The National Trust makes the following comments on the Development Application for Rippon Grange at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga.

Rippon Grange is a fine Federation/Queen Anne residence with landscaped garden, designed by architects Sulman and Joseland and constructed for Frederick George Sargood, son of the important Victorian warehouseman and Parliamentarian Frederick Sargood, who built the well known house “Rippon Lea” in Elsternwick,  Melbourne.

The significance of Rippon Grange is not confined to the house itself but is also evident in its extensive gardens. The gardens are largely in the Arts and Crafts style. Such gardens were influenced by a belief in organic design and traditional crafts. There was a preference for old fashioned trees and flowers rather than exotics and specimens which were favoured by the Victorians. Nature was encouraged to grow freely and around the paving, walls and other architectural forms (David Ottewill, The Edwardian Garden, Yale University Press, 1989).

These characteristics are evident in Rippon Grange  - in the rustic timber summerhouse, the plantings of camellias and other traditional shrubs, the tree ferns and other ferns, the grotto and rock walls and the wild component of the garden. Extant gardens in this style are rare in Sydney.

The statement of significance on the Classification Report for the National Trust Register listing of the gardens in 2000 clearly states their importance and unique status:

“The gardens have historic and social significance for their association with the Sargood family, the early history of Wahroonga as a wealthy residential area, and the connection with historic Rippon Lea in Melbourne. This significance is assessed as being of a high level.

There is also some lesser social significance of the association of the garden with the Hospital which existed on this site from 1951.

The intact eastern and south eastern areas of the gardens are also historically and aesthetically significant to a high degree as a rare example of Federation garden architecture and landscape design which has survived the extensive subdivision of Wahroonga and is rare in Sydney’s consolidated suburbs.
The intact native vegetation (eucalypts) in parts of the garden may have high significance as remnant forest from before the development of the area…

Overall the gardens are assessed as being of State heritage significance…”

The connections with the significant Victorian heritage property Rippon Lea add to its historic significance but they can also be discerned in the landscape and the extravagant garden features. From 1883 the Rippon Lea gardens, originally laid out in the Gardenesque style, were redesigned by important gardener William Sangster. Sangster removed trees and shrubs to create open vistas with great lawns and a lake.

 In the mid-19th century, a fern craze swept the world, and Rippon Lea had its own fernery in a shade house. Rippon Grange also had a "bush house" which was removed at the time of subdivision and there is a fernery adjacent to the croquet lawn. Both gardens are divided into the ornamental garden and the service areas
which included paddocks, orchards and vegetable gardens.


Rippon Lea has recently been added to the National Heritage List. (http://www.  (gov.au/minister/env/2006/mr11aug06.html).

The Rippon Grange Conservation Management Plan statement of significance (p 3 of the Heritage Impact Statement) recognizes the historic and aesthetic significance of the original home, and correctly recognizes that the grounds are of State significance and should be conserved (p. 4). Important factors are their scale, integrity and relative intactness. However the rankings of significant fabric are not always in keeping with the statement of significance.

For example, the fabric of the summer house, which dates from the Federation period and is a key feature of the Arts and Crafts style, is only given moderate significance. No part of the garden is given exceptional significance. The early plantings such as camellias and the fernery near the croquet lawn are not given any ranking. The tree ferns, although being typical of the Arts and Crafts style planting, and associated with the highly significant summerhouse, are given little significance.  On earlier visits a glass house was observed; this is not given any mention. Various features of the area near the croquet lawn, such as the stone grotto and the stand of bamboo are not mentioned although they are integral parts of this important part of the garden. The plunge pool and fish pond near the croquet lawn are also given lesser significance.

 

The proposed development

The developer suggests that the development will conserve and rehabilitate the house and garden areas and “help regain their important historical relationship”. While it is true that the garden directly to the rear of the house will be cleared of intrusive elements, a new building (Building F) is proposed directly next to the croquet lawn, destroying the original approach and curtilage to that area. The plan actually proposes to relocate the summer house from its original position and the tree ferns will be removed altogether ( Source: Floor plan (Ground level) North  The Schedule of compliance with the CMP on p. 23 is misleading as it does not refer to this fact.

Such a proposal will destroy much of the heritage significance of what is arguably the most significant part of the garden. It is impossible to describe this as minimizing the effect on significant items (HIS p. 11) or to agree with the proposition that the buildings have been placed so as to “conserve the gardens and landscape setting that are intimately related to Rippon Grange and a crucial part of the heritage significance of the place” (p. 13).

The schedule of trees to be removed includes many period and mature plantings and it is proposed to remove 27% of the Blue Gum forest (described as “simplifying” the forest). It is proposed also to introduce a modern water feature and sculpture walk into the forest, for no apparent reason.

The Blue Gum forest has been identified as remnant original forest. However it is only given moderate significance in the plan. Blue Gum High Forest is listed as a critically endangered ecological community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It is also listed as an endangered ecological community in NSW under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (Source: http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/sydney-blue-gum.html).

The plan also proposes development within the curtilages recommended in the CMP (Policy 6) – thus ignoring their effect. It proposes transplanting historic plantings such as the rhododendrons (typical Federation style planting) referred to on p.30. The plan does not treat the gardens as a cohesive whole, and pays little attention to how they were originally laid out. Instead the gardens are fragmented and treated as pieces which can be removed or relocated without realising the impact this has on the heritage significance. The original relationships within the garden are lost. Because of its scale, the number of buildings and their height, the proposal obliterates areas of the garden which have not been significantly altered, and compounds the alterations which have already been made to other areas. 

The area adjoining the croquet lawn (near Young Street) is, in the Trust’s view, the most significant part of the garden as it has the greatest ability to demonstrate the Arts and Crafts style of the original design through the rustic design of the summerhouse, the rock walls, the wild elements of the ferns etc. It has rare and aesthetically pleasing architectural features (the summer house, grotto) the plantings are early (tree ferns, fernery, bamboo) and it is a cohesive whole unaffected  by the changes made during the building’s use as a hospital.

This part should be protected and conserved as a whole to the highest degree for that reason. The Trust is unaware of any Arts and Crafts garden in Sydney of similar quality and scale.

The Heritage Impact Statement indicates that the area has not been treated as a whole in the Conservation Management Plan. The view may have been taken that as the summer house had recently collapsed from neglect (the timbers are probably still on site) that its significance was lessened. That does not make it acceptable to relocate it from the position it originally had, in order to fit in new Building F, which is what is proposed in the Development Application.

This would alter the original concept and there is no real justification provided for that, particularly when the Heritage Impact Statement boasts that it is enhancing appreciation of the original garden relationships etc. The plan shows little respect for early plantings generally, proposing to move them or just not mentioning them.

The overall scale of the development has a major impact on the garden which in turn affects the house and the surrounding area. Adapative re-use of Rippon Grange and its gounds should take a much more sympathetic approach.