Heritage hassles: One sentence causes property woes and financial wreckage for this homeowner
- Replies 0
In a dramatic turn of events, an Australian homeowner has found themselves facing a staggering financial setback due to a seemingly minor mistake.
The case highlights how a single oversight can lead to significant consequences, prompting a closer look at the intricacies of property laws and the importance of meticulous attention to detail.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls in real estate transactions and the far-reaching effects of even the smallest errors.
A homeowner is outraged after the local council used an anonymous one-sentence submission to heritage-list his property, leading to significant financial losses.
Tian Xiang Sun asserts he has lost $461,250 due to the covert process that applied a heritage overlay to his home at 23 Clapham Street, Balwyn, in Melbourne's inner west.
This decision has halted Mr Sun’s plans to demolish the house and build a new one, a project he intended to undertake after purchasing the property at auction last July and settling three months later.
Mr Sun entered into a building contract shortly after purchasing the property, unaware that a public submission in September to the City of Boroondara Council had requested the home be heritage listed.
The brief submission described the house as ‘an interesting and well-resolved example of a low-slung Japanese-influenced craftsman bungalow’.
According to the anonymous author, the property also exhibited ‘superb and highly intact decorative detailing and distinctive use of massing to create a very grounded low-slung house which is comparatively unique within Boroondara’.
Based on this submission, council officers recommended the property for heritage listing, despite it being previously excluded from heritage protection in 1991 and 2015.
Consequently, Mr Sun, who was not informed about the heritage nomination until months after the settlement, had to default on his building contract as he could not proceed with his construction plans.
Mr Sun, who was born in China, has hired the law firm Mills Oakley to challenge the fairness of the council's heritage nomination process.
His lawyers are also claiming that Mr Sun has faced discrimination due to his ethnic background; however, council officers have denied any racial targeting in Mr Sun’s case.
A report from the officers to the council stated, ‘These allegations are rejected as baseless.’
‘It is worth noting that the nomination…was lodged by the nominator and accepted by [the] council before the settlement date.’
‘Accordingly, council officers had no knowledge of the current owner's identity when the nomination was accepted,’ it continued.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal informed The Age that a case related to the matter was added to its human rights list last week.
On Monday, August 19, Boroondara councillors decided to uphold the heritage nomination process and move forward with listing 23 Clapham Street, along with seven other properties in inner west Melbourne suggested through open submissions.
They also rejected a proposal limiting submissions to Boroondara residents.
Nonetheless, Councillor Cynthia Watson contended that the process was flawed.
‘Is it fair that somebody from Vladivostok can see your property on the internet and then put it forward?’ she questioned.
She also argued that heritage submissions for a property should not be made while it is being transferred, as this places an unfair burden on the new owner, who may be unaware of the submission.
‘Property owners are collateral damage to heritage protection,’ Ms Watson added.
Scott Walker, Boroondara's urban living director, stated that the council is prepared to contest the legal action initiated by Mr Sun.
‘Council bases its decision solely on the heritage value of the property, regardless of who nominated it, who owns it, or when it was purchased,’ he stated.
The City of Boroondara Council has been reached for comment.
The unexpected complications surrounding Melbourne homeowner Tian Xiang Sun's property highlight how seemingly minor issues can lead to significant disputes.
Just as Mr Sun faces a costly challenge over a heritage listing, another Melbourne resident finds themselves embroiled in a surprising conflict over a small patch of grass.
This unfolding battle underscores how even the smallest details can escalate into substantial legal and financial struggles.
What are your thoughts about this council decision? Do you have any advice on how homeowners could protect themselves from such an ordeal?
We'd love to hear about your experiences with property ownership and any advice you may have for fellow seniors navigating this complex landscape. Share your stories and tips in the comments below!
The case highlights how a single oversight can lead to significant consequences, prompting a closer look at the intricacies of property laws and the importance of meticulous attention to detail.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls in real estate transactions and the far-reaching effects of even the smallest errors.
A homeowner is outraged after the local council used an anonymous one-sentence submission to heritage-list his property, leading to significant financial losses.
Tian Xiang Sun asserts he has lost $461,250 due to the covert process that applied a heritage overlay to his home at 23 Clapham Street, Balwyn, in Melbourne's inner west.
This decision has halted Mr Sun’s plans to demolish the house and build a new one, a project he intended to undertake after purchasing the property at auction last July and settling three months later.
A Melbourne homeowner faced severe financial impact due to an unexpected heritage overlay on his newly bought Balwyn property. Credit: Google Maps
Mr Sun entered into a building contract shortly after purchasing the property, unaware that a public submission in September to the City of Boroondara Council had requested the home be heritage listed.
The brief submission described the house as ‘an interesting and well-resolved example of a low-slung Japanese-influenced craftsman bungalow’.
According to the anonymous author, the property also exhibited ‘superb and highly intact decorative detailing and distinctive use of massing to create a very grounded low-slung house which is comparatively unique within Boroondara’.
Based on this submission, council officers recommended the property for heritage listing, despite it being previously excluded from heritage protection in 1991 and 2015.
Consequently, Mr Sun, who was not informed about the heritage nomination until months after the settlement, had to default on his building contract as he could not proceed with his construction plans.
Mr Sun, who was born in China, has hired the law firm Mills Oakley to challenge the fairness of the council's heritage nomination process.
His lawyers are also claiming that Mr Sun has faced discrimination due to his ethnic background; however, council officers have denied any racial targeting in Mr Sun’s case.
A report from the officers to the council stated, ‘These allegations are rejected as baseless.’
‘It is worth noting that the nomination…was lodged by the nominator and accepted by [the] council before the settlement date.’
‘Accordingly, council officers had no knowledge of the current owner's identity when the nomination was accepted,’ it continued.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal informed The Age that a case related to the matter was added to its human rights list last week.
On Monday, August 19, Boroondara councillors decided to uphold the heritage nomination process and move forward with listing 23 Clapham Street, along with seven other properties in inner west Melbourne suggested through open submissions.
They also rejected a proposal limiting submissions to Boroondara residents.
Nonetheless, Councillor Cynthia Watson contended that the process was flawed.
‘Is it fair that somebody from Vladivostok can see your property on the internet and then put it forward?’ she questioned.
She also argued that heritage submissions for a property should not be made while it is being transferred, as this places an unfair burden on the new owner, who may be unaware of the submission.
‘Property owners are collateral damage to heritage protection,’ Ms Watson added.
Scott Walker, Boroondara's urban living director, stated that the council is prepared to contest the legal action initiated by Mr Sun.
‘Council bases its decision solely on the heritage value of the property, regardless of who nominated it, who owns it, or when it was purchased,’ he stated.
The City of Boroondara Council has been reached for comment.
The unexpected complications surrounding Melbourne homeowner Tian Xiang Sun's property highlight how seemingly minor issues can lead to significant disputes.
Just as Mr Sun faces a costly challenge over a heritage listing, another Melbourne resident finds themselves embroiled in a surprising conflict over a small patch of grass.
This unfolding battle underscores how even the smallest details can escalate into substantial legal and financial struggles.
We'd love to hear about your experiences with property ownership and any advice you may have for fellow seniors navigating this complex landscape. Share your stories and tips in the comments below!
