, which shows the location of heritage items and conservation areas listed by Schedule 5 Parts 1 and 2 of the Strathfield LEP 2012 with respect to the site. In this plan, heritage item are coloured brown and numbered. Conservation Areas are hatched in red and numbered. The subject site is marked by the arrow and numbered ‘I24.
Figure 64: Heritage Items/Conservation Areas in the vicinity of the site. Heritage Plan, Sydney LEP 2012 annotations by WP Heritage and Planning.
The following heritage items and conservation areas adjoin or lie within the vicinity of the site.
4.2.2 Heritage Items
The following heritage items adjoin the site: • Marlborough—Victorian Italianate style house, No. 94-96 Burlington Road,
Homebush, (I23)
This item adjoins the site to the east. The State Heritage Inventory does not provide a listing sheet for this site. As set out above, it was built c.1884 for Henry Uther and once stood on a much larger property that included the subject site. Marlborough is a two storey rendered masonry dwelling with a low hipped roof clad in tile. The front elevation is asymmetrical, with a two storey bay on the western side. The remainder of the elevation lies under a two storey verandah with cast iron lace detailing and a corrugated iron roof. Windows are in the Italianate Style. The dwelling lies behind an open front lawn with a substantial (modern) masonry and metal palisade fence along the front boundary. It has a deeper setback into the site from Burlington Road than the subject dwelling and has a generous side setback from the subject site. Refer to Figures 58 and 59 above. This item likely has local and historic significance as a fine example of a two storey Italianate Style dwelling typical of the type erected for a gentlemen within the area during the late nineteenth century. The principal view corridors towards this site are obtained from directly outside of it on Burlington Road. Vegetation and neighbouring dwellings largely conceal it on approach
in either direction along the road until close by the site. View corridors from the west are slightly more open than view corridors from the east. The principal view corridors out of this item are over Burlington Road. There are no significant view corridors out of this item across the site. Refer to the photographs in Section 4.4 below. This item has a lot boundary curtilage. • Billesdon—Federation bungalow and garden, No. 104-106 Burlington Road,
Homebush (I24) This item adjoins the site to the west. This item is a large single storey Late Federation/early Interwar period bungalow with first floor level set within a wide gabled roof. The front elevation is dominated by a wide street facing gable finished in timber shingles. The ground floor verandah is set beneath the gabled roof. The dwelling lies withing landscaped grounds behind a modern brick and steel fence. There dwelling has been extended to the rear. The dwelling lies close to its common boundary with the site and has a similar front setback to the subject dwelling. Refer to Figures 60 and 61 above. The State Heritage Inventory listing sheet for this item provides the following statement of significance for it:
‘The driveway and fencing are excellent examples of terra cotta edging and coping tiles. The lawn and shrubs are remnants of a previous designed landscape. The large bungalow features a shingled gable which projects to the front and side to form a wide verandah.’39
The principal view corridors out of this item are over Burlington Road. There are angled view corridors towards this item when close to it on approach in either direction along Burlington Road. There are no significant view corridors out of this item across the site. Refer to the photographs in Section 4.4 below. This item has lot boundary curtilage. There are two Forest Red Gums (Eucalyptus tereticornis) listed by Strathfield’s Significant Tree Register on this site. The following heritage items are further removed from the site: • Finchley—Victorian house, No. 61 Burlington Road, Homebush (I21) • Meyrick—Victorian house, No. 82 Burlington Road, Homebush (I22) • Ettalong—house, No. 90 Abbotsford Road, Homebush (I15). These items are sufficiently removed from the site by distance or are concealed from it by adjoining dwellings for works of the proposed nature to have no impact upon them. They are not further considered for the purposes of this statement.
39 Billesdon- Federation Bungalow and Garden, No. 104-106 Burlington Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory, Heritage ID No.: 2450046.
4.2.3 Conservation Areas
The rear of the site adjoins the following Conservation Area: • Abbotsford Road Conservation Area (C2)
The subject site adjoins part of the northern boundary of this Conservation Area. The Conservation Area comprises a streetscape of Victorian, Federation and Interwar period dwellings set within garden surrounds. The Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 (DCP 2005) provides the following statement of significance for this Conservation Area:
‘Abbotsford Road contains a consistently high quality streetscape with housing dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There is some modern infill but generally it is unobtrusive. The streetscape is tied together by mature street planting and well-maintained gardens. Abbotsford Road is of particular significance for its architectural and aesthetic qualities.’40
The principal view corridors associated with this area are views along Abbotsford Road in either direction and towards individual properties, including heritage items. The site adjoins the rear boundaries of No. 85, 87 and 89 Abbotsford Road, all free standing single storey (to the street) Federation /early Interwar period bungalows. These dwellings are set closer to their front than rear boundaries and are orientated to Abbotsford Road. No part of the subject site is visible from the public domain within the Conservation Area. The site is visible from the rear yards of properties adjoining its boundary. View corridors out of these properties over the site are not significant. Refer to Figure 63 above.
4.3 Integrity
4.3.1 The Site
The boundaries of the site have not been altered since the dwelling was constructed. The low masonry wall across the boundary is likely to be contemporary with the dwelling. It is in poor condition because of damage caused by tree routes and vehicles. The timber fences along the remaining boundaries appear to be of a relatively recent date. Historic aerial photographs in Section 2 show how vegetation patterns on the site have altered over time. There is little physical evidence of past garden layouts. The driveway has been located along the western side of the dwelling since at least 1943. The semi- circular driveway, once brick-lined and gravel surfaced, in front of the dwelling appears to have been constructed between c.1943 and 1965. It replaced a pedestrian path that crossed the lawn from the north eastern corner of the site, before connecting via a straight pathway to the driveway on the western side. There is no surviving physical evidence (above ground) of the tennis court that once stood on the eastern side of the site. Of the outbuildings to the rear shown by the 1943 photograph, only the garage in the south western corner of the site still stands. The billiards room has been demolished. The Hardi-plank clad shed to the rear of the garage was constructed after 1943 and before 1965.
40 Strathfield DCP 2005, Part D.
4.3.2 The Dwelling
As outlined in Section 2.0 above, the dwelling on the site demonstrates low integrity because of the extent of the fire damage. It is noted, however, that the basic form and layout of the original dwelling remains identifiable, particularly when read alongside the photographs taken in 2009. There are door panels and window frames, presumably salvaged from the dwelling, stored in the shed on the site.
4.4 View Corridors Towards the Site
The principal, significant, view corridors towards the site from the public domain are obtained from directly in front of it on Burlington Road. The view corridors are currently restricted by the temporary hoarding placed behind the front fence. Prior to the fire, the view corridors were of the substantial dwelling within a mature garden setting. Similarly, there were once angled views towards the site on approach along Burlington Road in either direction. These views were restricted to varying degrees by adjoining dwellings and vegetation. The most visible elements were the roof and chimneys. Views on approach from the west were likely to have been more open than views on approach from the east. The dwelling was designed to address the north (the street) and east (the tennis court). Refer to Figures 65 to 68.
Figure 65: View towards the site (marked by the arrow) on approach from the east. The
dwelling is largely concealed by vegetation.
Figure 66: On approach from the east. Closer to the site and at a more acute angle.
The top of one of the chimneys is just visible.
Figure 67: View towards the site on approach from the west along Burlington Road.
Figure 68: View towards the site across the front gates of the adjoining property to the west.
4.5 Assessment Under NSW Heritage Criterion
4.5.1 Criterion (a)
An item is important in the course, or pattern, of New South Wales’ cultural or natural history (or the cultural of natural history of the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush has local historic significance as the remnant of a substantial Federation Bungalow Style dwelling on a large site. Erected in c.1916-7 for successful contractor Robert Trevethan and originally known as Candilgy (later as Camden Lodge), it exemplified the type and standard of larger dwellings being erected in Strathfield during the early twentieth century. The level of significance under this criterion has been considerably diminished by the extensive damage caused by a fire in 2009. Little remains of the garden layout beyond the front boundary wall, likely contemporary with the dwelling, and a semi-circular driveway to the front of the dwelling constructed between 1943 and 1965. There is little mature or significant planting on the site.
4.5.2 Criterion (b)
An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in New South Wales’ cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush is not considered to be significant under this criterion.
4.5.3 Criterion (c)
An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of technical achievement in New South Wales (or the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush was once a fine example of the Federation Bungalow Style set with landscape grounds that included a tennis court, garage and separate billiards room. The level of significance under this criterion has been considerably diminished by the extensive damage caused by a fire in 2009.
4.5.4 Criterion (d)
An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in New South Wales (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons
The community protests that arose from the proposed demolition of this dwelling in the early 2000s demonstrate that it is valued by the local community.
4.5.5 Criterion (e)
An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of New South Wales’ cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area) An archaeological assessment has not been carried out. No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush is unlikely to provide information about large dwellings erected in Strathfield during the Late Federation period that is not provided by more intact examples.
4.5.6 Criterion (f)
An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of New South Wales’ cultural or natural history (of the cultural or natural history of the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush is not significant under this criterion.
4.5.7 Criterion (g)
An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of New South Wales (or a class of the local areas):
• Cultural or natural places; or • Cultural or natural environments
Before the fire of 2005, No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush was a fine example of a Federation period bungalow with its garden surrounds. The ability of the site to demonstrate this aspect has been diminished by the extensive damage caused by the fire. The size and basic layout of the dwelling remain identifiable.
4.6 Statements of Significance
4.6.1 State Heritage Inventory
The State Heritage Inventory provides the following statement of significance for the site:
‘This very good example of a bungalow and its garden consists of good brick fences and gateway, gravel drive, lawn, brick edges, shrubs and trees combining together to form a unified landscape.’41
4.6.2 Revised Statement
Given the existing condition of the site, the following statement of significance is provided:
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush has local historic significance as the remnant of a substantial Federation Style bungalow on a large site. Erected in c.1916-7 for successful contractor Robert Trevethan and originally known as Candilgy (later Camden Lodge), it exemplified the type and standard of larger dwellings erected in Strathfield during the early twentieth century. The site included a separate garage, separate billiards room and a tennis court. Its integrity and aesthetic significance have been considerably diminished by the extensive damage caused by a fire in 2009. Little of the garden layout and planting survive aside from the semi-circular brick lined driveway in front of the dwelling constructed sometime between 1943 and 1965.
5.0 SCOPE OF WORKS
The following should be read in conjunction with the plans prepared by LiteraTrotta (architectural) and Dangar Barin Smith (landscape) that accompany this application. It is proposed to: • Restore the front part of the existing dwelling, removing the rear section as
marked on the accompanying plans. Restoration works will include: o Reconstruction/repair of the brick walls where required to match the
existing. o Reconstruction of the roof and recladding in slate with terracotta ridge
capping. The chimneys will be retained and repaired as required. o Reconstruction of the verandahs, including the masonry balustrade and
timber detailing, timber lined ceiling and roof using pre-2005 photographs as a guide. The surviving encaustic floor tiles will be salvaged (if possible) and re-laid in a section, with new tiles introduced to match to complete the verandah floor.
o Restoration of the gables using existing fabric (where salvageable) and/or matching pre-2005 photographs;
o Reinstatement of timber framed doors and windows either salvaged from the site (where possible) or to match those shown in pre-2005 photographs
o Internally, the front four rooms and front part of the central hallway will be retained and restored.
o The methodology will follow the Conservation Policy Statement (CPS) was prepared by Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L in 2015 (DA 2015/111). A copy of this CPS can be found in Appendix 1 of this statement.
• Construct a two storey addition to the rear of the restored part of the dwelling, with a basement garage accessed from the existing driveway on the western side
41 Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden, No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory Heritage ID No.: 2450045.
of the dwelling. The rear addition will be separated from the retained dwelling by a single storey link set below the gutter line of the main roof. The addition will be constructed of brick with concrete roofs. Windows and doors will be P/C aluminium framed.
• Restore the front boundary wall and construct a new 1.5m high palisade fence behind the front boundary.
• Replace the existing fence along the western boundary with a 1.8m timber fence, reducing in height to 1.5m forward of the front building line.
• Construct a swimming pool and deck on the western side of the dwelling across part of the existing driveway. The proposed driveway to the basement will pass beneath the pool deck.
• Carry out new landscaping as set out by the accompanying plans. The new landscaping will include the reinstatement of the brick-lined gravel surfaced semi- circular driveway in front of the dwelling, tree removal and extensive new planting to the front, sides and rear of the dwelling.
6.0 EFFECT OF WORKS
6.1 Effect of Works on the Site
Section 2.0 of Part P of the Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 (DCP 2005) contains the primary objectives and controls for works to heritage items. The proposal is assessed against these controls.
6.1.1 Setting (Section 2.2)
Controls
(i) Original elements that contribute to the setting of a heritage item such as landscaping, fences and gates, driveways, seawalls etc. should not be removed and, traditional garden designs should be reinstated where possible.
The most significant landscape element surviving on the site is the wall along the front boundary, which is likely to be contemporary with the dwelling. Its retention and repair will have a positive impact. Part of the repair to this wall will involve the removal of the xCupressocyparis leylandii and Ficus microcarpa var. hillii. near the western entrance, which are damaging the wall and have the potential to damage the neighbouring wall. These trees are inappropriate plantings for this location. Neither tree is mature; if left in place, their root systems will continue to damage the wall. Whilst visible in view corridors towards the site, their removal will have an acceptable impact because their current size and aerial photographs demonstrate that it not part of the pre-1943 garden layout. The removal of the trees is mitigated by the provision of a wholistic planting scheme for the area forward of the dwelling, which includes hedging and a number of trees. The new landscaping compliments the Federation origins and style of the dwelling and will a positive impact on the way in which the site presents to the public domain and the ability to understand it as a Federation style dwelling within a garden setting. A palisade fence will be constructed behind the front wall and set into the site to provide improved security. The impact is acceptable because the fence will be concealed as the planting behind it matures. The fence is simple in design and will not obstruct views into the gardens behind. It will not have undue prominence in the street. The heritage items to either side of the site have palisade fences of a similar height. The semi-circular driveway, connecting to the driveway on the western side, whilst not contemporary with the construction of the dwelling, is a long standing site element and one that compliments a bungalow of this period. The reinstatement of this driveway- with its
brick lining and gravel finish- will have a positive impact. The front section of the western driveway is retained and will maintain a good understanding of this element from the public domain. The dwelling once had a simply laid out, but mature garden, little of which remains. The proposed new landscaping provides for a range of planting, including hedging and specimen trees that will frame the dwelling and provide a garden setting. It will considerably improve the way in which the site presents to the public domain. (ii) New structures on land on which a heritage item is located such as swimming pools
and outbuildings should be located so that they do not adversely impact on the significance of the heritage item.
It is proposed to construct a swimming pool, with a deck surround, on the western side of the dwelling. The pool will have an acceptable impact because it is set behind the dwelling and will not be visible from the public domain. The pool deck will extend beyond the western line of the dwelling. The impact is acceptable because it will be concealed by the proposed planting of a Syzygium ‘Resiliance’ hedge along the deck boundaries. Planting is also proposed along either side of the driveway leading to the garage entrance, set below the pool deck. The pool deck will not have undue prominence in view corridors towards the site from the public domain or within the site. (iii) The natural landform and character of the area within which a Heritage Item is located, should be maintained, avoiding any cut and fill to land when constructing new buildings and landscaping grounds. The site will continue to read from the public domain as a level site, with landscaping at the same level as the dwelling. The entrance to the basement carpark is managed by being recessed into the site, with the descent into the basement beginning well into the site. Landscaping to either side of the driveway and around the pool deck above the basement level will ensure that it does not have undue prominence. (iv) Applications that propose basement additions may be required to provide a Structural Report from a practicing structural engineer with experience in heritage buildings to confirm that the proposed excavation will not adversely affect the building or adjoining properties. This report should be provided as part of the development application. Refer to the geotechnical investigations report prepared by eiaustralia that accompanies this application. (v) The placement of the basement entrance should not detract from the street presentation of the item of the streetscape. Placement of basement entries toward the rear of the property and parallel to the side boundary is encouraged. The proposed basement entrance will not detract from the presentation of the item to the public domain. The entrance is located close by the western boundary, as is encouraged by this control. The driveway is level for some distance into the site before beginning its descent. As stated above, the proposed landscaping to either side of the driveway and around the pool deck above the basement level will ensure that it does not have undue prominence in view corridors.
Objectives A. To provide an appropriate visual setting for heritage items, including landscaping, fencing and car parking; and B. To ensure that new development respects the contribution of a heritage item to the streetscape and/or townscape and retains the significance of the item. The proposed works respect the heritage item and its significance and will provide an appropriate visual setting for the heritage item for the following reasons: • The brick boundary wall is retained and repaired. • The semi-circular brick lined gravel driveway is reconstructed. • The location of the driveway along the western boundary is retained. • The entrance into the basement garage is carefully managed. The driveway is set
close to the western boundary and is level for some distance into the site before descending. Hedging and other planting to either side of the driveway and around the pool deck above will ensure that it does not have undue prominence in view corridors.
• A comprehensive new landscaping scheme is provided, which will reinstate a garden setting for the dwelling.
6.1.2 Scale (Section 2.3)
Controls (i) Development on the site of a heritage item must not dominate the item or detract
from its significance.
The proposed new works will have a positive impact on the significance of the site because they include substantial reconstruction and restoration works which will reinstate understanding of this dwelling as a large Federation Style bungalow and new landscaping, which will provide a garden setting. See below. The proposed addition will not dominate or detract from the heritage significance of the site for the following reasons: • The proposed works include the reconstruction of the front section of the dwelling,
including the front of the roof (with retained chimneys), the eastern and western facing gabled bays and the return verandah on the northern and eastern sides. These are the elements that primarily identify the dwelling as being a Federation Style bungalow.
• The proposed two storey addition will be subservient to the reconstructed front of the dwelling because it is located well to the rear of the site and separated from the reconstructed dwelling by a narrower single storey link, set below the gutter line of the reconstructed roof, and generous courtyard.
• The proposed addition is lower in height than the two storey addition approved under D/2015/111 and lies substantially within the side setbacks of the reconstructed dwelling. It is noted that the addition approved under D/2015/111 extended well beyond the eastern side setback of the existing dwelling.
• The massing and scale of the proposed addition is broken into two forms, the overall symmetry of which compliments the existing dwelling.
• The proposed addition is simple and contemporary in form and detail, as is appropriate for a substantial addition. It does not seek to replicate the more dominant hips and gabled roof form of the reconstructed dwelling.
• As demonstrated by the plans and montages that accompany this application, the addition will have limited visibility from the public domain and will not be visible
when standing directly in front of the dwelling. The reconstructed dwelling will be the dominant built element on the site.
(ii) Development shall not obstruct significant views to and from the item of significance. The proposed addition will not obstruct significant views towards the item because it is located to the rear. The dwelling and significant landscape elements- the front wall and newly constructed front garden- will remain fully visible from the public domain. The proposed addition will not obstruct the significant view corridors out of the item to the north or east. Objectives A. To ensure that alterations and additions to a heritage item and new buildings on the site of a heritage item are of a scale consistent with the heritage item so as not to detract from the significance of the item. Whilst being two storey in scale, the proposed addition will be subservient to the original dwelling because it is located well to the rear of the site; is separated from the reconstructed dwelling by a single storey link set below the gutter line of the principal roof and a generous courtyard; lies substantially within the side setbacks of the restored dwelling; and is of a simple contemporary form that is readily distinguishable from the reconstructed dwelling. It is lower in height than the addition approved under 2015/111 and will not be readily visible from the public domain when standing outside the site. As set out below, the proposed addition will be constructed using a simple palette of materials and finishes that will be subservient to the richer tones and textures of the restored dwelling.
6.1.3 Form (Section 2.4)
Controls (i) Important elements of the form of a heritage item such as main roof forms, chimneys, parapet walls, verandahs etc. should not be demolished or obscured by alterations and additions.
The front roof forms and verandah of the existing dwelling will be reconstructed to match the original; the chimneys will be retained and restored. This work will have a positive impact because it will significantly improve the understanding of this dwelling as a Federation Style bungalow. As set out in the Conservation Policy Statement in Appendix 1:
‘Consultant Structural Engineers are to inspect the site and provide a methodology for remedial detailing and or reconstruction detailing to establish the most practical way to ensure the faithful and accurate restoration of the fabric of the item. These documents are to be reviewed by Weir Philips Heritage Consultants for assessment and incorporation into the construction documentation prior to the release of a Construction Certificate’ (See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.1). ‘All existing brick chimneys are to braced and triangulated during roof reconstruction to ensure they are protected and faithfully restored including the restoring of all flashings and internal metal trays to make operational and watertight. All internal timber and marble mantle details including hearth finishes are to be restored.’ (See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.2).
‘Burlington Road Veranda including floor / footings, roof and soffit linings, perimeter balustrade brick walls and piers . Relay tessellated tiling and finish all surfaces same as original.’ (See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.3). ‘The roof is to be reframed to match the recorded geometry and achieve the same for same detail as the original roof. Welsh slate is to be sampled and approved by the Consultant Heritage Supervising Architect in writing prior to ordering or installation.’ (See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.3).
(ii) Development of a heritage item must seek to reconstruct missing architectural detailing of a Heritage Item where possible, including gables, finial trims, front verandahs or bays. The proposed works include the reconstruction of the missing architectural detailing of the front of the dwelling. Reconstruction works will be guided by the photographs taken before and just after the fire and the Conservation Policy Statement in Appendix 1. (iii) Verandahs on the front and sides of a heritage item should not be filled in. It is not proposed to infill the reconstructed verandahs. (iv) Additions and alterations to a heritage item should not detract from important aspects of the form of the heritage item. The form of the original dwelling-single storey with hipped and gabled roof, with return verandah- is reconstructed by the proposed works. The dwelling will be readily identifiable as a Federation Style bungalow. As set out above, the proposed addition has been designed to ensure that the reconstructed section of the dwelling is clearly distinguishable from the later works and is the dominant site element. This is achieved by setting the two storey component well to the rear, separating it from the retained dwelling by means of a single storey link and courtyard and use of a contemporary form. (v) The original shape of the roof of a Heritage Item should not be altered. Not all of the original dwelling will be reconstructed. The extent of the reconstruction includes all the elements that clearly defined this dwelling as being in the Federation Style- being the western and eastern facing gables and the full extent of the northern and eastern verandahs. The simple hipped roof form proposed to the rear is appropriate to a dwelling of this period and style. Objectives A. To ensure that important elements of the form of a heritage item are not obscured or destroyed by alterations and additions. The significant elements that define the form of the original bungalow are reconstructed as set out above. B. To ensure that the form of a heritage item retains its importance in the streetscape and/or townscape. The proposed works will reinstate the understanding of the bungalow form of the heritage item within the streetscape. It will be the dominant element on the site for the reasons given above.
6.1.4 Materials and Colours (Section 2.5)
Controls (i) The original wall treatment of a Heritage Item must be retained where possible. Unpainted brick or stone on a Heritage Item should not be painted or rendered; and (ii) Original materials of heritage items should not be replaced with different materials or materials of different colour. The existing fabric of the section of the item to be retained will be retained where at all possible (subject to structural stability and condition). New fabric will match the existing. (iii) Non-original materials of heritage items that are being replaced shall, if possible, be replaced with material that matches the original material as closely as possible. The new fabric within the reconstructed section of the dwelling will match the surviving fabric as closely as possible. (iv) Painting, rendering or bagging of original face brickwork and/or stonework is not permitted. No such works are proposed. (v) The texture of original rendered finishes should not be changed. The texture of the small sections of rough cast render will be retained and matched as appropriate. (vi) Materials for additions and alterations to heritage items should be compatible with the original materials of the heritage item. The materials used in the section of the dwelling to be reconstructed will match the original finishes, i.e. face brick, timber framed doors and windows; slate roof etc. The addition will be constructed using a combination of contemporary finishes including off form concrete and steel. This is an appropriate approach for what is a substantial addition that provides a clear distinction between the fabric of the restored dwelling and the new work. The proposed finishes will be neutral and recessive against the deeper and richer colours and tones of the restored dwelling. (vii) Colour schemes for heritage items should have a hue and tonal relationship with traditional colour schemes for the period and style of the heritage item. The green and cream colour scheme of the dwelling prior to the fire will be reinstated. This is an appropriate colour scheme for a dwelling of this period. (viii) The use of fluorescent paint on heritage items is not permitted. No such paints are proposed. (ix) The façade of a heritage item is not to be painted in a corporate colour scheme. The façade will not be painted in corporate colours. (x) The use of modern finishes including stencilled concrete for driveways associated with heritage items is not permitted. No such finishes are proposed. The pre-existing gravel finish of the driveway will be reinstated.
(xi) The original roof cladding of a heritage item (slate, tiles or corrugated iron) should not be changed if it is in good repair. The new roof cladding will be clad in slate with terracotta ridge capping, as per the Conservation Policy Statement, to match the original roof. (xii) Sandblasting to remove paint from brick or stone should not be undertaken on a heritage item as it exposes it to weathering and may change its appearance. No such work is proposed. Objectives A. To ensure that original materials that contribute to the significance of heritage items are not obscured. The surviving original materials of the dwelling will not be obscured. B. To ensure that colours of paintwork on heritage items are consistent with the significance of the heritage item. The green and cream colour scheme of the dwelling prior to the fire will be reinstated. This is an appropriate colour scheme for a dwelling of this period. C. To ensure that materials on alterations and additions to heritage items are consistent with the materials of the heritage item. The materials used in the reconstruction of the dwelling will be consistent with the dwelling. As set out above, the addition will be constructed using a combination of contemporary finishes including off form concrete and steel. The proposed finishes will be neutral and recessive against the deeper and richer colours and tones of the restored dwelling.
6.1.5 Alterations and Additions (Section 2.6)
Controls (i) Alterations and additions must not adversely impact the significance of a heritage item. As set out above, the proposed reconstruction of the front of the existing dwelling will reinstate the understanding of this dwelling as a Federation Style bungalow and will thus have a positive impact. The proposed addition to the rear will have a acceptable impact on the item for the reasons give above, i.e.:
• It is set well to the rear and separated from the reconstructed section of the dwelling
by a single storey link and courtyard. • The proposed addition lies substantially within the side setbacks of the retained
dwelling. • The proposed addition has a simple contemporary form that will be clearly
distinguishable from the reconstructed section of the dwelling. It does not seek to replicate the hips and gables of the roof of the dwelling.
• As demonstrated by the documentation prepared by the architects, the addition will have limited visibility from the public domain.
(ii) Any alterations and additions must be consistent with the scale, form, proportion, details and materials of the heritage item. The proposed reconstruction works to the retained section of the dwelling will be consistent with the scale, form, proportions details and materials of the original dwelling. The proposed addition is two storeys in height and of a contemporary expression. The impact is acceptable for the reasons given under (i) above. (iii) Alterations and additions to heritage items must be located so as to minimise their visibility and prominence from the street or adjoining streets, and the height must not be seen above the main ridgeline of the building. Refer to Figure 1. As demonstrated by plans/images that accompany this application, prepared by the architect, the addition will have minimal visibility from the public domain and, when standing in front of the site, will not be visible above the ridge line of the retained dwelling. Refer to the existing and proposed montages prepared by the architect. The reconstructed section of the principal dwelling will be the dominant site element. (iv) Ancillary buildings on the same site as a heritage item must be located so as to not obscure the significant elements of the Item. No ancillary buildings are proposed. Objectives A. To support the retention of heritage properties and maintain their heritage significance. The proposal supports the retention of the heritage of the local area by reconstructing the most significant part of the dwelling and its garden setting, reinstating the understanding of it as an example of the Federation Bungalow Style. The proposed addition to the rear will support its use as a residential dwelling, which is the original and best use of the building. B. To allow changes to the rear of heritage items where the new work does not impact the heritage significance of the heritage item As set out above, the section of the dwelling that defines it as a Federation Style bungalow- the hipped and gabled roof and return verandahs- is reconstructed. The rear of the dwelling, which is not reconstructed, is not critical to understanding the significance of the site. As set out above, the proposed addition to the rear will be subservient to the reconstructed dwelling and will thus have a minimal and acceptable impact on heritage significance. C. To ensure that alterations or additions to heritage properties are sympathetic to the item and reflect the predominant scale, height, proportion, character and setbacks of the existing property, and surrounding development. The proposed addition is two storeys in height, as was the addition approved in 2015. There are one and two storey elements within the streetscape. As set out above, it has been designed to minimise its visibility from the public domain and to ensure that the reconstructed dwelling retains its dominance on the site.
6.1.6 Doors and Windows (Section 2.7)
C

HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT - strathfield.nsw.gov.au

Documents

Transcript of HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT - strathfield.nsw.gov.au