Burlington Road HIS (1)Level 19, 100 William Street Woolloomooloo
NSW 2011 Phone: (02) 8076 5317
HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush
CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Preamble 1 1.2 Authorship 1 1.3 Limitations 1 1.4 Methodology 1
1.4.1 Physical Evidence 2 1.4.2 Documentary Evidence 2 1.5 Site
Location 3
2.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 4
2.1 Original Occupation 4 2.2 Early European Occupation 4 2.3
Mid-Nineteenth Century Strathfield 5 2.4 The Underwood Estate 6 2.5
Laying the Foundations of Modern Strathfield 8 2.6 No. 102
Burlington Road 9 2.6.1 Robert Trevethan and a Dwelling Called
Candilgy 9 2.6.2 The Rofe Family and Camden Lodge 10 2.6.3 Bush
Family 11 2.6.4 Heritage Listing and Fire 14
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT 18
3.1 The Site 18 3.2 The Dwelling 23 3.2.1 Exterior 23 3.2.2
Interior 29 3.3 Outbuildings 32 3.4 The Surrounding Area 34 3.4.1
The General Area 34 3.4.2 Burlington Road 35
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 38
4.1 Summary of Statutory Heritage Listings 38 4.2 Heritage Items in
the Vicinity of the Site 38 4.2.1 Identifying the Items and
Conservation Areas 38 4.2.2 Heritage Items 39 4.2.3 Conservation
Areas 41 4.3 Integrity 41 4.3.1 The Site 41 4.3.2 The Dwelling 42
4.4 View Corridors Towards the Site 42 4.5 Assessment Under NSW
Heritage Criterion 44 4.5.1 Criterion (a) 44 4.5.2 Criterion (b) 44
4.5.3 Criterion (c) 45 4.5.4 Criterion (d) 45 4.5.5 Criterion (e)
45 4.5.6 Criterion (f) 45 4.5.7 Criterion (g) 45 4.6 Statements of
Significance 46 4.6.1 State Heritage Inventory 46 4.6.2 Revised
Statement 46
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush
5.0 SCOPE OF WORKS 46
6.0 EFFECT OF WORKS 47
6.1 Effect of Works on the Site 47 6.1.1 Setting (Section 2.2) 47
6.1.2 Scale (Section 2.3) 49 6.1.3 Form (Section 2.4) 50 6.1.4
Materials and Colours (Section 2.5) 52 6.1.5 Alterations and
Additions (Section 2.6) 53 6.1.6 Doors and Windows (Section 2.7) 55
6.1.7 Carparking (Section 2.8) 56 6.1.8 Fencing (Section 2.9) 57
6.1.9 Landscape Elements Including Paving and Driveways (Section
2.10) 58 6.1.10 Outbuildings (Section 2.11) 60 6.1.11 Modern
Technologies (Section 2.12) 60 6.1.12 Demolition (Section 2.13) 61
6.1.13 Subdivision (Section 2.14) 61 6.1.14 Signage (Section 2.15)
61 6.1.15 Adaptive Reuse (Section 2.16) 61 6.2 Effect of Work on
Nearby Heritage Items and Conservation Areas 62 6.2.1 Marlborough,
No. 94-96 Burlington Road (I23) 62 6.2.2 Billesdon, No. 104-106
Burlington Road (I24) 62 6.2.3 Abbotsford Road Conservation Area
(C2) 63
7.0 CONCLUSION 63
8.0 APPENDIX 1
Cover Image: Photograph of the front of Camden Lodge, 2009
Realestate.com.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preamble
This Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) has been prepared in
conjunction with a Development Application for alterations and
additions to an existing dwelling and for new landscaping at No.
102 Burlington Road, Homebush, New South Wales.
The site is located within the Municipality of Strathfield. The
principal planning control for the site is the Strathfield Local
Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The site is listed as a
heritage item of local significance by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the LEP
2012, where it is identified as Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden,
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush (I24). The site adjoins other
items listed by this Schedule and the Albert Road Central
Conservation Area as it is defined by Schedule 5 Part 2 of the LEP
2012. Under Part 5.10 of the LEP 2012:
(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance The
consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause
in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area,
consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage
significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies
regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared
under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is
submitted under subclause (6). (5) Heritage assessment The consent
authority may, before granting consent to any development: (a) on
land on which a heritage item is located, or (b) on land that is
within a heritage conservation area, or (c) on land that is within
the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), require a
heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the
extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would
affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage
conservation area concerned.
The appropriate heritage management document in this instance is a
Heritage Impact Statement (HIS). This statement has been prepared
at the request of the owners of the site and accompanies plans
prepared by LiteraTrotta (architectural) and Dangar Barin Smith
(landscape).
1.2 Authorship
1.3 Limitations
An Aboriginal assessment and historical archaeology were not
provided for.
1.4 Methodology
This statement has been prepared with reference to the NSW Heritage
Manual update Statements of Heritage Impact (2002) and with
reference to the Council planning controls listed under Section
1.6.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 2
1.4.1 Physical Evidence
Site visits were carried out by Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning
in 2021. Unless otherwise stated, the photographs contained in this
statement were taken on these occasions.
1.4.2 Documentary Evidence
1.4.2.1 General References
• ‘Advertising (Domestic Wanted),’ Macleay Argus, 4 June, 1948,
p.8. • (‘Advertising (Probate Jurisdiction), The Sydney Morning
Herald, 10 May, 1937,
p.2. • Campbell, J.F., ‘Liberty Plains of the First Free Settlers,
1793’, Journal of the
Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol. XXII/V, 1936. • Coupe,
Sheena and Robert, Concord- A Century History, NSW, Council of
the
Municipality of Concord, 1983, p.16. • ‘Family Notices (Death of
Mrs. Rofe),’ The Daily Telegraph, 16 April, 1928, p.5. • Fraser, H.
and Joyce, R., The Federation House: Australia’s Own Style,
NSW,
Lansdowne Publishing Pty Ltd, 1997. • ‘General Notes,’ Construction
and Local Government Journal, 15 August, 1923,
p.18. • Hainsworth, D.R., 'Lord, Simeon (1771–1840)', Australian
Dictionary of
Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National
University,
https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lord-simeon-2371/text3115,
published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 17 August
2021.
• ‘Heritage-listed mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney
Morning Herald, 1 February, 2012.
• John Sands Ltd, John Sands’ Sydney and Suburban Directories, NSW,
John Sands Ltd, various dates.
• Jones, Cathy, Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-
homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd-homebush/
• Jones, Cathy, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-
homebush/marlborough-94-96-burlington-road-homebush/.
• Jones, Cathy, Strathfield-origin of the name.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/buildings/strathfield/origin-of-the-name-
strathfield/.
• Jones, Michael, Oasis in the West: Strathfield’s First 100 Years,
Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1985.
• Khalil, Shireen, ‘NSW Land and Environment Court saves Camden
Lodge heritage property,’ Inner West Courier, 9 July, 2014.
• No. 98-102 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-homebush-
105348548.
• ‘Obituary (Mr. A.C. Rofe),’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 9
December, 1933, p.19.
1.4.2.2 Historic Maps, Plans and Images • (Aerial photograph over
the site and surrounding area), 1943, 1965, 1986 and
2005. http://www.spail.nsw.gov.au. • M.W.S.&D.B., Strathfield
Sheet 9, 1894. Sydney Water Archives. • (Photographs of No. 102
Burlington Road, Strathfield), 2009.
www.realestae.com.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 3
• Plan of the Parish of Concord, County of Cumberland, NSW,
undated. NSW LPI. • Robert Trevethan his wife Milba Jane and
children c. 1910-15. Australian
Trevathan Family. https://bimboe9.tripod.com/Australia.htm. •
Underwood Estate, Homebush…., 1878. Homebush Subdivision Plans,
State
Library of NSW.
1.4.2.3 NSW LPI Records • Certificates of Title Volume 354 Folio
109; Volume 494 Folio 239; Volume 524
Folio 33; Volume 542 Folio 175; Volume 680 Folio 66; Volume 2675
Folio 172.
1.4.2.4 Listing Sheets
• Billesdon- Federation Bungalow and Garden, No. 104-106 Burlington
Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory, Heritage ID No.:
2450046.
• Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden, No. 102 Burlington Road,
Homebush. State Heritage Inventory Heritage ID No.: 2450045.
1.4.2.4 Council Controls
1.5 Site Location
No. 102 Burlington Road, Strathfield is located on the southern
side of the road, between Bridge Road and Meredith Street. The site
is identified as Lots 13–15 (inclusive) Section 12 D.P. 400.
Figure 1: Site Location. Whereis; annotation by WP Heritage and
Planning.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 4
2.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE
2.1 Original Occupation
While an Aboriginal history is not provided for, it is acknowledged
that the traditional custodians of the Strathfield area are the
Wangal people of the Dharug speaking language group.
2.2 Early European Occupation
The Colony of New South Wales was officially established at a place
the colonists called Sydney Cove on 26 January, 1788. Ignoring the
presence of the Aboriginal people, all land in the new Colony was
declared to be Crown Land. While a magnificent site for a maritime
city, Sydney did not possess the rich soils for the crop raising
required to ensure the immediate survival of the Colony.
Exploration inland lead to the discovery of Rose Hill (renamed
Parramatta in 1791) where a second settlement was established in
November 1788. Within three years, Parramatta had superseded Sydney
as the most important settlement within the infant Colony. By 1791,
the two settlements were linked by a rough track known simply as
‘The Path’ and later as Parramatta Road.1 Travelling conditions
were notoriously poor along this major thoroughfare until rough
stone paving was completed in 1820. The subject site lies just
south of Parramatta Road. Reluctant to alienate land from the Crown
during the earliest period of settlement, Governor Phillip used his
power to grant land sparingly. Only sixty grants were made in the
period leading up to his departure in December 1792. These first
grants were located at Parramatta, the Field of Mars (North Ryde),
Kissing Point (Ryde) and Prospect. The first land grants in the
present-day Strathfield Council area were made in 1793 under the
hand of Lieutenant Governor Grose. The modest grants of these
settlers were located in an area that was subsequently named the
Liberty Plains in honour of the fact that, with the exception of
one emancipist, these families were the first free settlers in the
Colony. The subject site is located on a grant of 160 acres made to
Simeon Lord on 9 August, 1803, ten years after the grants on the
Liberty Plains (Figure 2). Lord (1771-1840) had arrived in Sydney
as a convict in 1791. Emancipated at an early date, he became a
successful merchant, public auctioneer, retailer, sealer, timber
merchant and captain’s agent. Lord also developed extensive
pastoral interests.2 He was given a second, larger, grant of 300
acres within the present day Strathfield-Homebush area, south east
of his 160 acre grant, bordering the Cooks River. Lord’s 1803 grant
was small compared to others within the area, such as Captain
Thomas Rowely’s 650 acre grant; Darcy Wentworth’s 920 acres; James
Wilshire’s 570 acre grant; and the 450 acre Church Glebe. Over
time, some of the original land grants were combined into larger
estates. By the 1840s, the subject site had become part of the
Underwood Estate, the property of James Underwood (1776?-1844), an
emancipist and sometime partner of Simeon Lord who had achieved
success as a shipbuilder, sealer, distiller and merchant.3
1 Sheena Coupe, Concord- A Century History, NSW, Council of the
Municipality of Concord, 1983, p.16. 2 For further details, refer
to D. R. Hainsworth, 'Lord, Simeon (1771–1840)', Australian
Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian
National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lord-simeon-
2371/text3115, published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 17
August 2021. 3 The early land title of the subject site has not
been fully ascertained for the purposes of this statement.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 5
Figure 2: Grants in the Strathfield Area. Undated Plan of the
Parish of Concord, County of Cumberland, NSW. NSW LPI. Annotation
by WP Heritage and Planning.
2.3 Mid-Nineteenth Century Strathfield
Little appears to have occurred on Lord’s grant during the first
half of the nineteenth century. The mid-nineteenth century
development of Strathfield was largely dictated by development of
James’ Wilshire’s 1808 grant, which lay between Simeon Lord’s 160
and 300 acre grants. Wilshire’s grant was conveyed in its entirety
to the wealthy emancipist, Samuel Terry in 1815, who subsequently
name it Redmire, later Redmyre.4 The subdivision of this estate in
1866 would do much to determine the subsequent development of the
area. Present-day Strathfield had been too distant from Sydney to
be significantly affected by the rapid population expansion that
had occurred since the late 1830s. The only subdivision within the
present-day Council area prior to 1840 was the Village of St. Annes
on the Liverpool Road (1837), an event that attracted little
interest. Development was retarded by the severe economic
depression of the early 1840s. What settlement existed, was
clustered around inns and other service industries scattered along
the Parramatta and Liverpool Roads (the latter had opened in 1814)
and near the Homebush Racecourse, on Wentworth’s land (1841). When
opened in 1855, the railway line between Sydney and Parramatta
provided stations at Newtown, Ashfield, Burwood and Homebush;
Strathfield lay just beyond the western limits of expansion that
followed the opening of this line. Advertisements for the Redmyre
Estate subdivision of the 1860s were aimed at the wealthy who had
the means and opportunity to seek out a villa lifestyle.5 The
Estate
4 Michael Jones, Oasis in the West: Strathfield’s First 100 Years,
Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1985, p.27. 5 J.F. Campbell, ‘Liberty
Plains of the First Free Settlers, 1793’, Journal of the Royal
Australian Historical Society, Vol. XXII/V, 1936, p.328.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 6
soon developed into the most exclusive part of the district. Among
the residents were some of the most prominent families of Sydney
society including members of parliament, senior public servants,
surgeons, solicitors and businessmen. The Town and Country Journal
described Redmyre in 1884 as:
‘This pretty suburb is about seven and a half miles from Sydney to
the westward, and stands some 60ft above sea level. It is one of
the nicest suburbs, looking so fresh and healthy. There is any
amount of free foliage, which gives it a pretty appearance.’6
Some built large houses within park like surrounds; others left
their land undeveloped and/or carried out further subdivisions,
mostly comprised of large lots, the first occurring as early as
1872.
The name of the present-day Council area originates from the 1860s
land sales. Walter Renny, painter and decorator and later Mayor of
Sydney (1869-1870) purchased land on the Redmire Estate in 1868,
building a house which he called Strathfieldsaye, possibly after
the Duke of Wellington’s country mansion or, alternatively, for a
migrant vessel of the same name.7 The name was later changed to
Strathfield House. This estate was subdivided around the time that
the area was incorporated as a Municipality (1885); the name was
chosen for the new municipality.
2.4 The Underwood Estate
Little occurred on Underwood’s land during the above period.
Following Underwood’s death in 1844, his estate was held in
abeyance. In 1873, an Act of Parliament was passed placing the land
into the hands of Trustees and freeing the land for subdivision and
sale. The first subdivision of 1878, ‘the Village of Homebush,’
covered the largest part of the Underwood Estate. The subject site
comprises Lots 13, 14 and 15 Section 12 of this subdivision (D.P.
400). Refer to Figure 3 below.
The land title for the subject property during the early 1880s is
complex, demonstrating the often speculative nature of property
market at this time. Lot 13 Section 12 was transferred from the
Trustees of the Underwood Estate (William George Pennington,
William Henry Mackenzie senior, Robert John King and Charles Wye
Weeks) to Mrs. Minnie Todman, wife of George Todman of Burwood,
landowner, on 19 August, 1881. Todman also purchased Lots 11 and 12
Section 12 on the same day. These were not the first lots that she
had purchased on the Estate. On 23 December, 1880, she had
purchased Lot 14 Section 12, also part of the subject site. Lot 14
had changed hands a number of times before Todman purchased it
between 1878 and 1880.8 Todman in turn transferred Lots 13 and 14
to Henry Albert Uther, a Sydney gentleman, on 19 August, 1881.9 The
land title of Lot 15 between 1878 and 1882 is unclear. By December
1883, it was also owned by Henry Albert Uther, thus bringing the
three lots comprising the subject site under common
ownership.10
6 Cited in Michael Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.33. 7 Cathy Jones,
Strathfield-origin of the name.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/buildings/strathfield/origin-
of-the-name-strathfield/. 8 For transfers see Certificate of Title
(C.T.) 354 Folio 109 (Lots 14 and 15); C.T. 494- 239 and 524-33
(Lot 14). NSW LPI. 9 C.T. Volume 542-175 (Lot 13) and C.T. Volume
524-33 (Lot 14). 10 C.T. Volume 680-66. The references to preceding
titles are difficult to follow.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 7
Figure 3: The Underwood Estate, Homebush…., 1878. State Library of
NSW, Homebush Subdivision Plans; annotation by WP Heritage and
Planning. Henry Uther (1843-1937) was the son of Reuben Uther, a
wealthy merchant, manufacturer and landholder.14 During the early
to mid 1880s, he built, and occupied, a substantial Victorian
Italianate dwelling, Marlborough, on his Burlington Road land. This
dwelling still stands to the east of the subject site..15 The
footprint of Marlborough is visible in Figure 4, a survey of the
area prepared for the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage
Board in 1894. With the exception of a small outbuilding that
14 Cathy Jones, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96 Burlington Road, Homebush.
strathfieldheritage.com. 15 John Sands’ Sydney and Suburban
Directories. Uther is listed in this section of Burlington Road
from at least 1887 in a property first listed as Marlboro House and
later as Marlborough House.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 8
straddles the rear boundary of what are now No. 102 and No. 104-106
Burlington Road, the subject site is shown as vacant land.
Figure 4:M.W.S.&D.B., Strathfield Sheet 9, 1894 (Detail only).
The arrow marks Marlborough.
The subject site is outlined in red. Sydney Water Archives;
annotations by WP Heritage and Planning. Uther would retain
ownership of the subject site until 1916 and of the land on which
Marlborough stands until his death in 1937.16 His descendants would
own Marlborough until at least the mid 1960s.17
2.5 Laying the Foundations of Modern Strathfield
It was during the period of Uther’s ownership of the site that the
foundations of present- day Strathfield were laid. As the
population started to grow, the quality of the municipal
environment was carefully guarded by the Council. When annexing
Flemington Municipality in 1891, Council records indicate that
their primary concern was the opportunity to close a number of
noxious industries, which had been a ‘foul smelling nuisance’ to
residents of Strathfield. Municipal improvements proceeded apace.
In the three years between 1898 and 1901, roads were metalled,
earthen footpaths provided and underground drains constructed.
Strathfield Council took advantage of State government subsidies
for street planting in the late 1880s and 1890s, continuing the
programme on their own initiative when abandoned by the state in
1893. Given this activity, there can be little surprise that
Strathfield had the highest housing values for the western sector
in 1895. Strathfield residents joined their Council in the fight to
protect their suburb. Residents protested vocally against the
progressive establishment of sale yards and abattoirs at
16 (‘Advertising (Probate Jurisdiction), The Sydney Morning Herald,
10 May, 1937, p.2. 17 Cathy Jones, ‘Marlborough,’ No. 94-96
Burlington Road, Homebush. strathfieldheritage.com.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 9
Homebush by the State from 1901, fearing that the reputation of the
area as a healthy suburb would be ruined, that property prices
would be affected and that the enterprise would attract the ‘wrong
type’ of resident. The abattoir, opened in 1910, however, would
have had no apparent effect on the area, with the suburb still be
described as ‘one of the choicest of Sydney suburbs’ in a 1918
Sydney suburban guide.18 Strathfield was thus at its ‘social peak’
from 1890 to 1900.19 It was during this period that the suburb
became firmly established as a place of residence for ‘better class
merchants and retired people.’20 From around 1905, however, the
area began to support a higher density of population. High land
values and the increasing costs associated with maintaining a large
estate encouraged further subdivision. While following the existing
pattern of ‘magnificent, modern homes’, the new houses built tended
to be of smaller scale than the original mansions.21 Changes to the
land taxation system and the increasing costs associated with
maintaining a large estate encouraged subdivision. While generally
following the existing pattern of ‘magnificent, modern homes’, the
new dwellings were predominately of a smaller scale than the
Victorian mansions.22 The quadruplication of the railway line
(1892) and the availability of express services encouraged a period
of rapid population growth. The population of Strathfield increased
from 600 people in 1884 to 2,991 people in 1901, 3,670 people in
1908 and 5,550 people in 1915. Growth continued; during the decade
1911 to 1921, the population of Strathfield increased 88%, while
the populations of neighbouring Enfield and Homebush increased by
over 140%.23
2.6 No. 102 Burlington Road
2.6.1 Robert Trevethan and a Dwelling Called Candilgy
Marlborough was subdivided in 1916. The land comprising the subject
site was transferred from Uther to Robert Trevethan, a gentleman
from Homebush, on 9 June, 1916.24 Strathfield Council minutes
record that Council approved the construction of a dwelling, at an
estimated value of £1,850, on Treventhan’s Burlington Road land on
1 August, 1916. The Minutes note further approvals in 1917 and 1918
for a fernery and storeroom.25 No architectural plans from this
period have survived and no references have been found in
contemporary newspapers or journals to identify the architect (or
designer) of the dwelling. Trevethan was a highly successful
contractor:
‘Robert Trevethan (1859-1945) migrated from England. Trevethan
found employment as a contractor and leased a blue metal quarry
with his brothers at Dundas on Kissing Point Road. Around 1910, he
moved to Minnamurra on the NSW South Coast, near Kiama and opened a
blue metal quarry called the ‘Minnamurra Blue Metal Quarries Ltd’.
Approaching retirement age, he sold his interests to the NSW Blue
Metal
18 Harris, 1918 cited in Fox and Associates, Marrickville Heritage
Study. Unpublished study prepared for Marrickville Council, 1986,
p.36. 19 Michael Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.70. 20 ‘Centennial History
of New South Wales’ cited in Fox and Associates, op.cit., 1986,
p.76. 21 Harris, 1918 cited in Fox and Associates, op.cit., 1986,
p.20. 22 Harris, 1918 cited in ibid, p. 20. 23 Ibid, p.33. 24 C.T.
Volumes 524-33; 542-175; and 680-66. NSW LPI. 25 Cathy Jones,
Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd-
homebush/
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 10
Ltd (now owned by Boral Industries). Part of the old quarry is now
known as Trevethan Reserve. Trevethan, having gained significant
wealth, retired from business and settled again in Sydney….
Trevethan died in 1945 leaving an estate valued at
£30,908.’26
Figure 5 provides a photograph of the Trevethan family around the
time that the subject dwelling was constructed. Trevethan’s
Burlington Road property is first listed in John Sands’ Sydney and
Suburban Directories in 1918. Trevethan is listed as the occupant
of the site, which was one of ten listings for the southern side of
Burlington Road, south of Meredith Street, in this year. At this
time, many of the properties in the street were identified by name.
The subject property was listed as Canliddy in the Sands’
Directories of 1924 through to 1926. Local histories record the
name of the property as having been Candilgy.27 It is not uncommon
for Sands’ Directories to misspell or misprint names. The origins
of the name are unknown.
Figure 5: Robert Trevethan, his wife, Milba Jane, and children c.
1910-15. Australian Trevathan Family. https://bimboe9.tripod.
com/Australia.htm.
2.6.2 The Rofe Family and Camden Lodge
On 8 September, 1924, Candilgy was transferred to Ethel Rofe, wife
of Arthur Camden Rofe.28 No advertisements associated with this
sale have been located. Arthur C. Rofe is first listed at Candilly
(sic) by Sands’ Directories in 1926. By 1932-3, street numbers had
been allocated to this part of Burlington Road. The subject site
was initially known as No. 74 Burlington Road. According to local
histories, the Rofes renamed the site Camden Lodge. The property is
never listed by this name in Sands’ Directories or in later death
notices for Arthur and Ethel Rofe. Arthur Camden Rofe was the son
of Arthur Rofe (d.1902), a well-known Sydney solicitor and
investor. He either maintained his inheritance and/or was a
successful investor in his own right. At the time of his death in
1933, his estate was valued at
26 Cathy Jones, Camden Lodge, 102 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://strathfieldheritage.com/streetnames/burlington-road-homebush/camden-lodge-102-burlington-rd-
homebush/ 27 Ibid. 28 C.T. Volume 2675-172. NSW LPI.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 11
£187,409.29 At the time of her death in 1928 Ethel Rofe was
described as a ‘native of Victoria’ who had lived in Sydney for 50
years:
‘…She was a well known worker for charity and during the war
devoted the whole of her time to work in the Western Suburbs on
behalf of patriotic funds.’30
The subject property was transferred Arthur following Ethel’s
death. Arthur remarried in 1930 and died in 1933. Various members
of the Rofe family would own the property until 1942. The Rofes
owned the property during a period of steady growth within the
surrounding area. In August 1923, Construction and Local Government
Journal noted that:
‘Strathfield boasts of her well-kept boulevarded streets and
picturesque homes. Ten years ago, the population was 4,500; it now
numbers 9,000; whilst the number of buildings has increased from
900 to 1,775. The revenue of the council increased from £11,000 in
1013 to £22,000 last year, the rates included being
£17,000.’31
During the Interwar period, Council, as had its nineteenth century
predecessors, continued to actively maintain the qualities of the
district. They responded promptly to the opportunities presented by
the Local Government Act of 1919 by declaring (1920) almost all of
the municipality to be a ‘residential district’. At the same time
(1920), Council introduced a policy that there should be no more
than twenty houses per ten hectares and resisted the flat building
boom that swept throughout other Sydney suburbs. By 1930, a large
part of the Strathfield Municipality had been built out; further
construction of any significance did not commence until after World
War II.
2.6.3 Bush Family
Camden Lodge was transferred to Albert Vivian Bush, a Strathfield
carcass butcher, on 29 September, 1942.32 Little is known about
Bush other than that he was associated with A.J. Bush & Sons, a
large carcass butchering firm.33 No advertisements associated with
this sale have been located. The Bushs occupied the property; Mrs.
A.V. Bush of Camden Lodge advertised for domestic assistance in
1948.34 The Bush family would own the property until 2009. During
the Post War era, the character of Strathfield Municipality began
to change. In 1948, the Municipalities of Homebush and Enfield were
consolidated into the Strathfield Municipality. The Municipality of
Homebush had been largely developed by the employees of the local
manufacturers; similarly, parts of Enfield had developed as a
result of the railway marshalling yards. The amalgamations doubled
the Council area and resulted in an increase in the population from
15,751 people in 1947 to 25, 829 people in 1954. This figure
includes some growth in population within the original Strathfield
area.35 Strathfield, particularly those areas close to the railway
stations, began to be transformed after c.1970 when low rise
residential flat buildings were erected. In more recent years, much
larger residential flat buildings have been constructed.
29 ‘Obituary (Mr. A.C. Rofe),’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 9
December, 1933, p.19. 30 ‘Family Notices (Death of Mrs. Rofe),’ The
Daily Telegraph, 16 April, 1928, p.5. 31 ‘General Notes,’
Construction and Local Government Journal, 15 August, 1923, p.18.
32 C.T. 2675-172. NSW LPI. 33 References in TROVE. 34 ‘Advertising
(Domestic Wanted),’ Macleay Argus, 4 June, 1948, p.8. 35 Michael
Jones, op.cit., 1985, p.133.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 12
Figures 6 to 9 below provide a number of aerial photographs over
the site from 1943 through to 2005, which show the footprint of the
dwelling and provide some understanding of the changing a patterns
of vegetation on the site over time. There is little vegetation on
the site in Figure 6, taken in 1943, over twenty years after the
dwelling had been built. There are trees along the eastern
boundary. Whether or not, however, these were on the site or lay
within the grounds of Marlbourgh to the east is not clear. There
also appears to be a hedge along the western boundary. There is no
evidence that the semi-circular driveway in front of the dwelling
of later years existed at this time. In 1943, the driveway ran into
the site along the western boundary; there is a separate pedestrian
entrance near the north eastern corner of the site, which curves
across the front lawn to front entrance into the dwelling. A
straight path connects this pathway to the driveway. These two
pathways are clearly narrower than the driveway and thus
identifiable as pedestrian pathways with a reasonable degree of
certainty. There is a tennis court on the eastern side of the
dwelling and a service yard, with garage and what is likely the
separate billiards room to the rear of the dwelling.
Figure 6: 1943. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 13
Figure 7: Aerial Photograph, 1965. The former pedestrian pathway
across the lawn has been
replaced by a driveway. http://www. spatial.nsw. gov.au.
Figure 8: Aerial Photograph, 1986. http://www. spatial.nsw.
gov.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 14
Figure 9: Aerial Photograph, 2005. http://www. spatial.nsw.
gov.au.
2.6.4 Heritage Listing and Fire
The site was listed as a heritage item by Strathfield Council in
1990. The property was sold to Ronney Oueik and his wife, Faten, in
2009. At the time of this sale, it was described as follows:
‘Camden Lodge is a magnificent example of a grand federation home
of its era, steeped in history and retaining all its charm,
character, features and massive gardens, it is one of the finest
landmark homes in the area. Featuring 5 bedrooms, formal and
informal living areas, large wrap around verandahs, magnificent
rolling lawns, self-contained billiard room, circular driveway and
drive leading to a double garage. In original condition and ready
to be restored and updated, this is a home of wonderful proportions
and potential. Purchase the whole property or separately with
Camden Lodge being lots 2 and 3 on 1860sqm or lot 1 as a vacant
block of 930sq.’36
The real estate advertisement provided a series of 21 photographs
of the site, a selection of which are reproduced below (Figures 10
to 16). Given later extensive fire damage (see below), these
photographs provide an invaluable record of the dwelling and its
former garden setting.
36 No. 98-102 Burlington Road, Homebush.
https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-homebush-
105348548.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 15
Figure 10: Aerial view over the property in 2009.
www.realestate.com.au.
Figure 11: Front elevation in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 16
Figure 12: View across the tennis court in 2009. www.realestate.
com.au.
Figure 13: Front hallway in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Figure 14: Dining room in 2009. www.realestat e.com.au.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 17
Figure 15: Billiards Room in 2009. www.realestate.co m.au.
Figure 16: Bedroom in 2009. www.realestate. com.au.
Oueik lodged an application for the demolition of the dwelling and
construction of a new dwelling with pool cabana and tennis court
with Council in late 2010. The application was refused. The
dwelling was extensively damaged by fire in February 2012 (refer to
Figure 17) and has since sat vacant.37 Council refused a second
application for demolition in late 2012, a decision that was
subsequently upheld by the Land and Environment Court.38.
37 ‘Heritage-listed mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney
Morning Herald, 1 February, 2012. 38 Shireen Khalil, ‘NSW Land and
Environment Court saves Camden Lodge heritage property,’ Inner West
Courier, 9 July, 2014.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 18
Figure 17: Camden Lodge after the fire of 2012. ‘Heritage-listed
mansion gutted by suspicious fire,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 1
February, 2012.
A DA was approved for the site in 2016 for the restoration of the
dwelling and the construction of a new two storey pavilion to the
rearm extending to the east of the dwelling. A Conservation Policy
Statement was prepared by Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L
at this time (DA 2015/111). Demolition works, approved by DA
2015/111, have been undertaken. The property is under new
ownership.
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT
3.1 The Site
For the following, refer to Figure 18, an aerial photograph over
the site and to the survey that accompanies this application. For
the purposes of this description, the Burlington Road boundary is
designated the northern boundary.
Figure 18: Aerial photograph over the site. SIX Maps; annotation by
WP Heritage and Planning.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 19
The site comprises three equal sized lots with a combined northern
(Burlington Road) boundary of 45.72m; eastern and western
boundaries of 60.96m; and a southern boundary of 45.72m. The total
site area is 2,787.1sqm (by calculation). The site is level. There
is a 600mm high brick wall along the front boundary. Low piers rise
above the wall at regular intervals. The wall and piers are capped
with moulded bricks. There are two openings in the wall; the wall
returns into these openings. The wall is in poor condition. It is
tilting and has been damaged by tree roots and vehicles. Temporary
hoarding has been erected behind the wall. There are timber paling
fences along the remaining boundaries. The dwelling on the site,
described below, has a generous setback from the street. It is set
towards its western boundary, from which it is separated by the
driveway (once brick- lined) and a garden bed. There are the
remains of a brick lined semi-circular driveway, connecting to the
above, in front of the dwelling. A north-south running tennis court
once lay on the eastern side of the dwelling. This part of the site
is now vacant land. There are two small outbuildings- a brick
garage and a wooden shed- described below, in the south western
corner of the site. The location of trees on the site is as marked
on the survey and as identified in a separate report prepared by
Jacksons Nature Works. There are widely spaced irregularly planted
trees along the front boundary, identified as a x Cupressocyparis
leylandii, a Ficus microcarpa var. hillii and a Thuja arborvitae.
There are a number of trees along the rear boundary (within the
site and just beyond the boundary in the neighbouring property)
including a hedge of 23 Cupressus sempervirens. There is otherwise
no vegetation on the site (with the exception of weeds). Figures 19
to 29 below illustrate the general character of the site. Refer
also to the photographs in the sections below.
Figure 19: Looking west along the brick wall along the front
boundary.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 20
Figure 20: One of the entrances into the property.
Figure 21: The Ficus microcarpa var. hillii near the western end of
the front boundary. Figure 22: The Thuja arborvitae at the eastern
end of the front boundary.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 21
Figure 23: Damage caused to the front wall by the Ficus microcarpa
var. hillii.
Figure 24: Looking east across the front yard.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 22
Figure 25: Looking north towards Burlington Road across the
location of the tennis court.
Figure 26: Looking south across the location of the tennis
court.
Figure 27: Looking west across the rear yard toward the garage and
shed.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 23
Figure 28: Mixed planting on the rear boundary.
Figure 29: Looking north along the driveway on the western side of
the dwelling. The driveway was brick lined and finished in
gravel.
3.2 The Dwelling
3.2.1 Exterior
The dwelling on the site is a large free standing single storey
building, once an example of the Federation Bungalow Style. As
demonstrated by Figures 30 to 44 below, the dwelling has been
extensively damaged by fire. The surviving walls are constructed of
face brick; the brickwork of the front elevation is tuckpointed.
Window openings have moulded brick sills in a dark contrasting
brick. The brickwork beneath the gable on the western side
incorporates a decorative brick panel. The northern eastern and
western gables retain remnants of timber shingling and their wide
bargeboards; the front gable is the most intact of the gables and
incorporates a timber vent. Few door or window frames remain in
situ. The roof cladding and structure has been completely removed.
There are two tall slender brick chimneys with rough cast rendered
detailing.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 24
Figure 30: The front (northern) verandah and elevation (refer back
to Figure 13 above for a photograph taken prior to the fire.
Figure 31: View east across the front elevation, showing the
remains of the front verandah, the bay window on the western side
and the inset front entrance. Note also the detailing to the
chimney.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 25
Figure 32: Detail of one of the front window openings (note the
contrasting brick sill) and remnant
encaustic tiles. Figure 33: Front entrance and remnant tiles.
Figure 34: Southern end of the eastern elevation. Note the base of
the verandah and the flashing,
marking the profile of the verandah roof.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 26
Figure 35: Northern end of the eastern elevation. A set of timber
framed multiple paned doors remains in place at the northern end.
The toplight of the southern opening similarly remains in
situ.
Figure 36: Detail of the bay window in the eastern elevation. Note
the rough cast rendered band to
the top of the gabled bay. Figure 37: Northern elevation of the
eastern bay.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 27
Figure 38: Northern end of the western side of the dwelling.
Figure 39: Detail of the decorative brickwork beneath the gable in
the western elevation.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 28
Figure 40: Mid section of the western elevation. The edge of the
verandah is visible.
Figure 41: Southern end of the western elevation.
Figure 42: Rear (southern) elevation.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 29
Figure 43: East elevation of the rear of the building.
Figure 44: Southern facing elevation at the rear of the building
with insitu timber framed casement window.
3.2.2 Interior
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 30
Figure 45: Floor Plan. Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L (DA
2015/111). The floor joist and floor boards have been removed; the
ceilings and ceiling structure have been removed. The skirting
boards and internal doors have been removed. Some of the
architraves to doors and windows have been removed; remaining
architraves are fire and weather damaged. There are the remnants of
three masonry fireplaces. Figures 46 to 50 illustrate typical
interiors.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 31
Figure 46: Formal lounge room on the eastern side.
Figure 47: Front hallway, looking south. Figure 48: Formal dining
room on the western side.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 32
Figure 49: One of the surviving fireplaces; south eastern corner of
the dwelling. Figure 50: Former bathroom on the western side.
3.3 Outbuildings
There is a free standing single brick garage in the south western
corner of the site. The walls are constructed of face brick. The
roof is pitched and clad in terracotta tile. There is a timber
framed casement window with concrete lintel in the eastern
elevation of the garage and a tilting door in the northern
elevation. The northern and southern gable ends are lined with
vertically orientated timber boards. There is a timber framed shed
clad in Hardiplank (or equivalent) with a flat roof clad in Cliplok
(or equivalent) on the southern side of the garage. There is a
large opening with timber sliding doors on the eastern side. Refer
to Figures 51 to 56.
Figure 51: Eastern elevation of the garage.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 33
Figure 52: Northern elevation of the garage.
Figure 53: Garge interior showing the painted brick walls, cement
floor with inspection pit and f/c (or equivalent) lined ceiling
with cover battens.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 34
Figure 54: Eastern elevation of the shed.
Figure 55: Shed interior with what appears to be doors from the
dwelling.
3.4 The Surrounding Area
3.4.1 The General Area
As demonstrated by Figure 56, the site is located within a
predominately residential area underlain by the late nineteenth
century subdivision plan. Lots sizes vary, with some dwellings
being built across more than one lot. Dwellings are free standing
and one and two storeys in height. Most are of masonry
construction, with hipped and gabled roofs clad in tile or
slate.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 35
Figure 56: Aerial photograph over the site and the surrounding
area. SIX Maps; annotation in red by WP Heritage and
Planning.
3.4.2 Burlington Road
Burlington Road is a long, straight, wide road that runs from
Homebush Road in the east to Bridge Road in the west. The section
of the road in which the site is located has footpaths and nature
strips to either side of the road. There are regularly spaced
street trees. This part of the street is characterised by free
standing one and two storey masonry dwellings set within garden
surrounds. Lot sizes vary; No. 102 Burlington Road is substantially
larger than most lots. The immediately adjoining property to the
east of the site is No. 94-96 Burlington Road. This property, known
as Marlborough, is a substantial two storey Victorian Italianate
Style dwelling set within landscape grounds. It is listed a
heritage item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and
is described further below. Continuing east, lie one and storey
Post World War II dwellings in varying styles. The immediate
adjoining property to the west of the site No. 104-106 Burlington
Road. This property, known as Billesdon, is a large bungalow with
prominent street facing gable set within landscaped grounds. It is
listed a heritage item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP
2012 and is described further below. Continuing west, lie one and
two storey Post World War II dwellings in varying styles. Opposite
the site lie one and two storey predominately Post World War II
dwellings in varying styles. To the rear of the site lie No. 85, 87
and 89 Abbotsford Road, all free standing single storey (to the
street) Federation /early Interwar period bungalows. These
properties lie within the Abbotsford Road Conservation Area,
described below. The dwellings on the lots adjoining the site
subject site present rear yards and elevations to the site. Figures
57 to 63 illustrate the general character of Burlington Street in
the vicinity of the site. Refer also to the photographs Section 4.4
below.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 36
Figure 57: General view east along Burlington Road showing the
general character of the street. The arrow marks the site.
Figure 58: No. 94-96 Burlington Road, adjoining the site to the
east, from Burlington Road.
Figure 59: View towards Nos. 94-96 Burling Road from within the
subject site.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 37
Figure 60: No. 104-106 Burlington Road to the west of the site from
Burlington Road.
Figure 61: No. 104-106 Burlington Road from within the subject
site. The dwelling lies close to the side boundary and has been
extended to the rear.
Figure 62: Opposite the site.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 38
Figure 63: Dwellings to the rear of the site, within the Abbotsford
Road Conservation Area.
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.1 Summary of Statutory Heritage Listings
No. 102 Burlington Road, Strathfield is: • Is listed as a heritage
item by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Strathfield LEP 2012.
The site is identified as Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden (I24).
It is ascribed local significance. All three lots comprising the
site are included in the curtilage of the listing.
The site: • Is not located within a Conservation Area listed by
Schedule 5 Part 2 of the
Strathfield LEP 2012. • Is not listed on the State Heritage
Register under the NSW Heritage Act 1977.
4.2 Heritage Items in the Vicinity of the Site
4.2.1 Identifying the Items and Conservation Areas
For the following, ‘in the vicinity’ is determined with reference
to physical proximity, the nature of the proposed works and
existing and potential view corridors. There are no heritage items
or conservation areas listed by the State Heritage Register, under
the NSW Heritage Act 1977, within the vicinity of the site. For the
following, refer to Figure 64, which shows the location of heritage
items and conservation areas listed by Schedule 5 Parts 1 and 2 of
the Strathfield LEP 2012 with respect to the site. In this plan,
heritage item are coloured brown and numbered. Conservation Areas
are hatched in red and numbered. The subject site is marked by the
arrow and numbered ‘I24.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 39
Figure 64: Heritage Items/Conservation Areas in the vicinity of the
site. Heritage Plan, Sydney LEP 2012 annotations by WP Heritage and
Planning.
The following heritage items and conservation areas adjoin or lie
within the vicinity of the site.
4.2.2 Heritage Items
The following heritage items adjoin the site: •
Marlborough—Victorian Italianate style house, No. 94-96 Burlington
Road,
Homebush, (I23)
This item adjoins the site to the east. The State Heritage
Inventory does not provide a listing sheet for this site. As set
out above, it was built c.1884 for Henry Uther and once stood on a
much larger property that included the subject site. Marlborough is
a two storey rendered masonry dwelling with a low hipped roof clad
in tile. The front elevation is asymmetrical, with a two storey bay
on the western side. The remainder of the elevation lies under a
two storey verandah with cast iron lace detailing and a corrugated
iron roof. Windows are in the Italianate Style. The dwelling lies
behind an open front lawn with a substantial (modern) masonry and
metal palisade fence along the front boundary. It has a deeper
setback into the site from Burlington Road than the subject
dwelling and has a generous side setback from the subject site.
Refer to Figures 58 and 59 above. This item likely has local and
historic significance as a fine example of a two storey Italianate
Style dwelling typical of the type erected for a gentlemen within
the area during the late nineteenth century. The principal view
corridors towards this site are obtained from directly outside of
it on Burlington Road. Vegetation and neighbouring dwellings
largely conceal it on approach
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 40
in either direction along the road until close by the site. View
corridors from the west are slightly more open than view corridors
from the east. The principal view corridors out of this item are
over Burlington Road. There are no significant view corridors out
of this item across the site. Refer to the photographs in Section
4.4 below. This item has a lot boundary curtilage. •
Billesdon—Federation bungalow and garden, No. 104-106 Burlington
Road,
Homebush (I24) This item adjoins the site to the west. This item is
a large single storey Late Federation/early Interwar period
bungalow with first floor level set within a wide gabled roof. The
front elevation is dominated by a wide street facing gable finished
in timber shingles. The ground floor verandah is set beneath the
gabled roof. The dwelling lies withing landscaped grounds behind a
modern brick and steel fence. There dwelling has been extended to
the rear. The dwelling lies close to its common boundary with the
site and has a similar front setback to the subject dwelling. Refer
to Figures 60 and 61 above. The State Heritage Inventory listing
sheet for this item provides the following statement of
significance for it:
‘The driveway and fencing are excellent examples of terra cotta
edging and coping tiles. The lawn and shrubs are remnants of a
previous designed landscape. The large bungalow features a shingled
gable which projects to the front and side to form a wide
verandah.’39
The principal view corridors out of this item are over Burlington
Road. There are angled view corridors towards this item when close
to it on approach in either direction along Burlington Road. There
are no significant view corridors out of this item across the site.
Refer to the photographs in Section 4.4 below. This item has lot
boundary curtilage. There are two Forest Red Gums (Eucalyptus
tereticornis) listed by Strathfield’s Significant Tree Register on
this site. The following heritage items are further removed from
the site: • Finchley—Victorian house, No. 61 Burlington Road,
Homebush (I21) • Meyrick—Victorian house, No. 82 Burlington Road,
Homebush (I22) • Ettalong—house, No. 90 Abbotsford Road, Homebush
(I15). These items are sufficiently removed from the site by
distance or are concealed from it by adjoining dwellings for works
of the proposed nature to have no impact upon them. They are not
further considered for the purposes of this statement.
39 Billesdon- Federation Bungalow and Garden, No. 104-106
Burlington Road, Homebush. State Heritage Inventory, Heritage ID
No.: 2450046.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 41
4.2.3 Conservation Areas
The rear of the site adjoins the following Conservation Area: •
Abbotsford Road Conservation Area (C2)
The subject site adjoins part of the northern boundary of this
Conservation Area. The Conservation Area comprises a streetscape of
Victorian, Federation and Interwar period dwellings set within
garden surrounds. The Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005
(DCP 2005) provides the following statement of significance for
this Conservation Area:
‘Abbotsford Road contains a consistently high quality streetscape
with housing dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. There is some modern infill but generally it is
unobtrusive. The streetscape is tied together by mature street
planting and well-maintained gardens. Abbotsford Road is of
particular significance for its architectural and aesthetic
qualities.’40
The principal view corridors associated with this area are views
along Abbotsford Road in either direction and towards individual
properties, including heritage items. The site adjoins the rear
boundaries of No. 85, 87 and 89 Abbotsford Road, all free standing
single storey (to the street) Federation /early Interwar period
bungalows. These dwellings are set closer to their front than rear
boundaries and are orientated to Abbotsford Road. No part of the
subject site is visible from the public domain within the
Conservation Area. The site is visible from the rear yards of
properties adjoining its boundary. View corridors out of these
properties over the site are not significant. Refer to Figure 63
above.
4.3 Integrity
4.3.1 The Site
The boundaries of the site have not been altered since the dwelling
was constructed. The low masonry wall across the boundary is likely
to be contemporary with the dwelling. It is in poor condition
because of damage caused by tree routes and vehicles. The timber
fences along the remaining boundaries appear to be of a relatively
recent date. Historic aerial photographs in Section 2 show how
vegetation patterns on the site have altered over time. There is
little physical evidence of past garden layouts. The driveway has
been located along the western side of the dwelling since at least
1943. The semi- circular driveway, once brick-lined and gravel
surfaced, in front of the dwelling appears to have been constructed
between c.1943 and 1965. It replaced a pedestrian path that crossed
the lawn from the north eastern corner of the site, before
connecting via a straight pathway to the driveway on the western
side. There is no surviving physical evidence (above ground) of the
tennis court that once stood on the eastern side of the site. Of
the outbuildings to the rear shown by the 1943 photograph, only the
garage in the south western corner of the site still stands. The
billiards room has been demolished. The Hardi-plank clad shed to
the rear of the garage was constructed after 1943 and before
1965.
40 Strathfield DCP 2005, Part D.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 42
4.3.2 The Dwelling
As outlined in Section 2.0 above, the dwelling on the site
demonstrates low integrity because of the extent of the fire
damage. It is noted, however, that the basic form and layout of the
original dwelling remains identifiable, particularly when read
alongside the photographs taken in 2009. There are door panels and
window frames, presumably salvaged from the dwelling, stored in the
shed on the site.
4.4 View Corridors Towards the Site
The principal, significant, view corridors towards the site from
the public domain are obtained from directly in front of it on
Burlington Road. The view corridors are currently restricted by the
temporary hoarding placed behind the front fence. Prior to the
fire, the view corridors were of the substantial dwelling within a
mature garden setting. Similarly, there were once angled views
towards the site on approach along Burlington Road in either
direction. These views were restricted to varying degrees by
adjoining dwellings and vegetation. The most visible elements were
the roof and chimneys. Views on approach from the west were likely
to have been more open than views on approach from the east. The
dwelling was designed to address the north (the street) and east
(the tennis court). Refer to Figures 65 to 68.
Figure 65: View towards the site (marked by the arrow) on approach
from the east. The
dwelling is largely concealed by vegetation.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 43
Figure 66: On approach from the east. Closer to the site and at a
more acute angle.
The top of one of the chimneys is just visible.
Figure 67: View towards the site on approach from the west along
Burlington Road.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 44
Figure 68: View towards the site across the front gates of the
adjoining property to the west.
4.5 Assessment Under NSW Heritage Criterion
4.5.1 Criterion (a)
An item is important in the course, or pattern, of New South Wales’
cultural or natural history (or the cultural of natural history of
the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush has local historic significance
as the remnant of a substantial Federation Bungalow Style dwelling
on a large site. Erected in c.1916-7 for successful contractor
Robert Trevethan and originally known as Candilgy (later as Camden
Lodge), it exemplified the type and standard of larger dwellings
being erected in Strathfield during the early twentieth century.
The level of significance under this criterion has been
considerably diminished by the extensive damage caused by a fire in
2009. Little remains of the garden layout beyond the front boundary
wall, likely contemporary with the dwelling, and a semi-circular
driveway to the front of the dwelling constructed between 1943 and
1965. There is little mature or significant planting on the
site.
4.5.2 Criterion (b)
An item has strong or special association with the life or works of
a person, or group of persons, of importance in New South Wales’
cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of
the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush is not considered to be
significant under this criterion.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 45
4.5.3 Criterion (c)
An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics
and/or a high degree of technical achievement in New South Wales
(or the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush was once a fine example of the
Federation Bungalow Style set with landscape grounds that included
a tennis court, garage and separate billiards room. The level of
significance under this criterion has been considerably diminished
by the extensive damage caused by a fire in 2009.
4.5.4 Criterion (d)
An item has strong or special association with a particular
community or cultural group in New South Wales (or the local area)
for social, cultural or spiritual reasons
The community protests that arose from the proposed demolition of
this dwelling in the early 2000s demonstrate that it is valued by
the local community.
4.5.5 Criterion (e)
An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to
an understanding of New South Wales’ cultural or natural history
(or the cultural or natural history of the local area) An
archaeological assessment has not been carried out. No. 102
Burlington Road, Homebush is unlikely to provide information about
large dwellings erected in Strathfield during the Late Federation
period that is not provided by more intact examples.
4.5.6 Criterion (f)
An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of New South
Wales’ cultural or natural history (of the cultural or natural
history of the local area)
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush is not significant under this
criterion.
4.5.7 Criterion (g)
An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics
of a class of New South Wales (or a class of the local
areas):
• Cultural or natural places; or • Cultural or natural
environments
Before the fire of 2005, No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush was a
fine example of a Federation period bungalow with its garden
surrounds. The ability of the site to demonstrate this aspect has
been diminished by the extensive damage caused by the fire. The
size and basic layout of the dwelling remain identifiable.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 46
4.6 Statements of Significance
4.6.1 State Heritage Inventory
The State Heritage Inventory provides the following statement of
significance for the site:
‘This very good example of a bungalow and its garden consists of
good brick fences and gateway, gravel drive, lawn, brick edges,
shrubs and trees combining together to form a unified
landscape.’41
4.6.2 Revised Statement
Given the existing condition of the site, the following statement
of significance is provided:
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush has local historic significance
as the remnant of a substantial Federation Style bungalow on a
large site. Erected in c.1916-7 for successful contractor Robert
Trevethan and originally known as Candilgy (later Camden Lodge), it
exemplified the type and standard of larger dwellings erected in
Strathfield during the early twentieth century. The site included a
separate garage, separate billiards room and a tennis court. Its
integrity and aesthetic significance have been considerably
diminished by the extensive damage caused by a fire in 2009. Little
of the garden layout and planting survive aside from the
semi-circular brick lined driveway in front of the dwelling
constructed sometime between 1943 and 1965.
5.0 SCOPE OF WORKS
The following should be read in conjunction with the plans prepared
by LiteraTrotta (architectural) and Dangar Barin Smith (landscape)
that accompany this application. It is proposed to: • Restore the
front part of the existing dwelling, removing the rear section
as
marked on the accompanying plans. Restoration works will include: o
Reconstruction/repair of the brick walls where required to match
the
existing. o Reconstruction of the roof and recladding in slate with
terracotta ridge
capping. The chimneys will be retained and repaired as required. o
Reconstruction of the verandahs, including the masonry balustrade
and
timber detailing, timber lined ceiling and roof using pre-2005
photographs as a guide. The surviving encaustic floor tiles will be
salvaged (if possible) and re-laid in a section, with new tiles
introduced to match to complete the verandah floor.
o Restoration of the gables using existing fabric (where
salvageable) and/or matching pre-2005 photographs;
o Reinstatement of timber framed doors and windows either salvaged
from the site (where possible) or to match those shown in pre-2005
photographs
o Internally, the front four rooms and front part of the central
hallway will be retained and restored.
o The methodology will follow the Conservation Policy Statement
(CPS) was prepared by Mike Macaulay Associates Architects P/L in
2015 (DA 2015/111). A copy of this CPS can be found in Appendix 1
of this statement.
• Construct a two storey addition to the rear of the restored part
of the dwelling, with a basement garage accessed from the existing
driveway on the western side
41 Camden Lodge- Bungalow and Garden, No. 102 Burlington Road,
Homebush. State Heritage Inventory Heritage ID No.: 2450045.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 47
of the dwelling. The rear addition will be separated from the
retained dwelling by a single storey link set below the gutter line
of the main roof. The addition will be constructed of brick with
concrete roofs. Windows and doors will be P/C aluminium
framed.
• Restore the front boundary wall and construct a new 1.5m high
palisade fence behind the front boundary.
• Replace the existing fence along the western boundary with a 1.8m
timber fence, reducing in height to 1.5m forward of the front
building line.
• Construct a swimming pool and deck on the western side of the
dwelling across part of the existing driveway. The proposed
driveway to the basement will pass beneath the pool deck.
• Carry out new landscaping as set out by the accompanying plans.
The new landscaping will include the reinstatement of the
brick-lined gravel surfaced semi- circular driveway in front of the
dwelling, tree removal and extensive new planting to the front,
sides and rear of the dwelling.
6.0 EFFECT OF WORKS
6.1 Effect of Works on the Site
Section 2.0 of Part P of the Strathfield Development Control Plan
2005 (DCP 2005) contains the primary objectives and controls for
works to heritage items. The proposal is assessed against these
controls.
6.1.1 Setting (Section 2.2)
Controls
(i) Original elements that contribute to the setting of a heritage
item such as landscaping, fences and gates, driveways, seawalls
etc. should not be removed and, traditional garden designs should
be reinstated where possible.
The most significant landscape element surviving on the site is the
wall along the front boundary, which is likely to be contemporary
with the dwelling. Its retention and repair will have a positive
impact. Part of the repair to this wall will involve the removal of
the xCupressocyparis leylandii and Ficus microcarpa var. hillii.
near the western entrance, which are damaging the wall and have the
potential to damage the neighbouring wall. These trees are
inappropriate plantings for this location. Neither tree is mature;
if left in place, their root systems will continue to damage the
wall. Whilst visible in view corridors towards the site, their
removal will have an acceptable impact because their current size
and aerial photographs demonstrate that it not part of the pre-1943
garden layout. The removal of the trees is mitigated by the
provision of a wholistic planting scheme for the area forward of
the dwelling, which includes hedging and a number of trees. The new
landscaping compliments the Federation origins and style of the
dwelling and will a positive impact on the way in which the site
presents to the public domain and the ability to understand it as a
Federation style dwelling within a garden setting. A palisade fence
will be constructed behind the front wall and set into the site to
provide improved security. The impact is acceptable because the
fence will be concealed as the planting behind it matures. The
fence is simple in design and will not obstruct views into the
gardens behind. It will not have undue prominence in the street.
The heritage items to either side of the site have palisade fences
of a similar height. The semi-circular driveway, connecting to the
driveway on the western side, whilst not contemporary with the
construction of the dwelling, is a long standing site element and
one that compliments a bungalow of this period. The reinstatement
of this driveway- with its
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 48
brick lining and gravel finish- will have a positive impact. The
front section of the western driveway is retained and will maintain
a good understanding of this element from the public domain. The
dwelling once had a simply laid out, but mature garden, little of
which remains. The proposed new landscaping provides for a range of
planting, including hedging and specimen trees that will frame the
dwelling and provide a garden setting. It will considerably improve
the way in which the site presents to the public domain. (ii) New
structures on land on which a heritage item is located such as
swimming pools
and outbuildings should be located so that they do not adversely
impact on the significance of the heritage item.
It is proposed to construct a swimming pool, with a deck surround,
on the western side of the dwelling. The pool will have an
acceptable impact because it is set behind the dwelling and will
not be visible from the public domain. The pool deck will extend
beyond the western line of the dwelling. The impact is acceptable
because it will be concealed by the proposed planting of a Syzygium
‘Resiliance’ hedge along the deck boundaries. Planting is also
proposed along either side of the driveway leading to the garage
entrance, set below the pool deck. The pool deck will not have
undue prominence in view corridors towards the site from the public
domain or within the site. (iii) The natural landform and character
of the area within which a Heritage Item is located, should be
maintained, avoiding any cut and fill to land when constructing new
buildings and landscaping grounds. The site will continue to read
from the public domain as a level site, with landscaping at the
same level as the dwelling. The entrance to the basement carpark is
managed by being recessed into the site, with the descent into the
basement beginning well into the site. Landscaping to either side
of the driveway and around the pool deck above the basement level
will ensure that it does not have undue prominence. (iv)
Applications that propose basement additions may be required to
provide a Structural Report from a practicing structural engineer
with experience in heritage buildings to confirm that the proposed
excavation will not adversely affect the building or adjoining
properties. This report should be provided as part of the
development application. Refer to the geotechnical investigations
report prepared by eiaustralia that accompanies this application.
(v) The placement of the basement entrance should not detract from
the street presentation of the item of the streetscape. Placement
of basement entries toward the rear of the property and parallel to
the side boundary is encouraged. The proposed basement entrance
will not detract from the presentation of the item to the public
domain. The entrance is located close by the western boundary, as
is encouraged by this control. The driveway is level for some
distance into the site before beginning its descent. As stated
above, the proposed landscaping to either side of the driveway and
around the pool deck above the basement level will ensure that it
does not have undue prominence in view corridors.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 49
Objectives A. To provide an appropriate visual setting for heritage
items, including landscaping, fencing and car parking; and B. To
ensure that new development respects the contribution of a heritage
item to the streetscape and/or townscape and retains the
significance of the item. The proposed works respect the heritage
item and its significance and will provide an appropriate visual
setting for the heritage item for the following reasons: • The
brick boundary wall is retained and repaired. • The semi-circular
brick lined gravel driveway is reconstructed. • The location of the
driveway along the western boundary is retained. • The entrance
into the basement garage is carefully managed. The driveway is
set
close to the western boundary and is level for some distance into
the site before descending. Hedging and other planting to either
side of the driveway and around the pool deck above will ensure
that it does not have undue prominence in view corridors.
• A comprehensive new landscaping scheme is provided, which will
reinstate a garden setting for the dwelling.
6.1.2 Scale (Section 2.3)
Controls (i) Development on the site of a heritage item must not
dominate the item or detract
from its significance.
The proposed new works will have a positive impact on the
significance of the site because they include substantial
reconstruction and restoration works which will reinstate
understanding of this dwelling as a large Federation Style bungalow
and new landscaping, which will provide a garden setting. See
below. The proposed addition will not dominate or detract from the
heritage significance of the site for the following reasons: • The
proposed works include the reconstruction of the front section of
the dwelling,
including the front of the roof (with retained chimneys), the
eastern and western facing gabled bays and the return verandah on
the northern and eastern sides. These are the elements that
primarily identify the dwelling as being a Federation Style
bungalow.
• The proposed two storey addition will be subservient to the
reconstructed front of the dwelling because it is located well to
the rear of the site and separated from the reconstructed dwelling
by a narrower single storey link, set below the gutter line of the
reconstructed roof, and generous courtyard.
• The proposed addition is lower in height than the two storey
addition approved under D/2015/111 and lies substantially within
the side setbacks of the reconstructed dwelling. It is noted that
the addition approved under D/2015/111 extended well beyond the
eastern side setback of the existing dwelling.
• The massing and scale of the proposed addition is broken into two
forms, the overall symmetry of which compliments the existing
dwelling.
• The proposed addition is simple and contemporary in form and
detail, as is appropriate for a substantial addition. It does not
seek to replicate the more dominant hips and gabled roof form of
the reconstructed dwelling.
• As demonstrated by the plans and montages that accompany this
application, the addition will have limited visibility from the
public domain and will not be visible
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 50
when standing directly in front of the dwelling. The reconstructed
dwelling will be the dominant built element on the site.
(ii) Development shall not obstruct significant views to and from
the item of significance. The proposed addition will not obstruct
significant views towards the item because it is located to the
rear. The dwelling and significant landscape elements- the front
wall and newly constructed front garden- will remain fully visible
from the public domain. The proposed addition will not obstruct the
significant view corridors out of the item to the north or east.
Objectives A. To ensure that alterations and additions to a
heritage item and new buildings on the site of a heritage item are
of a scale consistent with the heritage item so as not to detract
from the significance of the item. Whilst being two storey in
scale, the proposed addition will be subservient to the original
dwelling because it is located well to the rear of the site; is
separated from the reconstructed dwelling by a single storey link
set below the gutter line of the principal roof and a generous
courtyard; lies substantially within the side setbacks of the
restored dwelling; and is of a simple contemporary form that is
readily distinguishable from the reconstructed dwelling. It is
lower in height than the addition approved under 2015/111 and will
not be readily visible from the public domain when standing outside
the site. As set out below, the proposed addition will be
constructed using a simple palette of materials and finishes that
will be subservient to the richer tones and textures of the
restored dwelling.
6.1.3 Form (Section 2.4)
Controls (i) Important elements of the form of a heritage item such
as main roof forms, chimneys, parapet walls, verandahs etc. should
not be demolished or obscured by alterations and additions.
The front roof forms and verandah of the existing dwelling will be
reconstructed to match the original; the chimneys will be retained
and restored. This work will have a positive impact because it will
significantly improve the understanding of this dwelling as a
Federation Style bungalow. As set out in the Conservation Policy
Statement in Appendix 1:
‘Consultant Structural Engineers are to inspect the site and
provide a methodology for remedial detailing and or reconstruction
detailing to establish the most practical way to ensure the
faithful and accurate restoration of the fabric of the item. These
documents are to be reviewed by Weir Philips Heritage Consultants
for assessment and incorporation into the construction
documentation prior to the release of a Construction Certificate’
(See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.1). ‘All existing brick chimneys are
to braced and triangulated during roof reconstruction to ensure
they are protected and faithfully restored including the restoring
of all flashings and internal metal trays to make operational and
watertight. All internal timber and marble mantle details including
hearth finishes are to be restored.’ (See Appendix 1, Section
0.4.2).
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 51
‘Burlington Road Veranda including floor / footings, roof and
soffit linings, perimeter balustrade brick walls and piers . Relay
tessellated tiling and finish all surfaces same as original.’ (See
Appendix 1, Section 0.4.3). ‘The roof is to be reframed to match
the recorded geometry and achieve the same for same detail as the
original roof. Welsh slate is to be sampled and approved by the
Consultant Heritage Supervising Architect in writing prior to
ordering or installation.’ (See Appendix 1, Section 0.4.3).
(ii) Development of a heritage item must seek to reconstruct
missing architectural detailing of a Heritage Item where possible,
including gables, finial trims, front verandahs or bays. The
proposed works include the reconstruction of the missing
architectural detailing of the front of the dwelling.
Reconstruction works will be guided by the photographs taken before
and just after the fire and the Conservation Policy Statement in
Appendix 1. (iii) Verandahs on the front and sides of a heritage
item should not be filled in. It is not proposed to infill the
reconstructed verandahs. (iv) Additions and alterations to a
heritage item should not detract from important aspects of the form
of the heritage item. The form of the original dwelling-single
storey with hipped and gabled roof, with return verandah- is
reconstructed by the proposed works. The dwelling will be readily
identifiable as a Federation Style bungalow. As set out above, the
proposed addition has been designed to ensure that the
reconstructed section of the dwelling is clearly distinguishable
from the later works and is the dominant site element. This is
achieved by setting the two storey component well to the rear,
separating it from the retained dwelling by means of a single
storey link and courtyard and use of a contemporary form. (v) The
original shape of the roof of a Heritage Item should not be
altered. Not all of the original dwelling will be reconstructed.
The extent of the reconstruction includes all the elements that
clearly defined this dwelling as being in the Federation Style-
being the western and eastern facing gables and the full extent of
the northern and eastern verandahs. The simple hipped roof form
proposed to the rear is appropriate to a dwelling of this period
and style. Objectives A. To ensure that important elements of the
form of a heritage item are not obscured or destroyed by
alterations and additions. The significant elements that define the
form of the original bungalow are reconstructed as set out above.
B. To ensure that the form of a heritage item retains its
importance in the streetscape and/or townscape. The proposed works
will reinstate the understanding of the bungalow form of the
heritage item within the streetscape. It will be the dominant
element on the site for the reasons given above.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 52
6.1.4 Materials and Colours (Section 2.5)
Controls (i) The original wall treatment of a Heritage Item must be
retained where possible. Unpainted brick or stone on a Heritage
Item should not be painted or rendered; and (ii) Original materials
of heritage items should not be replaced with different materials
or materials of different colour. The existing fabric of the
section of the item to be retained will be retained where at all
possible (subject to structural stability and condition). New
fabric will match the existing. (iii) Non-original materials of
heritage items that are being replaced shall, if possible, be
replaced with material that matches the original material as
closely as possible. The new fabric within the reconstructed
section of the dwelling will match the surviving fabric as closely
as possible. (iv) Painting, rendering or bagging of original face
brickwork and/or stonework is not permitted. No such works are
proposed. (v) The texture of original rendered finishes should not
be changed. The texture of the small sections of rough cast render
will be retained and matched as appropriate. (vi) Materials for
additions and alterations to heritage items should be compatible
with the original materials of the heritage item. The materials
used in the section of the dwelling to be reconstructed will match
the original finishes, i.e. face brick, timber framed doors and
windows; slate roof etc. The addition will be constructed using a
combination of contemporary finishes including off form concrete
and steel. This is an appropriate approach for what is a
substantial addition that provides a clear distinction between the
fabric of the restored dwelling and the new work. The proposed
finishes will be neutral and recessive against the deeper and
richer colours and tones of the restored dwelling. (vii) Colour
schemes for heritage items should have a hue and tonal relationship
with traditional colour schemes for the period and style of the
heritage item. The green and cream colour scheme of the dwelling
prior to the fire will be reinstated. This is an appropriate colour
scheme for a dwelling of this period. (viii) The use of fluorescent
paint on heritage items is not permitted. No such paints are
proposed. (ix) The façade of a heritage item is not to be painted
in a corporate colour scheme. The façade will not be painted in
corporate colours. (x) The use of modern finishes including
stencilled concrete for driveways associated with heritage items is
not permitted. No such finishes are proposed. The pre-existing
gravel finish of the driveway will be reinstated.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 53
(xi) The original roof cladding of a heritage item (slate, tiles or
corrugated iron) should not be changed if it is in good repair. The
new roof cladding will be clad in slate with terracotta ridge
capping, as per the Conservation Policy Statement, to match the
original roof. (xii) Sandblasting to remove paint from brick or
stone should not be undertaken on a heritage item as it exposes it
to weathering and may change its appearance. No such work is
proposed. Objectives A. To ensure that original materials that
contribute to the significance of heritage items are not obscured.
The surviving original materials of the dwelling will not be
obscured. B. To ensure that colours of paintwork on heritage items
are consistent with the significance of the heritage item. The
green and cream colour scheme of the dwelling prior to the fire
will be reinstated. This is an appropriate colour scheme for a
dwelling of this period. C. To ensure that materials on alterations
and additions to heritage items are consistent with the materials
of the heritage item. The materials used in the reconstruction of
the dwelling will be consistent with the dwelling. As set out
above, the addition will be constructed using a combination of
contemporary finishes including off form concrete and steel. The
proposed finishes will be neutral and recessive against the deeper
and richer colours and tones of the restored dwelling.
6.1.5 Alterations and Additions (Section 2.6)
Controls (i) Alterations and additions must not adversely impact
the significance of a heritage item. As set out above, the proposed
reconstruction of the front of the existing dwelling will reinstate
the understanding of this dwelling as a Federation Style bungalow
and will thus have a positive impact. The proposed addition to the
rear will have a acceptable impact on the item for the reasons give
above, i.e.:
• It is set well to the rear and separated from the reconstructed
section of the dwelling
by a single storey link and courtyard. • The proposed addition lies
substantially within the side setbacks of the retained
dwelling. • The proposed addition has a simple contemporary form
that will be clearly
distinguishable from the reconstructed section of the dwelling. It
does not seek to replicate the hips and gables of the roof of the
dwelling.
• As demonstrated by the documentation prepared by the architects,
the addition will have limited visibility from the public
domain.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 54
(ii) Any alterations and additions must be consistent with the
scale, form, proportion, details and materials of the heritage
item. The proposed reconstruction works to the retained section of
the dwelling will be consistent with the scale, form, proportions
details and materials of the original dwelling. The proposed
addition is two storeys in height and of a contemporary expression.
The impact is acceptable for the reasons given under (i) above.
(iii) Alterations and additions to heritage items must be located
so as to minimise their visibility and prominence from the street
or adjoining streets, and the height must not be seen above the
main ridgeline of the building. Refer to Figure 1. As demonstrated
by plans/images that accompany this application, prepared by the
architect, the addition will have minimal visibility from the
public domain and, when standing in front of the site, will not be
visible above the ridge line of the retained dwelling. Refer to the
existing and proposed montages prepared by the architect. The
reconstructed section of the principal dwelling will be the
dominant site element. (iv) Ancillary buildings on the same site as
a heritage item must be located so as to not obscure the
significant elements of the Item. No ancillary buildings are
proposed. Objectives A. To support the retention of heritage
properties and maintain their heritage significance. The proposal
supports the retention of the heritage of the local area by
reconstructing the most significant part of the dwelling and its
garden setting, reinstating the understanding of it as an example
of the Federation Bungalow Style. The proposed addition to the rear
will support its use as a residential dwelling, which is the
original and best use of the building. B. To allow changes to the
rear of heritage items where the new work does not impact the
heritage significance of the heritage item As set out above, the
section of the dwelling that defines it as a Federation Style
bungalow- the hipped and gabled roof and return verandahs- is
reconstructed. The rear of the dwelling, which is not
reconstructed, is not critical to understanding the significance of
the site. As set out above, the proposed addition to the rear will
be subservient to the reconstructed dwelling and will thus have a
minimal and acceptable impact on heritage significance. C. To
ensure that alterations or additions to heritage properties are
sympathetic to the item and reflect the predominant scale, height,
proportion, character and setbacks of the existing property, and
surrounding development. The proposed addition is two storeys in
height, as was the addition approved in 2015. There are one and two
storey elements within the streetscape. As set out above, it has
been designed to minimise its visibility from the public domain and
to ensure that the reconstructed dwelling retains its dominance on
the site.
No. 102 Burlington Road, Homebush 55
6.1.6 Doors and Windows (Section 2.7)
C