Sample Heritage Statement

77 Birchgrove Road, Balmain Heritage Impact Statement June 2005

77 BIRCHGROVE STREET, BALMAIN

HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................2

1.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2

1.2 SITE LOCATION.............................................................................................2

1.3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................3

1.4 AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION ...............................................................................3

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT......................................................................4

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................4

2.2 SITE CONTEXT ...........................................................................................16

3.0 HISTORY........................................................................................................18

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................26

4.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA...............................................................................26

4.2 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................................................................27

5.0 THE PROPOSAL..............................................................................................28

6.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .....................................................................30

6.1 STATUTORY CONTROLS ..............................................................................30

6.2 LEICHHARDT LEP (2000)........................................................................30

6.3 LEICHHARDT DCP..................................................................................32

6.4 ‘STATEMENTS OF HERITAGE IMPACT’ (NSW HERITAGE MANUAL) ...................34

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................37

CITY PLAN HERITAGE JUNE 2005/ 25085 – DRAFT REPORT

1



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND City Plan Heritage has been engaged by the applicants, Ian and Kate Myles, to prepare the

following Heritage Impact Statement. The proposal is for alterations and additions to be

carried out to 77 Birchgrove Road, Balmain, in accordance with a design generated through a

Pre-DA consultation process. The proposed works relate to the rear and interior of the

existing building.

The proposal has been designed by Melocco and Moore. The subject site is located within

the local Conservation Area, and the existing dwelling is identified as a local heritage item

under the Leichhardt LEP (2000), Leichhardt DCP (2000). It is noted in the Leichhardt

Heritage Study (1989) and listed with the National Trust of Australia. It is adjacent to heritage

items:

• 75 Birchgrove Road (St Kilda)

• 79 Birchgrove Road (corner terrace)

and in close proximity to the Birchgrove Public School and other local heritage items.

1.2 SITE LOCATION The subject site is located on the south side of Birchgrove Road, in close proximity to the

corner of Macquarie Terrace. The principal elevation of the existing dwelling is orientated

towards Birchgrove Road. It has a real property description of Lot 1, DP723365. For a more

detailed description of the site and its context, see Site Description and Context.


2



Figure 1: Location of subject site.

1.3 METHODOLOGY This Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage

Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impacts’ and ‘Assessing Heritage Significance’ guidelines.

The philosophy and process adopted is that guided by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter

1999. The subject proposal has been assessed in relation to the relevant controls and

provisions contained within the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan (2000) and the

Leichhardt DCP (2000).

1.4 AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION The following report has been prepared Christina Amiet (Heritage Consultant). Patricia

Young (Heritage Consultant) has reviewed and endorsed its content.


3



2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Exterior The subject site is occupied by a single storey, lowset residence constructed in 1889. Its main

elevation fronts onto the eastern side of Birchgrove Road. It is a Victorian Regency structure

with rustic gothic elements prominently situated on the exterior. Viewed from Birchgrove

Road, the building is a symmetrical stone and face brick residence with boxed eaves and

simple, clearly designed features and classical proportions facing the street. The building has

been segregated from the public domain using a simple iron fence with square stone gate

posts and a triangular section of concrete that precedes the structure itself. Its ground floor

verandah, above its sandstone base, has iron lacework supplemented with openwork iron

columns and corrugated concave roof. The openwork columns support timber beams across,

which appear to be in deteriorating condition. The verandah fabric itself has been replaced

with modern materials and corrugated iron. Adjoining 79 Birchgrove Road, the verandah ends

with recessed and unpainted brickwork. The symmetry of the building is interrupted to the rear

by a kitchen wing which flanks one side, adjoining the property boundary with 79 Birchgrove

Road.

The primary entrance is via a centrally located timber and glass multi-paned door with

sidelights and fanlight above, and fitted with a central doorknob and iron knocker. Over this

has been inserted a metal security door of modern fabric. On either side of the doorway is a

vertically proportioned sash window with arched head set into the unpainted brickwork. Above

each of these three elements, the brickwork is of contrasting red colouration and arched in

classical fashion. Set into the brickwork is an external light, which is not original but of

uncertain provenance. At either extent of the shingled roof is a simple chimney with single

arched cowl above. Visually the dominant element of the façade is the gothic dormer window

arrangement with decorated bargeboard at the centre of the roof. This comprises two main

vertically proportioned sliding arched windows that are flanked by secondary arches and set

within the timber bargeboard. This is paired with a bargeboard and dormer window

arrangement on the rear elevation of the building, which lacks ornamentation and is topped by

a weathervane of classical design.


4



At the rear of the building the small brick kitchen wing, being part of the original structure,

forms the house into an L-shaped building. A later addition to the rear of the kitchen is the

present laundry. A rear extension has been added to the building during the twentieth century,

obliterating the original verandah, so that the original external window is now part of a rear

corridor. The extension is of weatherboard with a striped awning over the rear access door.

The weatherboard is set with large paned windows of modern fabric and style. This intersects

with the exterior wall of the kitchen on one side, and with a second phase of works on the

other, adjacent to the driveway and which likely served as an earlier laundry room, with holes

in the brickwork suggestive of such uses. This has a small set of louvres with timber frames.

The brick kitchen features a window which looks onto the rear courtyard. While the opening

and lintel appears to be original, the existing window itself seems to be a replacement. Above

the window opening the brickwork patterning is typical of the late nineteenth century period.

The kitchen has a large and simply-executed brick chimney extending from this aspect of the

roof. At its furthest extent the present-day brick laundry has been added to the structure,

being a squat and functional extension with two small louvred windows and doorway. The

newer addition is clearly distinguishable upon superficial examination of the brickwork, with

the far end wall unpainted. The paintwork and timbers around this extension and reaching

above the kitchen exterior wall indicate deterioration of the fabric, with paint flaking and

timbers rotting in a manner consistent with long-term water damage.

The rear yard itself is set with a paved courtyard fringing the building, with a concrete

driveway running along the property boundary. Along this length, the building shows signs of

alteration, with cellar spaces cut into the sandstone base of the building. Across this face of

the building is a round-headed sashed window opening set with ironwork located high upon

the elevation. Visible cracking extends from this window to the roofline. At ground floor level is

another vertically aligned window opening, with timber frames and both small and large panes

of clear glass fitted. This narrow drive leads to a small open carport at the rear of the property,

backing onto the rear boundary of the site. The remainder of the property is occupied by low-

scale shrubs and plantings.

Interior


5



The interior of the building is governed by the central hallway which runs in a direct line from

front entrance through to the rear doorway leading onto the courtyard. This has been laid with

timbers, which may be at least partly or possibly fully original. The base of the walls is fitted

with large timber skirting boards throughout the extent of the hallway. This area features an

original ceiling rose that has been fitted with a suspended pendant light. The corridor is

interrupted in its flow through to the rear of the building by the original timber staircase which

leads to the upper floor and decorative mouldings relative to the arched support. At the far

end of the cottage, the corridor terminates with the original external opening, with the

brickwork above the doorway showing patterned brickwork consistent with such an

arrangement. The former threshold shows its former use through wearing down of its fabric.

The arrangement of the interior rooms is irregular, with the first four panelled timber door and

doorway leading into the main lounge and dining room space. This has been opened up from

its original two rooms to form a single open space. The ceiling features original roses fitted

with modern suspended pendant lighting. Squat pillars set into the division between the two

rooms and a change in the floor timbers are demonstrative of the former room layout. The

lounge room area, being the former front parlour, has a simple and classical marble fireplace.

The dining room is terminated at the easternmost end by a pair of white painted timber and

glass doors with transom above and a sliding sash window, once forming an exterior window

arrangement but now part of the rear corridor fabric.

Proceeding down the hallway, the second timber doorway leads to the present children’s

bedroom, which features an original marble fireplace with decorative tiling, picture rail,

ventilation grille, and original timber and window frames. The light fitting is of mid-century

provenance, suspended from the ceiling rose. Cracking of wall fabric is in evidence.

At the rear part of the original cottage is the opened-up dining room on one side, and a

bedroom on the other. The fireplace in the latter is, compared to others within the building, in

relatively poor condition, with a section of marble coming away. The rear bedroom window

marks the original exterior wall of the cottage. Within the room, substantial cracking has been

identified in one corner, relative to the ventilation grille and down one side of the room. This

part of the house has been extended, with a fibro corridor with large aluminium framed

windows extending the width of the cottage leading to a small, white tiled bathroom with

bathtub and access to the rear courtyard. At the opposite end of the corridor, situated

between the dining room and the kitchen, is an original storage cupboard or more likely

pantry, fitted with a metal mesh panelled door.

Leading off at ninety degrees from the cottage is the stone kitchen wing, which has been

subjected to alterations and upgrades at various intervals in the house’s history. The ceiling is


6



of painted timbers, with an original ventilation grille inset just beneath, while the fittings are of

twentieth century but dated. The window overlooking the courtyard is not original, although

the actual opening itself is original. The stove presently occupies the former fireplace opening,

surmounted by the chimney.

The first floor is accessed via the timber and carpeted stairs. Above are two bedrooms

located off a small landing fitted with cupboards. The rooms effectively divide the front

elevation’s gothic window arrangement into halves, which is likely to have been a twentieth

century alteration rather than part of the original room layout. The rear gothic windows are

uninterrupted. The wall fabric of the abovestairs rooms are relatively poor in quality and

condition, with deterioration particularly noticeable in relation to the ceiling. Cracking, infilling

and paint flaking is in evidence on both ceilings and walls. On either exterior wall the

bedrooms have an arched timber window; in the case of one, it is situated hard up against the

adjoining building and lacks sufficient provisions for water drainage. The rooms have small

timber-framed cupboards and access points into the redundant area of the former attic space.

It is concluded that the integrity of the dwelling is high along its main Birchgrove Road

elevation. The rear of the building is intact albeit obscured by alterations and additions to the

fabric. The interior of the building retains its integrity in terms of room layout but shows signs

of interference in the fabric.

Fig.2: Front elevation of 77 Birchgrove Road, Balmain


7



Fig.3 View of front verandah showing recessed brickwork, arched sash window, and showing that picks

up the pattern of the open ironwork columns.

Fig.4: View of small triangular concreted space and railings preceding the sandstone base of the

building.

Fig.5: View from rear courtyard showing thoroughfare of central hallway. Note plain gothic window

arrangement with weatherboard extension, and original kitchen wing at right.


8



Fig.6: Kitchen wing, showing original window opening but replacement window

Fig.7:Laundry addition, appended to the kitchen wing.

Fig.8: View of former enclosed verandah with narrow drive between the subject building and the

adjoining property. Note weatherboard and brick enclosure of original verandah.


9



Fig.9: Detail of alterations, showing poor quality brickwork, use of weatherboard, deterioration of timbers

and holes in fabric

Fig.10: View of narrow driveway, with metal-grilled openings cut into the original sandstone base of the

building.

Fig.11: View showing rear yard and carport


10



Fig.12: View of main central hallway, with doors leading through to the lounge and dining rooms. The

stairwell at left lead to the upper floor.

Fig.13: view of combined main lounge and dining rooms

Fig.14: view of living room, showing pillars and changes in timber flooring that give evidence of the

former room division. Note marble fireplace at rear.


11



Fig.15: Ceiling rose with modern light fitting

Fig.16: Fireplace in ground floor front children’s bedroom

Fig.17: Rear bedroom, with original fireplace and windows


12



Fig.18: Dining room French doors opening through to original kitchen wing

Fig.19: Kitchen wing, with original stone walls and grille, and alterations to the fittings.


13



Fig.20: View showing original mesh and timber door between the dining room and kitchen wing. Note

enclosure of fabric above the doorframe.

Fig.21 Former threshold showing wear, located at end of the central hallway.


14



Fig.22: First floor landing, with bedrooms located either side of railed corridor.

Fig.23: Upper floor bedroom opening onto the landing, with service space through the small cupboard at

right.

Fig.24: View of upper level bedroom, showing bisection of gothic window. Note poor quality of wall

fabric


15



2.2 SITE CONTEXT The subject site is located on the east side of Birchgrove Road near Macquarie Terrace.

Adjacent to the property are two heritage items, situated on either side of the building.

Combined, the three buildings create a group with townscape and visual merit:

• 75 Birchgrove Road, “St Kilda”, is a single storey residence constructed in 1882 and

believed to have an association with the subject site.

• 79 Birchgrove Road is a Victorian Filigree terrace with timber balcony over the

footpath and iron lace decoration. Constructed in 1889, it functioned as a corner

shop, stationer and confectioners store at various internals.

Along the streetscape the majority of buildings are single and double storey residences,

dating predominantly from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A number of these

structures show evidence of significant alterations and additions to the fabric. On the opposite

side of Birchgrove Road is the public school, opened in 1885, and a series of Victorian

buildings with Italianate, Filigree and other late nineteenth century architectural features.

These are consistent with the overall characteristics of the Conservation Area.

Fig.25: View of local heritage item (79 Birchgrove Road) adjacent to subject site

Fig.26: View along Birchgrove Road showing streetscape and Birchgrove Road Public School


16



Fig.27: View of 75 Birchgrove Road

Fig.28: View along Birchgrove Road

Fig.29: Properties on the west side of Birchgrove Road


17



3.0 HISTORY

The subject site was part of 550 acres granted to assistant surgeon William Balmain on 26th

April, 1800 by Governor Hunter. Balmain arrived in New South Wales as a surgeon’s mate

aboard the convict transport Alexander, with the First Fleet.1 By 1796 Balmain’s services were

indispensable to the colony, also acting as magistrate, customs collector and gentleman

farmer in addition to various civic responsibilities including a member of the Orphan House

Committee. In this year he was also appointed principal surgeon, to replace John White.2 In

return for his services, Balmain was granted 426 acres of land near Parramatta, 270 acres

near Windsor, and 550 acres which later bore his name, but at the time was known as

Gilchrist Place. This was adjacent to land granted to private George Whitfield – land acquired

by John Birch and ultimately supplying the suburb name of Birchgrove.

Fig. 22: William Balmain, from the reproduction of the portrait by Thomas Parkinson. Source: Reynolds and Flottmann, Half a thousand Acres, p.19.

Due to Balmain’s ownership and inheritance issues, the development of the Balmain area

was negligible until the 1830s given the difficulties in transportation to and from the area. The

Birchgrove-Balmain area had begun from the mid-nineteenth century to reflect an increasingly

industrial aspect, due in large part to the activities of Thomas Sutcliffe Mort. In 1854 he

established a drydock in Waterview Street, Balmain, and later added coal sheds, engineering

shops and ship building yards.

With the gradual introduction of more commercial concerns, the character of the area

changed to a more industrialized nature.3 In the 1870s, as with many suburbs, the Balmain

area rapidly increased in population; in the ten year period 1870-1880, Balmain’s population

jumped 150 percent, as Balmain became increasingly associated with timber, engineering,

the Glebe Island abattoir and the waterfront. Those houses being erected to accommodate

1 P. Reynolds and R. Irving, Balmain in Time: A Record of an Historic Suburb and some of its Buildings, p.5. 2 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1, p.51-52. 3 F Pollen, History of Sydney Suburbs, p.15.


18



this burgeoning community were typically of wood, while elsewhere in suburban areas of

Sydney, domestic residences were more often of brick structures.4 Consequently, Balmain

and Birchgrove were considered “principally a working man’s suburb, but several very pretty

[marine villas are] situated near Snail’s Bay.”5

In the 1920s most new householders were ambitious to acquire a house and garden in the

outer suburbs of Sydney; the inner terrace suburbs were crowded and increasingly

considered to be in deteriorating condition. During the interwar boom period, domestic

residence relocated away from the inner city, resulting in a widespread decline in inner

Sydney populations. As with most other inner city municipalities (with the exception of

Waterloo), the Balmain/Birchgrove area suffered a nine percent loss in population between

the years 1921-1929. This relocation was exacerbated by the dominance of industry in the

vicinity, which also contributed to a stigma of Birchgrove/Balmain as a slum suburb. In

December 1936, a Housing Conditions Investigation Committee Report on Sydney slum

areas identified Balmain as one of many centres of urban decay. This, according to the report,

could be avoided by demolishing and rebuilding in according with specific guidelines.6

Birchgrove-Balmain was one of several suburbs that witnessed the phenomenon of industrial

concentration in particular suburbs. The main disadvantages of the slum suburbs were

attributed to the debilitating effects of industry, warehousing and heavy traffic, particularly

around wharves and dock structures. This last in particular applied to the Birchgrove-Balmain

vicinity at the close of World War II, when government statistics found that 10,170 workers

were employed in its local industries.

The postwar era saw a change in attitude towards these alleged slum suburbs; signs of

rejuvenation began to appear, fostered by the Cumberland Planning Scheme but abruptly

quashed when Balmain Council was forcibly amalgamated with Leichhardt Council in 1947.7

From the early 1960s, the vicinity in and around Balmain began to experience a process of

gentrification. This was exemplified by the demolition of Birch Grove House in 1967 to make

way for home units.8 By the end of the 1970s, the slum stigma was gone. This changing

perspective influenced a change in the character of Birchgrove and its surrounds.

In the 1980s, Sydney saw an extraordinary number of industrial closures. This included the

Unilever plant at Balmain in 1988, once the largest soap manufactory in the southern

hemisphere. Such closures were followed in the 1990s by mass relocation of industrial firms

away from the Balmain area’s harbourside land, such as the Caltex plant at Ballast Point. This

dismantling of the industrial aspects meant that the waterfront land was available for

4 P. Ashton, Sydney takes Shape, p.32. 5 How to Know Sydney, (1895), cited in Ashton, Sydney Takes Shape, p.45. 6 P. Spearrit, Sydney’s Century, p.70. 7 Reynolds, Balmain in Time, p.4. 8 J. Hughes, Demolished Houses of Sydney, p.97.


19



redevelopment, with wharves and warehouses making way for town houses and apartment

blocks, many with waterviews.9

History of the Subject site The subject site was part of the land originally granted to William Balmain in April 1800. On 7th

July 1801 Balmain transferred ownership of the 550 acres to John Borthwick Gilchrist for a

token sum. From the available evidence, the most common theory accounting for the name of

the property – Gilchrist Place – and its discreet sale to John Gilchrist relates to settlement of

debts incurred in illegal trade. Gilchrist, a Calcutta merchant and later scholar/professor in

Hindustani, conceivably aided Balmain in acquiring Indian goods including sugar, tea and

other basic supplies.10 These were typically resold in the New South Wales colony in spite of

a prohibition against such transactions. Hunter’s grant specified that the 550 acres was “to be

known by the name of Gilchrist’s Place, and to be held…[by] William Balmain” as grants could

not be issued to persons residing outside the colony. Balmain himself died in late 1803; his

heir to the 550 acres first advertised the first sale and subdivision of twenty-two lots of the

Balmain Estate in 1836.11 Gilchrist died in January 1841, with Trustees to oversee his will.

The conveyance from Balmain to Gilchrist was unknown to Balmain’s heirs, his de facto wife

Margaret Dawson and her three children;12 the advertisement for sale of the land, inserted in

the Sydney Morning Herald by the Trustees of Gilchrist’s estate, caused great confusion. In

addition, Gilchrist’s heirs discovered that the land was to be used “for the benefit, and

advancement, and propagation of education and learning in every part of the world.” Both the

Supreme Court of New South Wales (1842), and the High Court of Chancery, England

(1857), upheld the terms of Gilchrist’s will in spite of years to protracted appeal by his family.13

The Trustees of the Gilchrist Estate sold allotments of land for a thirty year period dating from

1852, when Thomas Mort was authorized by the Trustee to advertise seventeen lots for

sale.14 This included the subject site. Two intensive periods of sale were carried out between

1860-69, and 1870-1882, after the Trustees were effectively free to commence their work.

The property was subdivided as part of the breakup of the Balmain Estate, being carried out

under the original Lot 7 of Section 27.15 The land, together with surrounding property

extending to Curtis Street, was purchased by William Wiseman Buddle, local shipwright. The

buddle family appeared to live at what was then number 87 Birchgrove Road, close to the

subject site. As surveyed by M Lucas, the property was vacant on 14th May 1887; the Sands

9 Spearrit, Sydney’s Century, p.202. 10 P. Reynolds and P. Flottmann, Half a Thousand Acres: Balmain, a history of the land grant, p.29. 11 Reynolds and Flottmann, Half a thousand acres, p.58. 12 Australian Dictionary of Biography, p.52. 13 Reynolds and Flottmann, Half a thousand acres, pp.52-61; 63. 14 Ibid., p.65. 15 BK3022, No.453, Land and Property Information.


20



Sydney Directory indicates that the subject building did not exist in that year or the following

year of 1888.

Fig.23: 1887 Survey, showing vacant land

77 Birchgrove Road was constructed in 1889 by the Buddle family as a small Victorian

Regency cottage with central Rustic Gothic elements. At the rear of the building was a small

asymmetrical kitchen wing, with the remainder of that elevation occupied by the small back

verandah. In the rear corner of the property was an outdoor w.c.

Buddle devised a will in November 1880, by which the trustees and executors were William

Alfred and John George Buddle, shipwright surveyor. The elder Buddle died on 3rd March,

1886, and his sons assumed control over the property. John George Buddle nominated his

wife Hannah and sons William Wiseman Buddle (Jnr) and Nathaniel Prestage Buddle as his

trustees for the estate, prior to his death in 1909. Following a Supreme Court judgment, the

estate was passed to Hannah and Nathaniel Buddle, who gradually sold off parts of the estate

piecemeal.


21



Occupants of the subject property, known in the early phases from its 1889 as number 83 and

later 77, included:

• Reverend W. A Charlton (Church of England; St Johns) (1890-1891)

• Unoccupied (1892)

• Mrs Edridge (1893)

• Mrs Evans, stationer (c.1895)

• F. Thomas (1896-1902)

• Charles Smales (1904)

• William Towson (c.1906-1910)

• Edmund White, shipwright (1912)16

The adjacent property, being the corner terrace, was predominantly used during this period as

a stationers until 1910, and then as a grocer and confectioner’s store in 1912. The local

stationer, Mrs Evans, appears to also have been resident in the cottage for some time, as

noted during a late nineteenth/early twentieth century water board survey plan which shows

the Evans’ occupying both shop and cottage. This does not strictly conform with the available

information from the Sands Directory, but confusion may relate to the repeated changing of

house numbers along Birchgrove Road and incomplete data available during this period.

The property was extracted from the Buddle Estate and sold on 2nd June 1913 to billiard

saloon proprietor Joseph Andreoli, who took up residence in the property.17 It appeared that

at the time of Andreoli’s purchase, the building still retained its original form, with its front and

rear verandahs. Andreoli transferred rights to easements over to his neighbour at number 81

“St Kilda”, Osborne Hickey Chidgey, in that same year. Chidgey was identified in the Sands

Directory as living at No.81 at least as early as 1908 and probably dating back to the turn of

the century.

16 See Sands Sydney Directory for the above years. 17 Vol.2370 Folio 250.


22



Fig.24: 77 Birchgrove Road, at time of purchase by J. Andreoli, Vol.2370 F.250.

The property was mortgaged on 8th February 1929 to orchardist Peter Clarke of St Ives,18

which may have funded a portion of the changes to the building fabric. Alterations to the

property during the early part of the twentieth century included the partial enclosure of the

rear verandah to accommodate construction of a brick addition at the rear of the building. This

appeared to be an extension used for w.c. purposes following the 1899 sewering of local

properties, with the outdoor w.c. demolished and not shown on water board survey plans.

Later additions to the property involved the full enclosure of the former verandah using

weatherboard fabric to create a sunroom, the construction of a brick extension to the rear of

the kitchen wing and the erection of a car port at the rear boundary of the property on the site

of the former w.c., completed prior to 1950.

18 No.B 780308, Vol.2370, F.250.


23



Fig.25: Survey showing partial brick enclosure of verandah for w.c. Note absence of outdoor w.c. along

rear boundary line. PWD 262 1544 Water Board Survey, Sydney Water.

Brick extension to kitchen wing

Enclosure of verandah

Car port at rear boundary

Fig 26: Pre-1950 survey showing full enclosure of the rear verandah, extension to rear of

kitchen wing and construction of car port. BW 138 INSP, Sydney Water Board.


24



It would appear that Andreoli died without a will in the early 1940s, and control over the

property was assumed by the Public Trustee in the interim. The mortgage on the property

was eventually discharged when the site was purchased by Balmain fish merchant Cecil

Arthur Pearce and his wife Beryl Rose, on 28th April 1952.19 At the time of purchase, Beryl

was in the position of Director of War Service Homes, as noted during the documentation for

a mortgage contracted in conjunction with the transfer. This mortgage was discharged on 20th

September 1965.

The property was sold by the Pearce family on 20th September 2003, to Kate and Ian Myles.

19 F662789, Vol. 2370, F250.


25



4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following assessment of significance has been prepared in accordance with the

‘Assessing Heritage Significance’ guidelines from the NSW Heritage Manual.

a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of the local area’s cultural or natural history

The subject site is considered to be of local heritage significance through its representation of

the development of the townscape, and through its association with the adjacent structures

comprising a heritage group and establishing a landmark and visual value on the site. The

site demonstrates the subdivision pattern of the area and the break-up of the Balmain Estate

during the late nineteenth century.

b) an item has strong or special associations with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in the local area’s cultural or natural history

The site has associations with original grantee William Balmain. The subject building is

believed to have associations with local architect J.McDonald, although this has not been

confirmed through the available information.

The subject building may have a degree of association with the Reverend William Charlton, of

St Johns Church of England, given his residence in the building in 1890-1891.

c) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area

The property has architectural and aesthetic significance, being a good representative

example of domestic cottage building in the Balmain area from the late nineteenth century. It

has clear Victorian Regency and gothic elements that are evident across all elevations of the

structure. Key architectural influences have been retained and the layout of the building is still

readable despite alterations and additions to the rear of the structure.

d) an item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons

The property has social significance through its relationship with the former corner shop and

as part of a group. It has significance through its accommodation of a range of tenants from

various occupations, representative of the Balmain demographic.


26



e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding

of the local area’s cultural or natural history The property is not considered to have archaeological potential.

f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the local area’s cultural or natural history

The cottage is a good surviving example of a late nineteenth century Regency style cottage,

with remnant gothic influences. Domestic residences of the period have become endangered

within the inner city, and the subject building demonstrates a high quality and comparatively

intact specimen of its form.

g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of the local area’s

• cultural or natural places; or

• cultural or natural environments

The dwelling exemplifies the domestic architectural forms prevalent in the Balmain area in the

late nineteenth century period. It has merit for its visual contribution to the local streetscape

and for its architectural integrity.

4.2 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The existing dwelling at 77 Birchgrove Road is a single storeyed brick structure with

sandstone base that makes a significant contribution to the local landscape. Constructed in

1889 and possibly associated by local architect J. MacDonald, it is of Victorian Regency

architectural style, with rustic gothic influences emerging prominently in the dormer window

and decorated bargeboard. It is a good and intact example of a late nineteenth century

cottage, representative of those in the Balmain area. The building has aesthetic and

architectural merit, and is of value both as an individual item and as part of a group of

structures.


27



5.0 THE PROPOSAL

It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to the property, relative to the interior of

the building and to the rear of the cottage. The proposed works have been designed by

Melocco and Moore, Architects. The following is a summary description only of the proposed

new works. For specific details refer to the submitted architectural plans. In summary, the

proposed works comprise:

Ground Floor Interior: General

• Retention of original room layout and window arrangements

• Retention of timber flooring and other original fabric

• Retention of original hallway and stairs, walls and thresholds.

Dining and living rooms

• In living and dining rooms, the retention of original fireplaces, mantles and hearths,

door openings and frames, and floor timbers.

• Retention of existing room layout

• Repair and make good to walls

• Demolish piers to sides of existing room opening and make good to floor

• Patch and make good existing timber floor

Bedroom 1

• Removal of fireplace mantle and hearth, with retention of chimney; sealing of fireplace

and make good to wall

• Removal of existing carpet and make good to floorboards

Bedroom 2

• Removal of fireplace mantle and hearth, with retention of chimney; sealing of fireplace

and make good to wall

• Demolition of floor and floor structure to allow for sunken study and new ensuite floor

Bath & Sunroom

• Demolition of rear bath and sunroom to create courtyard

• Demolition of sunroom end cupboard to be absorbed into kitchen

Kitchen & Laundry

• Demolish part kitchen wall; insertion of island bench

• New window to kitchen


28



• Demolish kitchen fireplace, with retention of chimney. Rangehood to duct out through

existing chimney

• New instantaneous gas hot water to service kitchen and laundry

• Retention of existing boundary wall

• Demolition of rear laundry structure

First Floor Interior

• Demolition of walls and make good to all ceilings to suit new works

• Demolition of landing cupboards

• Removal of existing carpet and make good for new carpet

• Demolition of existing floor to storage area under roof line

• Demolish part wall to allow for new door, and demolish roof to sunroom.

• Insertion of new interior walls for creation of three bedrooms

• Insertion of new skylights over Bedrooms 2 and 4

• Insertion of new bathroom and fittings, and window to bathroom

General Exterior

• Retention of existing façade of cottage as currently presented to Birchgrove Road

• Retention of front fence and associated piers

• Double glazing to existing front windows

• Demolition of raised concrete to front yard

• Demolition of existing driveway and drive gates. New automatic gates. Excavation of

driveway to required level

• Existing hot water unit to be recessed into driveway wall

• New a/c condenser located under bbq concealed by timber battens

• Demolition of rear courtyard retaining walls, landscaping and paved courtyard

• Demolition of existing rear car port and concrete slab.

• New timber batten fence to boundary

• Creation of new living, garage, laundry and store space behind the original cottage,

with paved covered area, and timber sunscreen over


29



6.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 STATUTORY CONTROLS The existing property at 77 Birchgrove Road is a local heritage item located within a

Conservation Area, as gazetted under the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan (2000), and

as within the boundaries of the Birchgrove/Elkington Park Distinctive Neighbourhood, outlined

within the Development Control Plan.

6.2 LEICHHARDT LEP (2000) The proposed works involve alterations and additions to the rear and to the interior of the

building. The building is a heritage item, and located within the vicinity of other Heritage

Items, being adjacent to 75 and 79 Birchgrove Road and in close proximity to the Birchgrove

Public School. Consideration of the LEP is therefore required. The proposal is addressed

below in relation to the relevant clauses of the LEP.

LEP (2000), CLAUSE (16) THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THESE MATTERS AS FOLLOWS:

(2) Consent must not be granted for any

development in respect of a heritage

item unless the consent authority has

assessed a statement that:

a) describes the significance of the

heritage item as part of the

environmental heritage of Leichhardt,

b) addresses the extent of the impact of

the development on the conservation

and heritage significance of the item in

terms of (i) its fabric; (ii) age of the

building or structure; (iii) stylistic or

horticultural features of its setting; (iv)

potential for archaeology; (v) historic

subdivision pattern in the vicinity; and

c) sets out any steps to be taken to

mitigate any adverse impact of the

proposed development on the

environmental heritage of Leichhardt.

• This heritage impact statement assesses the

proposed works to 77 Birchgrove Road in

compliance with LEP guidelines. It is

considered that this building, a local heritage

item, makes a visual contribution to the

streetscape as existing. The proposed works

are not considered, in the opinion of City Plan

Heritage, to compromise the heritage value or

significance of the building, or to denigrate its

contribution to the streetscape or interfere

with the historical subdivision pattern. Works

do not affect its primary elevation, views or

key original elements. Demolition generally

relates to fabric that has been added during

the twentieth century and has no significance,

with the exception of a small section of

kitchen wall and to the secondary fireplaces

in the ground floor bedroom. However, the

primary fireplaces are retained and in good

order, and the majority of the original kitchen


30




wing will be retained, except for later inserted

material.

(6) Nothing in the Plan prevents consent

from being granted for the use of a

heritage item for any purpose, if the

consent authority is satisfied that:

a) the proposed use would not adversely

affect the heritage significance of the

item, and

b) the proposed use will ensure the

conservation of the heritage item, where

it is a building, and

c) the amenity of the area will not be

adversely affected.

• The proposed works continue the domestic

use of the building and do not affect the

heritage significance of the item. Works will

alleviate damage caused to the building

through successive additions during the

twentieth century that are of poor condition

and quality, to be replaced with a sensitive

design that responds to the character of the

building without compromising its heritage

value. The proposal will not have an adverse

affect on the amenity of the area.

(7) Consent must not be granted for

development on land in the vicinity of a

heritage item, unless the consent

authority has made an assessment of

the effect the carrying out of that

development will have on the heritage

significance of the heritage item and its

setting as well as on any significant

views to and from the heritage item.

• The proposed works to the rear of the

building do not have a negative impact on the

heritage item, or on views to or from the

heritage item, or from neighbouring heritage

items within the Conservation Area.

(8) Consent must not be granted for the

demolition, reconstruction, adaptation or

erections of a building, the carrying out

of a work, or the subdivision of land,

within a conservation area unless the

consent authority has made an

assessment of the extent to which the

carrying out of the development would

affect the heritage significance of the

conservation area, with particular regard

to:

a) the heritage significance of any

building, work, relic, tree or place,

archaeological site or potential

archaeological site or aboriginal site that

• The proposed works to the subject building

comply with guidelines for the Conservation

Area, in relation to design, scale, bulk, form,

orientation, materials, and landscaping. It is of

small scale to fit in with the neighbourhood

and is of sympathetic design and using

complementary materials to blend

harmoniously with the existing 1889 cottage.

The alterations and additions are set back

from the street, so that views of the cottage

are not overwhelmed by the new work. Fabric

will be light and modern and readily

distinguishable from the original, so that the

form of the cottage can be easily read.


31




would be affected, and the contribution it

makes to the conservation area, and

b) the compatibility of the proposed

development with the conservation area,

including the size, form, scale,

orientation, siting, materials, landscaping

and details of the proposed

development.

6.3 LEICHHARDT DCP (2000)

The Leichhardt DCP (as amended, March 2003) deals with Balmain’s Conservation Areas

and identifies distinctive neighbourhoods with particular characteristics and desirable

attributes.

The Birchgrove Distinctive Neighbourhood is now a residential area with scattered corner

shops, schools and remnant maritime industry. In the decades since 1940, the variety of

housing has increased to include blocks of walkup flats, converted shops and townhouses.

This is in addition to the majority of houses, which remain much as they were originally

constructed in earlier periods of settlement.

… On the upper slopes, south of Macquarie Terrace, the housing styles include single and

double storey houses dating from the initial period of development around 1860. These

houses are generally built in the Victorian style with rendered finish and slate or iron roofing.

The front setbacks vary from 1m to 4m and many have mature trees in the front yards….

….Subdivision patterns throughout the neighbourhood are typical of the Balmain area, with

the preference for long narrow lots in the English tradition…

In the southern portion of the neighbourhood there are a variety of housing styles without the

diversity of size found in the northern portion of the neighbourhood. In the vicinity of Cardwell

and Glassop Streets there are a range of housing styles including terraces and freestanding

dwellings with the following predominant characteristics:

• Two storey in scale, front setbacks less than 2.5m,

• Open picket fences

• Mature landscaping on private land and on most streets

• Pitched or gabled roofs (although all styles of roof are in evidence to some degree)

• No driveway crossings

• Brick or render, timber and stone construction

• Timber doors and windows as well as slate, tile or iron roofs


32



The following table addresses the relevant DCP Controls to the Birchgrove Neighbourhood

within the Conservation Area.

DCP (2000), CONTROLS THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THESE MATTERS AS FOLLOWS:

Changes to the front facades of existing

dwellings shall be kept to a minimum

with additions to the rear of dwellings

preferred.

• The proposed works comply with this control,

with works relating to the rear of the original

cottage. The only changes to the front façade

involve window glazing, new driveway gates

and the removal of unsympathetic and

intrusive concreting that was added during

the twentieth century.

New/expanded driveway crossings shall

be discouraged. Driveway crossings will

only be supported where they are

servicing single width garages and they

do not involve excavation of sandstone

features

• The proposed changes to the driveway do not

involve excavation of sandstone elements

and will remain a single car garage and drive,

which is consistent with the existing fabric but

carried out in a carefully designed treatment

that incorporates the heritage needs of the

building.

New development shall maintain the use

of hipped, pitched or gabled roof forms

and designs shall be complementary to

the existing unadorned building form.

Flat roofs may be appropriate where the

style of architecture is contemporary and

view lines may be affected.

• New roof fabric relates to the rear of the

property and will not be intrusive or affect the

dominant roof forms of the existing original

cottage. The proposed works will blend with

the existing roof in a simple and appropriate

manner. View lines within the Conservation

Area will not be affected by the proposed

works.

Building materials used shall be

consistent with the existing character of

the streetscape, including rendered and

painted surfaces and roof materials such

as corrugated iron as well as timber

windows.

• Materials for the proposed works are

considered to be sensitive to the character of

the Conservation Area and its streetscape,

with new fabric distinguishable from old, but

are not visually invasive or overwhelming.

The new fabric is to be clearly distinct from

the cottage fabric, and complies with the

controls for the Neighbourhood.

Retain existing stone houses and walls

and exposed rockface. • The proposed works have no impact on the

stonework of the cottage, with its current

street presentation to be fully retained.


33



DCP (2000), CONTROLS THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THESE MATTERS AS FOLLOWS:

Development visible from the water is to

be designed to preserve the

conservation values of the area. When

viewed from the water a balance

between built form and landscape is to

be achieved/maintained through side

setbacks and landscaping. Where

development is visible from the water

details of that view are to be submitted

with the development application.

• The proposed works are not visible from the

water and will not affect the conservation

values of the area. The proposal will have no

impact on the public domain or views to and

from the property.

6.4 ‘STATEMENTS OF HERITAGE IMPACT’ (NSW HERITAGE MANUAL)

The following table addresses the proposal in relation to relevant ‘questions to be answered’

in the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’ guidelines relating to major

partial demolition (including internal elements) of a building or structure.

QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THESE QUESTIONS AS FOLLOWS:

Is the demolition essential for the

heritage item to function? • Demolition relates principally to the removal

of later fabric added to the cottage during the

twentieth century. Demolition of the sunroom,

bathroom and laundry has no affect in

heritage terms. Small elements of original

fabric (a portion of the kitchen wall; bedroom

fireplace mantles and hearths) are to be

removed but are not considered of primary

heritage significance and integral to

understanding the cottage. The building

retains its key fireplaces and the majority of

the original kitchen fabric, with the resulting

new work expected to add amenity and

functionality to the heritage item without

negating its significance

.


34




Are important features of the item

affected by the demolition (e.g.

fireplaces in buildings)?

• Two fireplace mantles and hearths are

proposed for removal from the building.

These are secondary fireplaces, of which one

is in deteriorating condition. The principal

marble fireplaces in the living and dining

rooms are to be retained, so that the loss of

the minor mantles and hearths are considered

acceptable. The other important features of

the heritage item are not affected by

demolition works.

Is the resolution to partially demolish

sympathetic to the heritage significance

of the item (e.g. creating large square

openings in internal walls rather than

removing the wall altogether)?

• The proposed demolition has been evaluated

as contributory to the overall value of the

heritage significance of the item, through

removal of intrusive poor quality twentieth

century additions. This includes the removal

of the interior walls of the former attic space,

which is shown to be a poor quality alteration

that requires significant work to remedy.

If the partial demolition is a result of the

condition of the fabric, is it certain that

the fabric cannot be repaired?

• The proposed demolition of the laundry,

sunroom and bathroom relate partially to the

fabric condition, but the fabric is intrusive and

has no heritage value. Repair or retention is

thus unwarranted, and a modern addition can

be added to the rear that responds to the

heritage and character of the building.

The following table addresses the proposal in relation to relevant ‘questions to be answered’

in the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’ guidelines relating to major

additions to a building or structure.


How is the impact of the addition on the

heritage significance of the item to be

minimised?

• The additions to the building are situated to

the rear of the original cottage and thus

having no impact on the significance or visual

contribution of the cottage to its streetscape.

Internal alterations relate to less significant


35




fabric in the private rooms of the house, while

the major rooms (living, dining) retain their

essential character. Changes to the kitchen

fabric apply to the inserted window

arrangement portion of the wall only, with this

section of wall to be removed to allow for the

creation of a new courtyard providing

increased amenity. The majority of the kitchen

structure however has been retained to

continue its role.

Can the additional area be located within

an existing structure? If no, why not? • The additional area cannot be located within

the existing given the restricted space

available internally. Expansion to the rear will

both follow an historic pattern of evolution of

the site, and will make use of a visually

detracting portion of the rear yard.

Will the additions tend to visually

dominate the heritage item? • The additions to the rear will not dominate the

heritage item, so that it can maintain its

present contribution to Birchgrove Road and

the Conservation Area.

Are the additions sited on any known, or

potentially significant archaeological

deposits? If so, have alternative

positions for the additions been

considered?

• The proposed additions at the rear of the

property are not sited on any known or

potential deposits.

Are the additions sympathetic to the

heritage item? In what way (e.g. form,

proportions, design)?

• The proposed works are considered

sympathetic in that the design has considered

the individual nature of the cottage and left it

to continue its form. The new work is a neat

adaptation of the historic pattern of use to the

rear of the building and is low in scale and

well-proportioned to accommodate the

primary heritage needs of the cottage.


36



7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, it is considered by City Plan Heritage that the proposed works, including

demolition of added fabric to allow for the creation of an extension to the cottage at the rear of

the building, will not have a negative impact on the heritage item at 77 Birchgrove Road, nor

on its contribution and significance to the local conservation area or heritage items in the

vicinity. The proposed rear extensions and internal alterations to the cottage will have no

impact on the visual presentation of the cottage and will positively contribute to the

functionality of the dwelling without overwhelming or dominating the building. The proposal

demonstrates compliance with the existing controls regarding heritage conservation and is

therefore recommended to Council for approval.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

June 2005


37

Sample Heritage Statement

Documents

Transcript of Sample Heritage Statement