9 July 2023:

The Age has been running a series of sometimes anti-heritage stories, putting the argument that listing restricts development and therefore increases prices. Last Saturday’s article was about a proposed listing of 196 places in Spotswood, including 28 modest 20s war service houses. The photo shows a proud owner restoring one, then the journalist Bianca Hall baldly states that if it had been listed, ‘they might not of been able to touch the exterior’. Which is totally incorrect, of course they would be allowed to restore it. She then found a person with a genuine grievance, who wanted to replace he house with four units for her and her children, but even in that case listing does not prevent development. She could build units in the backyard and subdivide the house. Harder to do than simply replacing though, which is why developers don’t do it I think. I can see why Hobson’s Bay Council is trying to protect the remaining houses since almost half have been replaced by units or dual occupancy already, so it’s quite possible the listing won’t get through the system, being a case of not enough left for a precinct, nor is each house individually notable. I think the main issue in suburban areas isn’t heritage listing, it’s that large areas are Neighbourhood Residental Zone, which allows units but not as many as Residential Growth Zone. All images The Age.

• Uncategorized