Data collection and analysis: methods

Ethics procedures were followed in conformity with RMIT University requirements and approval was obtained from the University Ethics

Committee. Information about the research purposes, and how data would be used and stored were distributed to participants prior to each interview, and agreement in writing obtained from participants. Data were anonymised prior to transcription.

Multiple methods and instruments are used for collection and analysis of data for this study, selected for their appropriateness in addressing the research aims and questions. These are discussed in the succeeding sections.

6.4.1 Selection of methods

In order to answer the research questions in a systematic way, the collection and analysis of data has been subdivided into several steps: first, a review of the current state of knowledge on the existing dwelling stock based on its physical characteristics (e.g. age, type and size, construction materials) and renovation activities was undertaken; next, the research identified key factors affecting energy consumption in older dwellings, from scrutiny of the literature;

planning appeal decisions were also analysed to identify the issues associated with improving environmental performance of heritage dwellings; as well as being instrumental in identifying the key issues (discussed in the next section), this also assisted in the selection of buildings for further investigation.

6.4.2 Analysis of planning and building appeal decisions relating to heritage buildings and energy performance

As indicated in Chapters 3 and 4, energy performance and heritage

conservation in Victoria is regulated through both the planning and building regulatory frameworks, as part of an overlapping legislative scheme. Within

178

the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) retaining heritage significance is an objective, along with energy efficiency and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting renewable energy. The policy framework deals with environmental performance at various levels—for example, at a broad level in the objectives of planning in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and in the State Planning Policy Framework, in design guidelines, or in specific local policies—whereas the building regulations contain specific standards for the thermal performance of the building, and space heating and hot water services. The two regimes are regarded as complimentary [Hasan v Moreland CC [2005] VCAT 1931], although the detail in relation to energy efficiency are seen as matters primarily to be resolved through the application of building regulations [Diamantopoulos v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 266].

The Building Appeals Board deals with appeals relating to permit applications made under the Building Act 1993. However, it was not possible to obtain useful information from their database relating specifically to heritage buildings, or search reasons for an appeal using keyword terms such as energy efficiency. The Building Appeals database does not include the detailed reason for an appeal, as these are classified only as emergency or modifications—with limited descriptions of works; nor are they referenced by section of the Act. Further, where a Registered Building Surveyor (RBS) allows a dispensation to a heritage building, this is not recorded. Modifications of building permits affecting heritage buildings that are of significance to the State of Victoria are notified to Heritage Victoria, and these are recorded in the events record for each heritage place on the HERMES database

(administered by the Department of Planning and Community Development), however, there is no facility to search these (pers comm. Janet Sullivan, December 2010).

A systematic search of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunals (VCAT) appeal decisions was conducted using the AUSTLII database. A series of

179

searches were undertaken using a combination of the following key search terms:

- heritage;

- alteration; renovate; renovation; retrofit;

- existing building; dwelling;

- sustainability; energy; energy efficiency.

From these keyword searches, appeal decisions were identified and, based on the contents of the decision statement, twenty five appeal decisions dating from 1999 to 2011 were analysed to determine the key issues relating to renovation of heritage dwellings and efforts to improve energy performance.

Whilst analysis of planning permit appeal decisions was carried out, it was not possible to corroborate this information from the other data sources.

A key issue that emerged is whether environmental objectives should over-ride heritage significance and loss of heritage values [Forsyth & F Brindley v Moreland CC [2001] VCAT 375; Maddever v City of Boroondara CC [2006]

VCAT 718; Kwan v Boroondara CC [2009] VCAT 2542]; Tobias v Maribyrnong CC [2010] VCAT 82]. Several decisions, relating mainly to the installation of solar panels on dwellings in a Heritage Overlay, sought to balance the competing heritage and environmental objectives. The importance of environmental objectives is noted in the appeal decisions, although not

regarded as outweighing heritage significance. It is worth noting, however, that all of the proposals were subsequently permitted on appeal, albeit with some amendment or conditions to reduce impact on heritage significance. As an example, the Tribunal did not accept the removal of the chimney which was regarded ‘as an important element in preserving the integrity of the building.

The building itself makes a contribution to the heritage values of this heritage precinct’ [Forsyth & F Brindley v Moreland CC [2001] VCAT 375]. The Tribunal determined that the panels should be sited in a different location, behind the chimney, even though this would result in reduced operational performance.

The compromise here was the operational loss and implications in terms of the

180

cost-effectiveness of the system, which was regarded as secondary to heritage significance.

Elsewhere, the installation of a roof-mounted air conditioning unit sited on the rear elevation of a dwelling located in a Heritage Overlay was found to have an unacceptable impact in both heritage and visual terms. Retrospective permission was granted for the unit subject to conditions specifying the location, position, and a painted finish to reduce its visual impact [Anna De Casa Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2005] VCAT 1820]⁷. In a later appeal decision, solar panels and an air conditioning unit were allowed to remain on the north-facing roof of a dwelling in a Heritage Overlay. In this case, the Tribunal took the view that the works did not dominate the existing dwelling or heritage place, and that there was no other alternative location, the north-facing slope being the most efficient [Kwan v Boroondara CC [2009] VCAT 2542]. Each of these decisions hinged on notions of acceptable change and whether there was an alternative location to achieve ‘satisfactory’ performance. The subjective determination of impact on heritage significance is also acknowledged [Challis v Hobsons Bay CC [2011] VCAT 1493].

Visibility is discussed further and, as a general planning principle, solar panels in Heritage Overlay areas should be in the least visible situation in which the unit can achieve satisfactory performance [Maddever v City of Boroondara CC [2006] VCAT 718]. However, visibility is not regarded as being a determining factor in later decisions [Kwan v Boroondara CC [2009] VCAT 2542; Tobias v Maribyrnong CC [2010] VCAT 82; Challis v Hobsons Bay CC [2011] VCAT 1493]. In the latter decision, the Tribunal asserted that the effect of the visible structures on the significance of the heritage place that must be assessed, which is undertaken on an individual basis, and a general rule about visibility is not applicable. The existence of other solar panels and service equipment in the vicinity seems to be a factor in the determination. The perceived public

7 This decision refers to another VCAT decision at 17 Coventry Place, Melbourne which could not be located in the VCAT database.

181

benefit from micro-generation, as well as benefit to the individual (determined by the efficiency of the equipment and, by implication, shorter payback period) appears to be a central consideration in more recent decisions [Tobias v Maribyrnong CC [2010] VCAT 82]. As the frequency of installations increases in response to government-led environmental initiatives, there appears to be acceptance of PV panels even without objective assessment of the individual versus public benefits of solar installations and heritage objectives.

The appeal decisions also highlight a requirement for existing buildings to meet contemporary standards. In one of the earliest identified appeal decisions, the layout and facilities, and energy efficiency contribute to obsolescence: ‘having very small rooms and its toilet and laundry must be accessed from the backyard. It is not at all conducive to modern day living and to the energy efficiency requirements of the 1990s’ [Knight v Port Phillip CC [1999] VCAT 1532]). The need for modernisation and importance of

environmental goals is also referred to in other, more recent decisions [Maddever v City of Boroondara CC [2006] VCAT 718].

Contemporary requirements and expectations of modern lifestyles are the subject of discussion in several appeal decisions: ‘We have different standards of accommodation today. People wish to have access to as much light as possible and be able to use all modern appliances’. The Tribunal also noted that ‘[t]hese houses were built for a bygone lifestyle where people had little appreciation of energy efficiency’ [Mills v Port Phillip CC [2000] VCAT 1587]. In addressing the need for upgrading of older buildings to meet modern requirements, the Tribunal concluded that change should be allowed to occur.

The requirement to accommodate higher living standards is supported

elsewhere: ‘It is not plausible to require people to live by 19th century internal standards even if they are to live in 19th century structures. Modern standards have to apply ’ [Cook v Port Phillip, [2009] VCAT 2668].

182

State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks give importance to both

heritage conservation and the achievement of environmental sustainability.

From the appeal decisions it is apparent that there are tensions between objectives for energy efficiency, heritage conservation, and accommodating requirements for increased living standards. However, further guidance on how this balance may be achieved in practice is scarce.

6.4.3 Research participants: selection

Research participants were selected using purposive sampling (Miles &

Huberman, 1994: 30) which involves ‘ seeking out groups, settings, individuals where [ ] the processes being studied are most likely to occur’

(Denzin and Lincoln in Silverman, 2010; Stake, 2005). Participants/cases were selected in a strategic way to ensure that those selected were relevant to the research questions being posed (Bryman, 2008). This method was used, not necessarily to select case studies that are representative, but to illustrate some feature or process that is of interest (Silverman, 2010). This method also allowed variation in the cases selected which is important for external validity, as noted in Section 6.4. This study is concerned to elucidate the unique features of the case (Bryman, 2008: 54), and to develop as full an

understanding as possible (Silverman, 2010). That said, the case studies chosen illustrate issues that are considered relevant to a wider population of groups of heritage buildings and relevance of findings could be extended to a larger phenomenon.

The selection of cases for this study was guided by the following criteria:

Construction type: to include a variety including lightweight and heavy weight (mass) constructions; and

Age: dwellings of different ages (this is closely related to the form of construction);

183

Thermal performance: those construction types recognised as having poor thermal performance;

Heritage significance: both state and local level of heritage significance (including individual, or contributory significance as part of a heritage precinct);

Nature of actions to improve performance: to include a range of measures from minor (e.g. installing ceiling insulation without modifications to the building structure); moderate, involving some limited structural intervention or material change in basic services (e.g.

installation of solar panels, or provision of new heating system), to major interventions, involving comprehensive renovation (which may also include significant structural works).

Diversity is sought in the physical characteristics (such as age, construction, form) to reflect the variations in the housing stock—with particular focus on those construction types that perform poorly—and different levels of heritage significance. The study is not confined to a single municipality or suburb, although it concentrates on those established suburbs where older housing forms a large proportion of the stock and, therefore, is more likely to be

significant in terms of the cultural built heritage. Participants are selected from a number of municipalities within metropolitan Melbourne and from regional Victoria, to ensure that different contextual factors, differences in strategies employed by different agencies, and infrastructure systems are captured. This also provides for variety in demographics of participants. By selecting cases that include diversity in terms of key characteristics and geographical location, and drawing participants from a variety of social and demographic

backgrounds, the charge of limited generality is reduced.

Using purposive sampling and snowballing, potential building case studies were identified from various sources: media archives, magazines, community groups and on-line blogs specialising in green renovations, architect’s

websites, the search of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunals (VCAT)