Council greenlights flattening of century-old home

The unusually busy council room was in part due to a highly contentious agenda item about a heritage-listed Victorian house on Watson St, Echuca, that has fallen into disrepair in recent years.

After hearing from four speakers — one applicant and three objectors — councillors voted to grant a permit allowing demolition of the century-old property and construction of two units on the lot.

However, it was a vote that seemingly no-one wanted to take.

Cr Rob Amos told the Riv it was “one of the hardest votes” he’s made during his council tenure.

So, how did it get to this point?

Located at 31 Watson St, the property is within the Echuca North Residential Precinct and considered to be “contributory” to the historic significance of the area.

In 2020, the property sold for under $750,000. Two years later, the owners sought a demolition permit to build two units, which was refused.

The image of 31 Watson St today is a far cry from what it was when the property listing went up in 2020.

The vegetation has been completely dug up, leaving just the house in the middle of the lot.

The property’s state of disrepair, along with inconsistencies with heritage overlay laws and concerns about the proposed units’ design, were among the main issues raised by objectors at Tuesday’s meeting.

While answering a question from Cr Zoe Cook about how much of the house's historical aspect remained, objector and local property valuer Simon Eishold said the house had not changed, it had only “deteriorated through neglect”.

Angela Ash, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said a structural engineering report showed the house was not structurally sound and that “repair and rehabilitation is not viable”.

She also said council officers had supported the proposed demolition.

Ms Ash explained that a detailed assessment of the site identified constraints, including flood risks and the site’s heritage, and the units’ design had considered the heritage streetscape image of Watson St.

Moving the motion and opening up the debate, Cr Paul Jarman described the dilemma as “very disheartening”, pointing out the deficiencies in council’s heritage plan, which protects deteriorating buildings.

“The planning team, to deal with the realities that they have to make a decision, unfortunately are bound by the state and local planning schemes,” he said.

Cr Tony Marwood echoed his thoughts, saying there needed to be more done at a council level to protect heritage building maintenance.

Cr Amos spoke to the realities of having a century-old house and the responsibility that came with keeping up maintenance, but also to the disappointment and practicality of watching a house deteriorate.

“It would be just as sad to see this property sit there for the next 20 or 30 years and nothing can be done on it so that it just rots away further and further and further until eventually it falls down and the result is achieved,” Cr Amos said.

Cr John Zobec spoke about his concerns about a proposed rise in raised height that could increase flood-damage risk to neighbouring properties, as well as his disappointment in the vegetation being dug up and the loss of a historical building.

Crs Luke Sharrock and Jess Mitchell spoke about the potential loss of Echuca’s heavily history-based tourism pull with another heritage building gone.

“It’s disappointing that this property has continued to deteriorate, and unfortunately it seems that that may have been the intention,” Cr Mitchell said.

“I think it’s frustrating, and I feel for the residents who have done the right thing and played by the rules.

“For a community that spreads tourism and history — if we don’t have anything left, we don’t have much to go on.”

When put to the vote, the motion was opposed by Crs Sharrock, Amos, Mitchell and Zobec.

Crs Adrian Weston, Daniel Mackrell, Marwood, Cook and Jarman all voted for the motion, creating a majority and approving the planning application.

While the vote to demolish 31 Watson St may be over, the debate regarding Echuca’s disappearing history is just beginning.