Heritage House Demolition Permit Rejected, Sparking VCAT Appeal

Cardinia Shire Council has rejected a planning permit to demolish a heritage-listed house in Pakenham, a decision now being challenged by developers at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The council's decision, made by officers under delegation in late January 2024, concerns a 1929 interwar bungalow at 39 Main Street. The property sits adjacent to the Pakenham Place Shopping Centre precinct, which is slated for major redevelopment.

The council refused the demolition permit because the property is "an individually significant heritage place."

The Contested Site

The house at 39 Main Street is subject to a heritage overlay but sits within Pakenham's activity centre zone, which encourages mixed-use development. The land is already owned by the development consortium, Banco Group and Leaf Corporation, who purchased the broader shopping centre precinct in 2020.

The property is currently unoccupied and boarded up. A town planner working for the developers stated in a report that the house has been frequently broken into and occupied by squatters despite security measures.

Development Plans and Delays

The adjacent Pakenham Place Shopping Centre shows visible signs of decline. Sections are boarded up and abandoned, with graffiti on external surfaces and barbed wire fencing in place. The centre's Target store closed in 2021, though a Coles supermarket and Liquorland remain open.

Previous delays to the precinct's redevelopment occurred due to state government acquisition of some land for a community hospital and ensuing legal battles. There is currently no confirmed timeline for the redevelopment project. The council has stated the redevelopment is not a council responsibility as the land is privately owned.

Clashing Perspectives

The developers argue that retaining the heritage building would "significantly impede" their ability to develop the site, which acts as a "gateway" to the shopping centre precinct.

An architect and conservation consultant engaged by the developers, John Briggs, wrote that while demolition would be a heritage loss, this must be balanced with public amenity from the activity centre. He stated the heritage significance provides "limited benefit to the community" and that its removal could be an acceptable application of the planning scheme.

In the community, resident Nicole Taylor said the state of the shopping centre makes the area seem neglected and that it attracts crime. Andrew Cook, the sole objector to the permit application, argued that demolishing heritage places removes checks and balances for developers.

Path Forward

The matter is now formally before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), with a hearing scheduled for June 4, 2024. The council noted that the owner retains the right to demolish surrounding, non-heritage properties on the site.

Cardinia Council did not respond to questions about why the permit rejection was not discussed at a public meeting or whether the activity centre zone context was considered during the decision.