PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

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

1. I oppose the demolition of this home.

   As it says in the description, it is a Local Heritage Place. What is the point of that if it offers no protection?

   The owner knew what they were buying!

2. Found on realestate.com.au - photos for on 2016 sale show a beautiful ild home and garden worthy of retaining heritage status and not being demolished.
   Why move to a heritage area, into a heritage building, only to destroy it? I am sure the neighbours are heartbroken by the potential destruction.

3. According to the Unley Council website “Heritage Places are important reminders of where we and the city have come from. Built heritage provides us with the physical connection to the past and reflects the practices, attitudes and values that have shaped the environment. Heritage listing will help to ensure that special places in the City of Unley survive for future generations to appreciate.”
   How can we appreciate this beautiful piece of Unley history if it is demolished. Once it is gone, it is gone. I will be contacting Unley Council and enquiring what is the purpose of having Heritage listing on our beautiful buildings if they can be destroyed.

4. I support the demolition of this house and I really can't see why it was made a 'local heritage place' in the first place. The reference to images from 2016 seem to be misleading - or perhaps the house has been altered significantly since then. Currently the building has no 'architectural' presence or merit, it is bland and featureless and makes no significant contribution to the streetscape, and the garden has no particular merit. Indeed, the house as a whole, plus swimming pool, leave precious little actual garden. It would be interesting to hear what the neighbours actually think as the neighbouring building is actually a line of modern redbrick units - I presume that these are not heritage listed. Heritage is wonderful but we must also look to the future, rather than living in the past. When this building was erected, it was itself looking to the future, time to move on again. Think about it. If we really did preserve everything to maintain our physical connection to the past and reflects the practices, attitudes and values that have shaped the environment - we would still be living in thatched huts. As for our environment - we've been very successfully wrecking that for generations. Time to move on, and allow the actual owners of the property to decide what THEY want, as opposed to others dictating what should happen.

5. I hope than, that you age or "alter significantly", and end up being "bland and featureless" and no particular merit, that you too are "demolished" to make way for something (one) new.....the reason there IS a row of brick units next door is because something similar to this house has been destroyed earlier, at a time that would hope, we as the community of Unley, have moved on from in an effort to preserve what is left.

   This building was what is was/is when the owner's bought it...if they did not like it or the area, then perhaps best to have looked elsewhere...similarly now, move it on to someone who DOES like our area the way it is and DOES want to retain that.

   When you live in a community, what affects others very much does "dictate" what you do.

   There are many many other areas that have myriad land and new properties to choose from, there is so very little left of what we have here. So we HAVE to protect it.

6. This house was built in 1910-1911 & has been listed as a local heritage item because of its external form, materials & construction techniques. It was built by SA local master builder Walter Torode. He leased quarries in the Hills area & was contracted to build the Stock Exchange of Adelaide (1900), the Lady Chapel and western towers of St Peters Cathedral, extensions to the Unley Town Hall and buildings for Pulteney Grammar school, (and more). He published 2 booklets illustrating his work. He was among the first Australian builders to use reinforced concrete. He built himself a concrete house with cavity walls in Unley - apparently still standing. Is 35 Hughes street the one? I believe there is another Torode house in Unley Park. He also built the octagonal Amphi Cosma house in Wayville in 1914. There were recognised issues with his concrete technique & some of his impractical housing designs. While 35 Hughes street is not a 'pretty' traditional bluestone or sandstone villa - which are the dominant housing styles in the locality - one should acknowledge the contribution Torode made in the architectural history of SA.(google Torode for more details)

7. Thank you Robin for the info on this house and Torode houses/buildings more widely - they are really interesting designs and should be appreciated for their historical architectural value. As a Local Heritage Place, this house should not be approved for demolition. If it gets approval, it is yet another demonstration of the appalling planning legislation we are currently living under. The 2016 Planning Act and Planning & Design Code need drastic changes to protect our architectual history.

8. I am familiar with this house and also the concrete techniques used in the build process. While internally there are some lovely features, I agree that externally it doesn’t have the “pretty” facade that is typical of the surrounding area.
   What needs to be considered is the exorbitant costs to repair homes of this nature and in particular this construction. Even if we were not in the current times of excessive building costs and high demand for trades and materials this would still be a very costly project.
   What then happens is it becomes the unwanted piece of heritage that is let go to the point everyone is complaining about the state of it and because it is not “pretty” it will just sit there, becoming increasingly dilapidated. There are current examples of this in the area so it does happen.
   I think it’s all well and good to throw stones at the owners but perhaps before we do we should consider that there might be significant challenges for them to contend with that might not have been evident at the time.
   I am sure given the heritage status of this building, all consideration will be given to the information presented before any decisions are made.

9. Thanks Bronwyn....I refer to my earlier note....so are we now to apply this to people then as well?? ie you're not "pretty" any more, your cancer is "too expensive" to treat....si time to "demolish" you????

   I suspect not.

   Walter Torode is as close as we'll get to our own Frank Lloyd Wright, yes his designs may be a little unorthodox, perhaps even a little "ugly" to some, but he was a significant contributor to early SA building and this was his own home.

   The current owners would have been well aware of that when they bought this house, anyone who truly lives in and knows this area, are very aware of some of the hidden defects and costs associated with retaining our houses, but that in turn is what forms the (reducing remains) of our suburb.

   Again, with all due respect, there are many, many new suburbs where the councils and locals alike would love to have new homes built....maybe these areas are more suitable for owners like this who obviously are intent on owning a new home rather than a historic (in fact listed) character home that may (will) need a little work.

   I know this from experience....we paid well for our "fully renovated" cottage, yet it then took 2 years of very hard work, some money and patience, 2 fully reconstructed walls before we ended up with a home that we love is is widely admired around the neighbourhood.

   Time to stop the mindset that many appear to be embracing and start objectively restoring, retaining and maintaining what we have left.

10. Are people the same as houses? I don't understand this analogy. But since we are on this topic, there is a school of thought that if a person is in terminal decline they should be given the choice and control of when their life. What is our understanding on the burden on the owner of maintaining this house? Perhaps they knew what they were getting into when they bought perhaps they didn't. Everything has a use by date. Retaining a building must be measured against it's upkeep and cost. Perhaps it would be prudent to focus on what may be built here in the future and the new building should be built in line with character of the area. In another 100 years that building will be a heritage item too.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to South Australia Planning Portal. 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