Councillors in pink fit over historic Brisbane house

A DEVELOPER has hit back at criticism of its plans to redevelop a property known to locals as “The Pink House’’, saying its plans will enhance the character of the landmark.

Tennyson Councillor Nicole Johnston says the character of Yeronga’s Pink House must be preserved. Picture: Peter Cronin

• Development approval near historic site slammed

A DEVELOPER has hit back at criticism of its plans to redevelop Yeronga property “The Pink House’’, saying its plans will enhance the character of the Kadumba St landmark.

The home was built in 1903 by Stephen Glassop on a big block on the corner of Kadumba St and Kingsley Pl.

Merchant Estates (ME) has lodged a development application outlining plans to move a pre-1911 house next to the Pink House, which would be raised.

The pink house on the corner of Kadumba St and Kingsley Pl, Yeronga. Picture: Google Maps

Cr Nicole Johnston (Tennyson) said she was concerned that the character of such a distinctive property would be compromised.

“It should be preserved and sympathetically restored, not turned into a modern box resulting in the loss of its historic character and charm,’’ she said.

“This house is not even listed on the City’s Pre-1911 Character Map and the Lord Mayor refused my request last year to add it.’’

Council planners wrote to ME last month to say its plans to demolish the chimney, which it said was unsound, and a rear veranda did not comply with by-laws.

“These are considered key integral components of the house and its character,’’ the planners wrote.

ME has now agreed to retain the veranda and build a new chimney and said it could have put two new houses on the same lot, but chose not to do so.

It had also paid for a wider footpath and new kerb and channels.

“Our intentions are to further enhance our landmark property by increasing and adding to the current cultural and heritage values present in the area,’’ it said.

“It is a unique, rare outcome for the community to have two pre-1911 dwellings of a similar age next to each other on a landmark site.’’

ME has now agreed to retain the veranda and build a new chimney. Picture: Google Maps

City Planning chair, Cr Julian Simmonds, accused Cr Johnston of misinformation. He said the house was part of the Traditional Building Character zoning, which gave the same level of protection as the City’s Pre-1911 Character zoning.

“The map only relates to properties not already covered by the overlay,” Cr Simmonds said.

“Council is currently assessing an application to raise and relocate the existing house at 69 Kingsley Parade closer to the street frontage, as well as partially removing the rear enclosed deck.

“Council already raised concerns about the extent of demolition and has required the developer submit amended plans that retain key features of the home including the chimney and rear deck. Council is currently assessing these amended plans.

Merchant Estates released a lengthy statement in which they said:

“Our intentions are to further enhance our landmark property by increasing and adding to the current cultural and heritage values present in the area.

“This is being done by bringing another pre-1911 house from another area in Brisbane to sit next to the current dwelling on the new lot created on the Colevale lane frontage.

“This house is of a similar age to the current dwelling and both houses will complement each other on this landmark site, thus creating a very unique and historic site with 2 character homes over the separate lots.

“This will also add to the richness of Queensland’s character that is represented in the area and will be a unique community landmark rarely seen in Brisbane.

“The councillor (Cr Johnston) in her circular mentions that we will be building a ‘new’ house on Colevale Lane frontage, however this is absolutely false and baseless.

“The property was originally on 3 lots and could have had up to 2 new houses built next to the current house.

“However, we have chosen to decrease the lots to just two lots in order to give each character home more land to sit on to increase their character and decrease the density on the property.

“Further to this, in regards to the pink house development application (which can be viewed on the Council website pdonline, search for application A004830747) we have further attended to council queries, submitted amended plans and a response from our town planner in order to address all aspects of the houses character which is to be maintained as per the requirements of the character code.

“Our experienced team along with the guidance of the experienced architects, town planners and expert consultants have worked very hard and undertaken several high-level reviews in order to achieve the best outcome for the current dwelling while also carefully preserving the original look and character of the house.

“The Councillor also seems to misrepresent this in her circular on Friday.

“A very detailed design process has been undertaken to achieve the above outcomes, so the current character of the house is preserved and in fact enhanced through this process.

“We believe it is a very unique and a rare outcome for the community to have two pre-1911 dwellings of a similar age to sit next to each other on this landmark site, hence providing diversity and richness of culture and heritage to this beautiful area. (Rather than 2 new houses that could have been built next to the current house).

“We believe it is in the best long-term interest of the current dwelling which is being retained on its current lot on-site to have improvements undertaken to restore and renovate it as per the character code and as proposed in order to preserve it for the long term as well as make it liveable and usable by a family once again.

“We would also like to point out that thus far on the property we have undertaken public works with the dedication of a substantial part of our property to build a new wider footpath and brand new kerb and channels, which we have funded ourselves for the benefit of the local community and the area at large.

“We are very upset with the councillor’s misleading comments to the local community about the enhancement of our property and feel it is disrespectful towards us.’’