The case of Clark v Brisbane City Council [2025] QPEC 28 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of the Brisbane City Council (Council) to refuse a development application for the demolition of a dwelling house situated at 89A, 91, 93 and 95 Anthony Street, Ascot.

The subject building comprises a two-storey dwelling of masonry construction, built between 1936 and 1939. The subject land comprises four contiguous allotments extending to an area of approximately 1,578 square metres (at [2] to [3]). 

The key issue to be determined by the Court was whether the proposed demolition complies with the Traditional Building Character (Demolition) Overlay Code of the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (version 32) (City Plan). This required consideration of whether the subject building does not represent traditional building character or has been substantially altered (see [16] to [24]). 

The Court found that the dwelling has been substantially altered and can be demolished without the loss of traditional building character. The Council's decision to refuse the development application was set aside and replaced with an approval subject to conditions (at [110]). 

In considering the alterations, the Court was assisted by original construction drawings and associated building approvals. The architectural experts nominated by the respective parties provided individual reports which considered the extent of the alterations (see [41] to [43]). 

The original dwelling was a two-storey brick building with a tiled roof, ground floor verandah, enclosed sleep-out and flat-roofed attached garage. In 1964, the garage roof was replaced with a habitable space under a terracotta tiled hipped roof (see [44] to [45]). In 1993, further alterations were made to the sleep-out, balustrade and window and door openings (see [46] to [54]). 

The works also introduced fluted columns, dentils, cornices, pilasters, keystones, arches and pediments. The experts agreed that many of these decorative mouldings were likely made from polystyrene or another non-traditional material. Those alterations remained visible from Anthony Street (see [55] to [58]).

The Council's heritage expert opined that the alterations to the dwelling are not substantial and the dwelling retains a pre-1947 appearance, which contributes to the traditional building character in the relevant section of Anthony Street (at [64]).

The Court was critical of the expert's reliance on a list of generic attributes drawn from photographs of other heritage-listed buildings. The approach failed to cogently identify elements of traditional building character (see [70] to [76]). 

The Court held that heritage significance and traditional building character are distinct concepts under City Plan. The relevant task is not to compare the alterations with elements found on other pre-1947 buildings, but to assess the dwelling in its present state and determine whether it represents traditional building character when viewed as a whole (see [77] to [84]). 

The Applicant's heritage expert described the original dwelling as influenced by the Interwar Stripped Classical style. Because that style depends on restrained ornamentation, clean forms and balanced composition, later modifications could readily erode its architectural integrity (see [87] to [93]). 

The Court accepted that the 1990s additions obscured or replaced important original features and dominated the presentation of the dwelling from the street. The façade was argued to be a twentieth century reinterpretation that could not be appreciated due to the setback, solid fence and mature vegetation (at [94] to [98]). 

The Court rejected the Council's submission that the assessment should be undertaken from the perspective of an average pedestrian. The current provisions require an assessment of traditional building character, a matter for which expert assistance may be necessary, particularly where a building is not of the "timber and tin" vernacular (see [102] to [104]). 

The Court accepted the Applicant's expert evidence because it was supported by rational explanations and accorded with the Court's own assessment of the historical drawings, approvals and photographs (see [99] to [105]).

It was held that the dwelling does not represent or contribute to traditional building character. It has been substantially altered such that it no longer appears to have been constructed in 1946 or earlier, and can be demolished without the loss of traditional building character. The proposed demolition therefore complies with performance outcome PO5, acceptable outcome AO5 and the relevant overall outcomes of the Traditional Building Character (Demolition) Overlay Code (see [106] to [108]).

The Council's decision to refuse the development application was set aside and replaced with an approval for demolition subject to conditions.