A Deakin home originally designed by pioneering modernist architect Harry Seidler will be struck from the ACT heritage register after the owner appealed the building's inclusion.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the home, finished in 1955 and later extensively modified, did not satisfy any heritage significance criteria.
But Heritage Council chair David Flannery said the body was comfortable with the decision.
"Yes, there was an element of surprise, but we do appreciate and acknowledge that the tribunal process is part of the registration process of places and objects in the ACT.
"It's not unusual when it's a private house, that a decision to register a private house is appealed," he said.
Owner Michael Bowden, whose father Ivor Bowden commissioned Seidler to design the house, appealed the Heritage Council's "unfounded and entirely detrimental" decision to register the home.
Mr Bowden on Thursday said he wanted to convey his thanks to the tribunal and those who had supported him through the "extraordinary" process.
"I don't really have anything to say other than to to thank the tribunal for its deliberation and its decision and the people who have written letters to the paper and contacted me directly with support. And of course my friends and family and who have provided moral support through this," he told The Canberra Times.
The Northcote Crescent house was nominated to the heritage register before 2000, but it wasn't until April 2018 that the council formally decided to provisionally register the building.
In a letter to the Heritage council in June 2018, Mr Bowden said the home had been "comprehensively altered" and "bears little resemblance to the two-bedroom house of the 1950s and has irrevocably deviated from the Bauhaus design in almost every case".
The tribunal found the interior of the original house was integral to its design and that the "numerous, extensive and signficant modifications" meant the house was no longer a good example of Post-War International-style architecture.
And with extensive exterior modifications, the tribunal concluded that "the Bowden House no longer demonstrates the distinctive design integrity that characterised Mr Seidler's work".
"[Exterior modifications] have substantially detracted from or removed from view aspects of the house that were integral to the building being distinguished as a very good example of Post-War International style.
"In a practical sense, it is unlikely that the house will be restored to anything approaching its original state. The best way to appreciate the design and visual impact of the original house is to refer to the architect's plans and the photographs taken by Max Dupain," the tribunal concluded.
The tribunal criticised the council's of engagement with the property's owner in the resumed process from 2017.
"It did not expressly invite a substantive response, whether by way of information or submission or both. The persons who stood to be most directly affected by the registration of the place were, in effect, on the sideline until the provisional registration occurred," the tribunal said in its decision.
Mr Flannery said the council acknowledged Bowden House was on the nomination list for too long.
"We do acknowledge that it's been a very unfair period of time to wait until the Heritage Council discussed it," he said.
"But from the time I became chair of the council just over four years ago, we've tried to elevate to immediate assessment a number of places from legacy nominations."
Mr Flannery said future assessments would need to take into account the changes buildings went through over time but there was precedent for private houses to be registered despite significant changes from their original state.
"These places are not museums, they're not to be frozen in time, we appreciate that. They need to be a changing and evolving story, and places have to change with the passage of time," he said.
The tribunal also expressed concern that the Heritage Council relied too heavily on secondary sources rather that primary research about the place, despite acknowledging Mr Bowden's reluctance to provide access to the property.
"The Tribunal formed the view that the [Heritage Council] had accepted too readily, and without critical analysis, some of the statements about the significance of the original Bowden House repeated in the literature," the decision said.
The tribunal criticised the use of statements of the house's importance attributed to Seidler by the council without citation.
Mr Flannery said the tribunal had more knowledge than the council in making their decision, including access to the property, which was never offered to any Heritage Council members.
He said after the deliberations of the council and the subsequent tribunal process, it was settled that the house would not be placed on the register.