Perth, Western Australia (Old Edition) Home Write a Letter Time Out Special Coverage Crime & Justice Classifieds Search Real Estate Trades & Services Submit About Contact Us Advertising Legal	Insults fly over heritage Verbal sparks flew over heritage issues at Cottesloe council last week when mayor John Hammond called councillor Kevin Morgan "an intellectual rust bucket". Mr Morgan responded that more property owners might have had their homes taken off the municipal inventory (heritage list) had they known Mr Hammond had been prepared to trade principles for votes. "If only they had known they might have got your support if they had offered you a vote," he said. Apart from the angry words, the council made several important decisions on heritage issues. They were: To list 26 properties under the town planning scheme policy because they are outside the two proposed heritage precincts, and to tell the owners; To hire Adelaide based heritage consultants McDougall and Elizabeth Vines to review the listing of two Jarrad Street houses; To investigate ways of reviewing the classification of properties in the proposed heritage areas; To refuse to approve demolition of 25 Mann Street, because of its heritage value; and To look at options for setting up a heritage review panel or hiring a heritage consultant to consider development applications involving heritage properties. Councillor Arthur Furlong questioned the need to constantly hire consultants. He said: "I thought that's what Cottesloe council was here for." Mr Hammond agreed, but said consultants would be needed in the first stages of assessing the town's heritage properties, while council staff built skills and then they could guide the council on heritage issues. The sharpest spat was during a debate on numbers 7 and 25 Jarrad Street, whose owners had asked for the properties to be removed from the proposed John Street heritage precinct. Mr Hammond and Mr Morgan used pungent terms to attack each other throughout the meeting. The council was moving to defer a decision on the Jarrad Street houses when Mr Morgan said: "I expect the usual suspects will vote against this wish of the owners." Mr Hammond said: "Just vote against the recommendation, that would work the way you want. Blind Freddie could see that." They clashed several other times during the meeting on heritage issues. Mr Hammond consistently spoke in favour of saving heritage buildings and Mr Morgan spoke on behalf of owners, saying they should be compensated if they were forced to keep heritage buildings against their will. Later Mr Hammond said: "It is extremely frustrating that heritage is always such a battle at Cottesloe when you know other councils have a consensus that heritage is important and must be saved. "If Mr Morgan's voting had carried through, Cottesloe could have lost another 28 heritage properties. "He voted to remove two Jarrad Street properties from the list and another 26 from the town planning scheme policy." Mr Morgan said the council decision to include 26 properties as part of the town planning policy ignored the fact that more than half the owners had objected to being included. He said the idea of pushing ahead without any compensation was something the council should be ashamed of. On 25 Mann Street, Mr Hammond said: "This is one of the most beautiful homes in Cottesloe." Mr Morgan interjected: "Then buy it! If you want to keep it, buy it." Mr Hammond said: "That is so facile; it is plainly stupid and I won't respond." The property is listed as category 3 on the municipal inventory with a big house across two lots of 835sq.m each that could be subdivided into three lots. A Cottesloe council staff report said the house could be kept and two more lots arranged around it, but to maximise development potential the house would have to go. The house is described on the inventory as: "Edwardian bungalow, 1915 hipped corrugated iron/Zincalume roof with three small gables, two to the east and one to the south. "These are half-timbered with turned finials. Bullnosed verandah has a cement floor and turned posts but no decorative fretwork - removed in 1960s." It says it is essential to the character of Claremont Hill and should be retained as part of the heritage precinct. Sea View Golf Course led to another row. Mr Morgan said the suggestion to defer a decision on listing the golf course was hypocritical. "I find this one of the most hypocritical motions I have seen," he said. "In other cases, heritage issues over-rule the wish of owners. "But now, when it involves a property controlled by the council, we sing a different tune; we say, don't make a heritage decision until we decide what we want to do with it." Mr Morgan said that to be consistent the council should support any heritage activity on its own property. Councillor Marion Ewing said: "I am concerned at your hypocrisy. This is a move by certain people in the community to cloud the issue of renewing the golf club lease in a few years' time by having the club given heritage listing. BACK TO TOP < PREVIOUS - HOME - NEXT> Copyright © 1999 - 2006 Post Newspapers Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.