Heritage ravaged

After the loss of another heritage item, short of throwing themselves in front of bulldozers, local residents are wondering what it will take to protect Ku-ring-gai’s history.

roughly 10 per cent remains after demolition of 33 Burns Road Wahroonga

Ku-ring-gai's heritage has again been made a laughing stock after the decimation of a house deemed to be of local heritage significance.

33 Burns Road Wahroonga (Tyringham), built in 1911 by three sisters — Fanny Emeline, Ada Jane and Florence Elizabeth Parsons — was sold in 2001 to its current owners. Ku-ring-gai Council gave approval for limited demolition but very little of the property, roughly 10 per cent, remains after demolition.

"It's embarrassment, after embarrassment, after embarrassment," says concerned local resident Moira Hill. Ku-ring-gai even made it on to the current affairs bastion 60 Minutes in late February for its proliferation of the so-called 'McMansions' in a once heritage-dominated landscape. 

An assessment by heritage consultants Graham Brooks and Associates in 2001 concluded: "That the heritage significance of the house and, particularly, its contribution to the streetscape, will be preserved and to a degree enhanced," by renovations, now appears at odds with the property's current state.

"The extent of demolition undertaken at 33 Burns Road Wahroonga was not approved and we treat such large breaches seriously," said council spokesperson Eric Aubert. "We acted as soon as we became aware of the problem and have sought guarantees from the owner that no further work will take place."

But regardless of whether or not the council decides to pursue legal action, the heritage value of the house is unsalvageable. Neighbours report that terracotta tiles, which were identified in a heritage impact statement as one of the most important features of the house to be preserved, were thrown directly into skip bins. The remainder now lie broken up as road base. 

Fireplaces, which were also identified in the heritage assessment as important interior features of the house to be preserved now, sit ravaged and exposed to the elements. "If it was being preserved, there would be tarpaulins over what's left while the building continues. There is no preservation because there is no intention to protect what's left," says Ms Hill. Neighbours also claim that mature trees on the property were destroyed without council approval.

Neighbour Peter Jeffery says that in October 2002 he and his wife went to council for a meeting to discuss a number of complaints regarding the development and were told by a council employee, "'The applicant has plenty of money and they'll get what they want.'"

The Observer contacted the council about the allegations and was told by Mr Aubert that the former council staff vehemently denies Mr Jeffery's claims, the employee adding (through council spokesperson Eric Aubert) that he was not surprised as objectors to developments tend towards emotional rather than logical responses and that council staff are convenient scapegoats.

"Objectors to developments often have unrealistic expectations based on emotional reactions to situations and are often unable to understand anyone else viewing proposals in a more objective manner than themselves."

On reflection, the current state of 33 Burns Road may in part be explained by the complicated Development Application process undertaken, with numerous variations and amended plans for the site submitted by the applicant.

"It is sometimes inevitable something will be missed or overlooked. It would not be too difficult to presume that there is wilful intention to mislead or confuse," says Ku-ring-gai National Trust representative Zeny Edwards, "Council is under-resourced and council officers are always under pressure to speed up the process involving DAs of heritage items."

Some residents say they do not feel the penalisation for breaching council conditions is met with a harsh enough penalty. Speaking generally, Mr Aubert says, "councils do have the option of launching prosecution in the Land and Environment Court for serious breaches of heritage rules."

Council Heritage and DA officers are compiling a report to establish whether to pursue the matter in court.

The applicant's motivation in destroying so much of the original property beggars belief say residents. "I cannot understand why someone would buy a beautiful and well-built house such as 33 Burns Road and then proceed to destroy it for something that is inferior," says Ms Edwards.

Privacy laws prevented the owners of 33 Burns Road from being contacted for this story.