An application for a building at 21 Watson St, Echuca, which proposes a two-storey extension to the property’s existing house, received community and professional input at the meeting on Tuesday, June 17.
Resident Gail Forrest said all objectors surrounded the property, and that she was probably the most affected by the proposed building, given she lived behind it.
“What I am particularly worried about, or what I find significant, is the sheer scale of this building,” she said.
“It’s 7.5m high, and it’s 2m off our back fence.”
The application includes plans for a rooftop terrace, and Ms Forrest said the proposed design was inconsistent with the street’s heritage.
Property owner Michael Deola said he and his wife purchased 21 Watson St in 2017 and planned to develop it for retirement.
Planning began in October 2021, and Mr Deola said the designs had been changed in line with advice from the council.
The current planning application was submitted in September 2023, and Mr Deola said he and the architects were willing to work through any further changes.
A heritage adviser was hired to complete a report on the design, which Mr Deola said satisfied heritage obligations.
“We have arrived at a design that the planning department supports, and has recommended that council approves, subject to a number of further amendments.”
“This has been a long process, which has so far failed to reach any definite outcome or opportunity to plan for the future.
“The house at 21 Watson St is currently in a tired and run-down state. We look forward to commencing this redevelopment soon, which will no doubt improve the look and feel of this prominent Echuca street.”
Realm Heritage and Conservation heritage adviser Janita Norman was asked to review the application and present findings on behalf of the objectors at the meeting.
She said her initial concerns with the proposal were the height, form and mass of the proposed addition to the building.
While acknowledging contemporary architecture was acceptable in the area, Ms Norman said the current application should not be assessed.
“The design in its current form dominates the site, irrespective of its position,” she said.
“The building mass is far too great, and the building height is far too high, which causes detrimental visual impacts on the site and the precinct.”
Ms Norman had concerns about the building’s heritage overlay, and said the North Central Catchment Management Authority’s prescribed floor level had not been included in plans.
She estimated the required height extension would increase the building’s height by 400 to 500mm, and the council confirmed it had asked for this change to be included in plans.
The residential zone the building is proposed in allows building heights of 11m under the council’s provisions.
Cr Paul Jarman said that, given the exemptions under the current planning scheme, the council could not comment on many aspects.
Cr Jarman moved the motion to be carried as written, which was seconded by Cr Zoe Cook.
“These are the ones that you regret as a councillor,” he said.
“We’re being asked to pass a resolution based on the planning scheme, which is quite prescriptive.”
Cr Jarman acknowledged the neighbours’ concerns, and said the building would require more permits moving forward.
However, he strongly supported the right for a landowner to rely on a planning scheme to develop their land, and said the council must rely on regulations for clarity.
Cr Cook agreed with Cr Jarman, and the motion was carried by the council.
9°C