Court challenge looms for one of westside’s biggest home renos

It is one of Brisbane’s biggest home renos and would return a stately 1864 property to its former glory. But opponents have lodged a court appeal.

Opponents of a plan to subdivide a huge Toowong block to pay for one of Brisbane’s most ambitious home renovations have lodged a Planning Court appeal.

Christine and Andrew Newman last week lodged the appeal, which lists 15 reasons they claim mean the makeover of Dovercourt is flawed.

Prominent industrial relations lawyer Kirsty Faichen and her family bought the 124 Sherwood Rd property, built in 1864, last year with grand plans to return the rundown homestead to its former glory.

A response has not yet been filed. Ms Faichen was contacted for comment.

Kirsty Faichen outside Dovercourt. Picture: Attila Csaszar

But Ms Faichen said in March, when Council approved the development application (DA), that the $2 million-plus cost of restorations meant the 7036 sqm grounds would need to be subdivided to help fund the work.

She said part of the decorative ceiling fell in during recent rain because the roof leaked and a side veranda was in imminent danger of falling down a steep hill at the rear of the property.

Council and the State Government refused to buy the house.

The property is zoned for uses including assisted living/aged care, while one bidder at the auction had plans for 20 townhouses.

Ms Faichen, who previously campaigned to try to save nearby, historical landmark Endrim House from being turned into a childcare centre, instead wanted to build five townhouses at the bottom of the site.

About 4000 sqm and a semicircular drive would be retained around the homestead.

Kirsty Faichen inside Dovercourt. She says all significant trees will be protected. Picture: Attila Csaszar

According to their appeal documents, the Newman’s claimed at least one of those trees, a Moreton Bay fig, had “conveniently’’ died since the Faichens bought the property.

“The arborist report identifies that there are the remains of a large tree which has fallen over,’’ the appeal said.

“This tree was a very old Moreton Bay fig which was part of the local vegetation and we understood was protected by a VPO (vegetation protection order).

“This tree died over the past two years, primarily in the period after the purchase of the

property by the current owners.

“We think the respondent should investigate how this historic tree managed to die so quickly and conveniently.

“We are confident that if the tree was still in place when the arborist prepared their report, it would have been required to be retained due to its significance.’’

Some of the verandas are in reasonable condition but at least one is falling off.

One of the homestead's grand rooms.

However, Ms Faichen has previously told Westside News she vehemently denied doing anything to the trees or vegetation, by poison or any other methods.

She pointed out that the DA approved by Council allowed her to remove everything except significant trees, but she did not want to do that.

As a lawyer, she said she also obeyed the law.

“I am in the process of saving the bunya pine in the front entrance of my property which, according to an arborist, required that the 20-year-old bougainvillea that had climbed and was strangling the tree be killed from the bottom,’’ she said.

She also said the only change she had made to vegetation, apart from killing the bougainvillea, was to mow the grass, twice.

The appeal claimed the site was home to the endangered tusked frog, was used by a local breeding pair of endangered powerful owls and was under a state biodiversity corridor.

However, Ms Faichen said she had seen no evidence of either species on her property.

The stately dimensions of the home.

The house features huge, ornate ceilings.

The appeal also claimed impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage had not been assessed, even though a scar tree and stone tools have been found 1km away at Toowong Creek.

It claimed the DA did not adequately assess or identify areas of strategic biodiversity overlay, there was no ecological report, the plans were not consistent with the “green and leafy character’’ of the Toowong-Indooroopilly District Neighbour Planning Code, and also that excavation, cutting and fill was excessive.

The appeal went on to allege the project’s design, mass and siting was unsympathetic to local heritage residential character, a slipway near the corner of Miskin St and Sherwood Rd was potentially dangerous, and the public notification was defective in several respects including images which — it was claimed — did not accurately show some buildings would be higher than 9.5m.