How a single sentence cost Melbourne homeowner almost $500,000

A homeowner is furious after the local council decided an anonymous one-sentence submission was enough to list his property, costing him a fortune.

Tian Xiang Sun claims he has lost $461,250 due to the secret process to heritage-coat his home at 23 Clapham Street Balwyn in central Melbourne.

The ruling prevents Sun from demolishing his home and building a new one, which was his plan when he bought the property at auction last July and closed on the sale three months later.

Shortly after purchasing the property, Mr Sun entered into a building contract, unaware that a public application had been lodged with Boroondara City Council in September requesting that the house be listed.

In that one sentence, the house was described as ‘an interesting and well-executed example of a low-rise bungalow with Japanese influences’.

According to the anonymous author, the property also exhibited ‘beautiful and very intact decorative detailing and a striking use of massing to create a very simple, low house that is relatively unique within Boroondara’.

Based on that application, council officials advised to place the building on the monument list. This means that the owner must keep the building, even though the building had already been rejected for monument protection in 1991 and 2015.

As a result, Mr Sun, who only became aware of the heritage nomination several months after the transfer, was unable to honour his building contract as neither the seller nor the council were required to disclose this. He was therefore unable to proceed with the building plans.

Mr Sun, who was born in China, has hired law firm Mills Oakley to argue that the council’s nomination process for heritage institutions is unfair.

The lawyers also allege that Mr Sun is being discriminated against because of his ethnic background.

Council officials deny that Mr Sun was racially attacked.

“These allegations are rejected as unfounded,” a report from the officials to the council said.

‘It is worth noting that the nomination … was submitted by the nominator and accepted by the council prior to the settlement date.

‘Consequently, council officials had no knowledge of the identity of the current owner when the nomination was accepted.’

This one-sentence submission by an anonymous author formed the basis for the council members’ decision to place the building on the monument list

The Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Victoria has confirmed that The age that a case involving the parties was placed on the human rights list last week.

On Monday, Boroondara councillors voted to continue the heritage site nomination process and proceed with listing 23 Clapham Street, along with seven other properties in central west Melbourne that were also nominated through public submission.

Councillors also rejected an amendment that would have meant only people living in Boroondara would be allowed to submit comments.

However, Councillor Cynthia Watson argued that the process was flawed.

“Is it fair that someone from Vladivostok can see your property on the internet and then offer it for sale?” she told The Age.

She also said that heritage applications for a property should not be submitted while it is changing hands, as this is unfair to the unsuspecting new owner.

Homeowner claims unexpected historic listing cost him nearly $500,000

“Property owners are an unintended liability to heritage protection,” she said.

Boroondara’s director of urban housing Scott Walker said the council was prepared to defend Mr Sun’s legal case.

“The 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 said.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Boroondara City Council for comment.