CROOKED HOUSE

Demolition by Neglect or Design?

65 The Grove has been in the hands of the same owner, controversial Coburgian millionaire Mr John Poulakis, for almost 18 years. In this time, the heritage protected, Edwardian-style home has sadly sunk into a state of irreversible disrepair.

Mr Poulakis has been in the public eye for being convicted of fraud and avoiding jail time. He had falsified customs documents in order to evade $1.47m worth of import tax for his fashion company, Harrolds. Most recently in 2018, he faced court for allegations of physical assault against his elderly parents and property damage of their home. He avoided conviction and jail time (again) despite pleading guilty.

Mr Poulakis has applied for a number of permits over the course of his ownership of 65 The Grove, primarily seeking demolition and subdivision of the land.

In 2016, the Moreland Council’s decision to reject Mr Poulakis’ application for demolition was appealed to VCAT. At the hearing, which was ultimately unsuccessful for Mr Poulakis, VCAT member Russell Byard commented that he had seen instances where “some owners of land wish to free themselves from the encumbrances and restraints” that heritage building overlays impose, and that “there have been cases where apparently deliberate destruction has been undertaken”.

Byard also added that in this case “[it] is obvious that something is amiss”. He questioned a report completed by a structural engineer claiming that there were no building footings. Byard asked: “is it seriously being suggested that this building, which has apparently stood for approximately a hundred years, has no footings resting on its foundations?”.

More questions abounded in a Moreland Council January meeting. In the agenda notes, there is photo evidence of 4 verandah posts firmly holding the roof line in place in March 2014; less than three months later, all 4 verandah posts are missing and the roof line completely sagged from the lack of support.

In 2018 an independent structural engineer gave a report on 65 The Grove to the Moreland Council. The engineer noted that: “if it were not for the partial collapse of the roof and verandah roof structures, the structure of the dwelling would be typical of dwellings of a similar age…”

Whilst there are laws preventing owners of heritage properties to demolish or destroy their heritage property without a permit, legally there is nothing requiring owners to take care of their properties. Demolition by neglect is a loophole available to owners of properties with heritage overlays to eventually get their desired outcome.

In the January Moreland Council meeting to discuss the latest application by Mr Poulakis, there were suggestions that this was indeed the case for 65 The Grove, and that potentially important structural walls and supports had been willfully removed (no one suggested that Mr Poulakis was responsible for the removal). The Council ultimately decided to reject the latest application despite the likelihood of Mr Poulakis appealing their decision in VCAT.

Heritage overlays exist to preserve historically significant architecture and objects. Protection of old buildings has long been acknowledged as a benefit to the broader community, and Melbourne has a rich history of unionised builders taking a stand against developers having the freedom to knock down old buildings for the sake of profit.

The political context of heritage protection debates in Australia should not be ignored, however. All buildings are erected on land stolen from Aboriginal communities; Aboriginal communities who have struggled and continue to struggle to claim heritage protection for historically significant places. Not everyone has the same nostalgia or concern for colonial buildings.

Perhaps a uniting concern, however, is the ability for developers to side-step laws that average people can’t. Even more repugnant is when a developer potentially being rewarded for breaking the rules.

By El S