PlanningAlerts

14 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I believe this dwelling to be under a heritage listing and is one of the oldest buildings in Norwood. It should be retained.
   The current owner purchased the dwelling knowing that it could not be demolished.

2. I am opposed to any heritage listed property being demolished.

3. If this property is under a heritage listing, then it should not be demolished. We need to protect our heritage listed buildings and dwellings.

4. If this building is in fact under heritage protection, it should not be demolished.
   This is especially so if the purchaser bought it under protection or pending protection.

5. This property was clearly bought under the knowledge that it was heritage listed. Therefore it must not to be demolished but restored.

6. If the building is heritage listed it needs to be restored, not demolished.

7. There are 2 buildings on this site. 1 is heratige listed and the other is not. I believe the application for demolition is for the non heritage listed building.

8. Our fast disappearing heritage needs protection. The brick cottage fronting Elizabeth St is one of the oldest houses in Norwood and therefore a precious link to our past. Any proposed alterations to this building need to be carefully scrutinised and sympathetic.

9. It’s a huge shame 74 (which is looks to be pretty solid and in good condition) has to go but No 34 Elizabeth Street (on the same block as 74) should be saved at all cost as it must be one of the oldest houses in Norwood.

10. I am opposed to any heritage listed property being demolished.

11. Protect our heritage.

12. We are losing too many of our older houses with history. Already our suburbs are becoming swamped with unattractive and unimaginative block-like constructions that mar the streetscape. Adelaide is becoming less and less a lovely city.

13. Many councils listed such houses as contributory items, which meant they added value to the street landscape. In the case of this local council no houses n Norwood were listed as contributory items. So there is no level of protection for these houses, although it is one of the most historic areas in the State.
    What a shame! Only houses listed at of state or local heritage value are listed, which means that most houses in Norwood miss out on protection.

14. The smaller cottage at 34 Elizabeth St Norwood should not be demolished at all cost. It is one of the very earliest in Norwood, and probably the state, and is Heritage listed. So how can the buyer even consider asking to demolish it? And how can the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council even consider granting demolition in this situation? If they bought the site with the intention of demolishing both houses, despite one of them being heritage listed, then maybe they should now consider reselling to someone else that is willing to comply with the Heritage listing?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment