STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE AND
REPORT TO PLANNING PANEL
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C245 QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET PRECINCT RENEWAL
Statement of heritage evidence prepared by Peter Lovell for
MELBOURNE CITY COUNCIL
Instructed by ASHURST AUSTRALIA
April 2016
Statement of Qualifications and Experience, and Declaration
Authorship
This statement has been prepared by Mr Peter Haynes Lovell, Director of Lovell Chen Pty Ltd, Architects and Heritage Consultants, Level 5, 176 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne, assisted by Anita Brady, Associate Director. The views expressed in the statement are those of Mr Peter Lovell.
Qualifications and Experience
I have a Bachelor of Building degree from Melbourne University and have been director of the above practice, which I established with Richard Allom in 1981. Over the past 32 years I have worked in the field of building conservation and have been involved in, and responsible for, a wide range of conservation related projects. These projects include the preparation of conservation/heritage studies for the Borough of Queenscliffe, the former City of South Melbourne, the former City of Fitzroy and the former City of Port Melbourne. In addition, I have acted as heritage advisor to the Borough of Queenscliffe and the former City of South Melbourne. In the area of conservation management planning I have been responsible for the preparation of a wide range of conservation analyses and plans including those for the Melbourne Town Hall and Administration Building, the State Library and Museum, the Supreme Court of Victoria, Werribee Park, the Regent Theatre, the Bendigo Post Office, Flinders Street Station, the Old Melbourne Observatory and the Mt Buffalo Chalet. I have been responsible for the preparation of strategic planning reports for Government House, Canberra, the Melbourne Town Hall and the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the area of building conservation works I have been involved in and directly responsible for the investigation, design and documentation of a wide range of projects including the ANZ Gothic Bank at 380 Collins Street, the Collingwood, Melbourne and Fitzroy Town Halls, the Athenaeum and Regent Theatres, Parliament House, Melbourne, Government Houses in Canberra and Perth, and the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal.
I am a member of long standing of the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) and Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). I am also an honorary fellow of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects.
Over the past twenty years I have appeared frequently before the former Historic Buildings Council, now the Victorian Heritage Council, and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in relation to matters relating to conservation, adaptation and redevelopment of historic places.
Expertise to make the report
The specific expertise which I bring to this matter is in the area of the assessment of the impact of development work in a heritage context. This expertise is primarily derived from my experience in researching and assessing heritage places for the application of heritage controls at both a local and state level, in the formulation and review of guidelines for the implementation of such controls, in the application of heritage controls to projects undertaken by Lovell Chen and other architects and in the testing of those controls by way of Victorian Heritage Council and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal review. Previous involvement
In April 2015 my office prepared a Review of Heritage Issues report for the City of Melbourne. This report commented on issues associated with the development of precinct built form controls for the area surrounding the QVM. In particular the report addressed the findings on heritage contained in the draft Queen Victoria Market Renewal Precinct Built Form Controls Review and Recommendations report by Jones & Whitehead, for the City of Melbourne (April 2015).
Some material from the Review of Heritage Issues report is incorporated into this statement.
LOVELL CHEN 1
It is noted that since the April 2015 report was prepared there have been some changes to the statutory heritage arrangements in the area subject to Amendment C245, following the gazettal of Amendment C198 on 15 October 2015. This included changes to the mapping of the relevant heritage overlay (HO) precinct, the QVM Precinct (HO7); introduction of a new precinct statement of significance; and changes to building gradings. There has also been an amendment to the mapping of the site-specific HO for the QVM (HO496) to make this consistent with the extent of registration of the site as included in the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). The current statutory heritage arrangements are set out in this evidence statement.
I also note that Lovell Chen (then Allom Lovell & Associates) prepared the QVM Conservation Management Plan (CMP) in 2003 (updated November 2011) and more recently prepared the following documents, as part of a VHR amendment process:
Assessment of Cultural Heritage Significance and Conservation Recommendations for the Old Melbourne Cemetery at Queen Victoria Market prepared for the City of Melbourne, Lovell Chen, March 2011; Submission to the Heritage Council of Victoria in relation to the proposed amendment to the registration of the Queen Victoria Market, Lovell Chen, February 2012.
While these documents are relevant in the consideration of future works which occur on the QVM site, the primary reference document for the consideration of such works is the current VHR citation. In this regard, other than as a source of background historical information, the CMP and associated reports have not been further referenced in this statement.
Instructions This statement addresses the heritage issues and considerations arising from Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C245. My instructions on this matter comprised a memorandum from Ashurst Australia, dated 24 August 2015, which requested that I analyse and address in this statement:
the heritage context of the QVM Precinct and its surrounding area; whether the controls proposed by Amendment C245 are the appropriate controls to apply in the context of the heritage character of the QVM, including consideration of the heritage significance of the buildings and items that are listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and the heritage overlays that the area is subject to; whether any amendments should be made to the proposed controls to address heritage concerns; and whether any other broader heritage issues need to be addressed. I subsequently received additional instructions in March 2016, which requested that I principally focus on the proposed Development Plan Overlay 11 (DPO11) in this statement. References
The brief of documents received from Ashurst Australia was comprehensive and contained information which I have reviewed and addressed as relevant in the preparation of this statement. This information included, but was not limited to:
Report to the Future Melbourne Planning Committee and accompanying attachments, May 2015 Aerial and cadastral maps for the QVM Precinct including block plans Copies of current planning controls Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal Strategic Brief, February 2015 Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal Draft Master Plan Godden McKay Logan Heritage Consultants Report (Stages 1 and 2), April and August 2013
LOVELL CHEN 2
Panel Report Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C61 (Queen Victoria Market Precinct Built Form Review), 2006 Panel Report Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C196 (City North Structure Plan), October 2013 Panel Report Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C198 (City North Heritage Review) and Supplementary Report, July 2014 Explanatory Report for Amendment C245, together with the exhibited documents Submissions with regard to Amendment C245 Summary of Submissions prepared by Melbourne City Council, and Council’s response to key issues raised in submissions Report to the Future Melbourne Committee regarding the outcomes of the public exhibition of C245 QVM Master Plan (finalised) Information prepared in support of the application for National Heritage Listing of the QVM (including documentation prepared by Context Pty Ltd, 2014-2015)
Declaration
In submitting this report I declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.
Peter Lovell
LOVELL CHEN 3
Introduction
1. I have been asked by Ashurst Australia on behalf of the Melbourne City Council to provide expert heritage evidence in relation to the heritage issues and considerations associated with proposed Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
2. The amendment seeks to introduce new precinct controls to facilitate redevelopment in the area of the QVM Precinct, being the land bounded by Victoria Street, Therry Street, Elizabeth Street, A’Beckett Street, William Street and Peel Street, Melbourne (see Figure 1). Amendment C245 does not propose any changes to the existing heritage overlay controls that apply within the precinct.
Figure 1 Amendment C245 QVM Precinct (outlined in red) Source: Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C245 Explanatory Report 3. While sharing the same name, the extent of the Amendment C245 QVM Precinct differs to, and is greater than, the QVM Precinct which is included in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (HO7). To avoid confusion, the latter is generally referred to below as the QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct.
4. Amendment C245 derives from the QVM Precinct Renewal Master Plan (Masterplan), prepared by Melbourne City Council; and a review of the current controls as outlined in the Queen Victoria Market Renewal Precinct Built Form Controls Review and Recommendations report (Jones & Whitehead, for the City of Melbourne, April 2015). 5. My evidence focusses on the proposed new DPO11, which applies to a discrete area within the QVM Precinct (Figure 2). In my evidence I comment on the heritage issues arising from the requirements of DPO11 and the building forms contemplated in the DPO and Precinct Framework Plan.
LOVELL CHEN 4
6. Preparation of this statement has not involved any historical research or investigation, but relies on that undertaken in previous work and included in previous reports, such as the QVM CMP, prepared by Lovell Chen for Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd (April 2003, updated November 2011).
Figure 2 Amendment C245 proposed new zones; area subject to DP011; and the reduced DD014 Source: Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C245 Explanatory Report
Amendment C245
7. Amendment C245 proposes to1:
Rezone the majority of QVM and the Queen Street extension from Capital City Zone to Public Use Zone Rezone the proposed new public open space (the current at-grade QVM carpark) from Capital City Zone to Public Park and Recreation Zone Apply a new Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO11), which incorporates a vision and design requirements (including the development envelope of street frontage heights and upper level setbacks) for development of land adjacent to the QVM (south and east of the market). Require a development plan, and any permit issued for the use, subdivision or development of the land to be consistent with the QVM Precinct Framework Plan.
1 As per Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C245 Explanatory Report.
LOVELL CHEN 5
Delete existing schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from the QVM and land to which DPO11 applies, to contract the area covered by DDO14. Amend the existing schedule 14 to DDO14, which will apply only to the contracted area, to introduce revised built form controls for new development. Amend the Built Environment and Heritage within the Hoddle Grid Policy (Clause 21.12) to delete an existing policy statement relating to the existing DDO14, and amend Figure 6: Hoddle Grid to show the QVM and to extend the area of the QVM Precinct (to which this amendment applies). Amend the existing clause 22.02 Sunlight to Public Spaces to include a provision that development should not overshadow Flagstaff Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 21 June.
Current Melbourne Heritage Policy Review 8. While not yet subject of an exhibited amendment, it is also relevant to note the progress of the City of Melbourne's Local Heritage Policy Review. Council has commenced the second stage of community consultation on the Local Heritage Policy Review, undertaken by Lovell Chen. Draft amended heritage policies for the Capital City Zone at Clause 22.04, and the area outside the CCZ at Clause 22.05, have been made available for community comment via Council's Participate Melbourne web page (http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/local-heritage, viewed 28 March 2016). A new grading system is proposed to be introduced, replacing the current alphabetical system with significant, contributory and non-contributory heritage places. Proposed gradings for places both within and outside the CCZ are also part of the community consultation and included in a draft Heritage Inventory provided for information only. At the time of writing, the amendment has yet to be endorsed by Council. Heritage controls and listings
9. In considering the proposal to apply a DPO to the QVM Precinct, it is relevant to identify the current statutory heritage controls which apply to the area, with specific reference to the area subject to the proposed DPO11. Queen Victoria Market (VHR 0734 and HO496)
10. The southern component of the QVM is included in the area subject to the proposed DPO11.
11. QVM, 65-159 Victoria Street, West Melbourne, is included in the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) and accordingly is subject to the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 (Vic). Permits are normally required from Heritage Victoria for works and development to the market area, as included in the VHR. The VHR citation for QVM is included at Annexure A; the following information is reproduced from the Victorian Heritage Database listing.
12. The land and buildings included in the VHR are illustrated at Figure 3. The controls apply to the land area, exteriors and interiors of the buildings, the John Batman Memorial, and to any archaeological remains or artefacts. The ‘Extent of Registration’ is described as follows:
1. All the land marked L1 on Diagram 734 held by the Executive Director being all of Crown Allotments 5, 6, and 7, Section F Parish of Melbourne North, Township of Melbourne at West Melbourne. 2. All of the buildings marked as follows on Diagram 734 held by the Executive Director: B1 Meat Market
B2 Shops at 507-523 Elizabeth Street
B3 Dairy Hall
LOVELL CHEN 6
B4 Shops at 65-81 Victoria Street (between Elizabeth and Queen Streets)
B5 Shops at 83- 159 Victoria Street (between Queen and Peel Streets)
B6 Shed A
B7 Shed B B8 Shed C
B9 Shed D
B10 Shed E B11 Shed F
B12 Shed H
B13 Shed I
B14 Sheds K and L
B15 Shed M
B16 Franklin Street Stores at 154-190 Franklin Street F1 John Batman Memorial 13. The ‘Statement of Significance’ is as follows:
What is significant? The Queen Victoria Market comprises two separate blocks: a western rectangular block bound by Franklin, Peel, Victoria and Queen Streets, known as the Upper Market; and the eastern triangular block bound by Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth and Therry Streets, known as the Lower Market. The market began operating in 1859, and progressively acquired the Old Melbourne Cemetery site to allow for its expansion.
The Market comprises the Meat Market (1869), Sheds A-F (1878), Sheds H and I (1878), Sheds K and L (1923), Elizabeth Street Stores, Victoria Street Shops (1887, 1891, and 1923), Dairy Produce Hall (1928), Franklin Street Stores (1929-1930), M Shed (1936), John Batman Memorial (1881), and the site of the Old Melbourne Cemetery (1837-1917).
In 1837, ten acres of land bound by Peel, Fulton, Queen and Franklin Streets were set aside for the purposes of establishing a cemetery for the growing township of Melbourne; the Melbourne Cemetery was officially gazetted in 1839. The cemetery site was surveyed by Robert Hoddle, and divided into seven sections: Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Jewish, Independent, and the Society of Friends. The Society of Friends' (Quaker) section was soon divided in half, to accommodate a section for Aboriginal burials. Concerns about the cemetery's proximity to the increasingly populated areas of the city, led to its closure in 1854, following the opening in the previous year of the Melbourne General Cemetery in Carlton. Despite the closure those who had claims on family plots continued to be interred in the Cemetery until 1917. An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 people were buried at the site from 1837 to 1917.
In March 1859, the Melbourne Town Council was granted the eastern triangular block for use as a market. The earliest surviving building is the wholesale Meat Market building. In 1874 it also began operating as a meat and produce retail
LOVELL CHEN 7
market, and Sheds H and I were built for use by fruit and vegetable growers. The market was granted permission to take over some of the cemetery land under legislation in 1877, and following the exhumation of 45 burials, Sheds A-F were constructed in 1878. The market was officially opened as the 'Queen Victoria Market' in March of that same year. Sheds A-E were open on all sides with each divided by a service roadway, and Shed F was constructed with a brick wall on its southern side which divided the market from the remainder of the cemetery. Two-storey terrace shop buildings constructed along Elizabeth and Victoria Streets in 1884 and 1887 respectively, provided a 'public' face to the market. Additional shops were also constructed on Victoria Street between 1890 and 1905.
Legislation in 1917 provided for the remainder of the cemetery land to be acquired for market purposes. The final burial took place in 1917, and as part of the transition from cemetery to market, 914 bodies are known to have been exhumed and relocated from 1920 to 1922.
Developments from this time included the construction of Sheds K and L in the Upper Market in 1923 and in the Lower Market the Dairy Produce Hall in 1928 which provided dairy producers with dedicated accommodation. On the Upper Market site, the Market Square development of 1929-1930 provided storage for market traders and merchants in two rows of sixty brick stores. This development, of which only the Franklin Street Stores survive, enclosed the market site along Franklin Street, and resulted in the market taking over the last of the former cemetery land. Shed M was constructed in 1936 on the Upper Market site. The John Batman Memorial, in the north-east of the carpark, was erected by public subscription in 1881. While no longer in its original location, the memorial recognises John Batman who was buried in the cemetery in 1839, with his remains relocated to Fawkner Cemetery in 1922.
In more recent years some of the buildings have been renovated to accommodate the changing needs of market stall holders and shoppers.
The Queen Victoria Market is on the traditional land of the Kulin Nation.
How is it significant? The Queen Victoria Market is of historical, archaeological, social, architectural and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria. Why is it significant?
The Queen Victoria Market is of historical significance as one of the great nineteenth century markets of Victoria and the only one surviving from a group of important central markets built by the corporation of the City of Melbourne. It is also of historical significance for remaining in operation from the 1870s.
The Queen Victoria Market is of historical significance as the site of Melbourne's first official cemetery, which was in use between 1837 and 1854, and intermittently from 1854 until its final closure in 1917.
The former cemetery site is of archaeological significance because it contains an estimated 6,500 to 9,000 burials. The site has the potential to yield information about the early population of Melbourne, including the Aboriginal and European communities, and their burial practices and customs.
LOVELL CHEN 8
The Queen Victoria Market is of social significance for its ongoing role and continued popularity as a fresh meat and vegetable market, shopping and meeting place for Victorians and visitors alike.
The Queen Victoria Market is of architectural significance for its remarkably intact collection of purpose built nineteenth and early twentieth century market buildings, which demonstrate the largely utilitarian style adopted for historic market places.
The Elizabeth Street and Victoria Street terraces are of aesthetic significance for their distinctive demonstration of an attempt to create a more appealing 'public' street frontage and increase revenue by enclosing the market and concealing the stalls behind a row of nineteenth century shops. 14. The QVM, including the southern component, is also the subject of a site specific HO (HO496), which reflects the VHR extent, as indicated in Figure 4.
Figure 3 Extent of land (‘L’) and buildings (‘B’) included in the Victorian Heritage Register
LOVELL CHEN 9
Figure 4 Map showing HO496, the site-specific HO for the QVM which reflects the VHR extent Source: Planning Schemes Online
Figure 5 Map showing the extent of the Queen Victoria Market Heritage Overlay Precinct (HO7) Source: Planning Schemes Online
LOVELL CHEN 10
Queen Victoria Market Heritage Overlay Precinct (HO7)
15. The QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct, HO7 (Figure 5), was formalised in the mid-1980s, as one of ten heritage precincts identified in the Capital City Zone (CCZ). As such the heritage precinct is subject to the heritage provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. External controls apply within the precinct, including paint controls, but no internal or tree controls.
16. The heritage precinct incorporates the market proper, including land and buildings within the VHR extent; together with sections of Queen and Therry streets, and development adjoining these and Franklin Street. The property at the north-east corner of Victoria and Elizabeth streets, separated from the rest of HO7 by Elizabeth Street, is also included in the precinct.
17. The proposed DPO11 will apply to the southern half of the QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct, including land and properties on the south side of Therry Street and east side of Queen Street. The affected properties which are included in the QVM Precinct (DPO11), are listed at Table 1.
Table 1 Table of properties included in HO7, which are affected by DPO11. Address VHR VHI HO City North Heritage Review 2013 Statements of Significance
Warehouse, Rear 128-130 N/A H7822-2006 HO7 C graded Franklin Street, Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Former Gordon and Gotch N/A H7822-2003 HO7 D graded warehouse, 132-142 Franklin and H7822- Level 3 streetscape Street, Melbourne 2004
Warehouses, 160-176 Franklin H0734 N/A HO7 and C graded Street, Melbourne HO496 Level 2 streetscape
Warehouses, 180-196 Franklin H0734 N/A HO7 and C graded Street, Melbourne HO496 Level 2 streetscape
Queen Street, Melbourne – H0734 N/A HO7 and A graded Sheds H-I HO496 Level 1 streetscape
Shop, 422-428 Queen Street, N/A H7822-2002 HO7 C graded Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Warehouse, 432-438 Queen N/A N/A HO7 C graded Street, Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Shop, 440-444 Queen Street, N/A H7822-2001 HO7 D graded Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Shop, 446-450 Queen Street, N/A H7822-2000 HO7 D graded Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Shops (part of Munro’s Corner), N/A Part H7822- HO7 C graded 452-454 Queen Street, 1999 Level 2 streetscape Melbourne
LOVELL CHEN 11
Address VHR VHI HO City North Heritage Review 2013 Statements of Significance
93-141 Therry Street, N/A H7822-1998 HO7 C graded Melbourne Level 2 streetscape
Munro’s Corner, 143-151 N/A Part H7822- HO7 C graded Therry Street, Melbourne 1999 Level 2 streetscape
Queen Street and Franklin N/A H7822-2181 HO7 – Ungraded Street roundabout north section only
Franklin Street and William N/A N/A N/A Ungraded Street triangular carpark
VHR: Victorian Heritage Register; VHI: Victorian Heritage Inventory; HO: Heritage Overlay.
18. The statement of significance for the precinct was recently updated as part of Amendment C198. The full citation for the precinct is included at Annexure B, and is taken from the City North Heritage Review (RBA Architects, 2013), a reference document at Clause 22.04 Heritage Places Within the Capital City Zone. The statements of significance from the City North Heritage Review are also listed as an Incorporated Document to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
19. The statement, as included in Clause 22.04, is as follows:
What is Significant? The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of historic and social significance as Melbourne's premier market in operation for over 130 years (since the late 1870s), with origins dating back to 1859. It is the last surviving 19th century market established by the City of Melbourne, and has been an important hub of social life in the city. The Meat Hall, the oldest extant building, was constructed in 1869. It is one of the earliest, purpose-built market complexes in Australia, with its single span roof only the second of its type when erected. The market has evolved throughout its history in line with changing requirements, with several phases of expansion.
The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of aesthetic significance as a fine example of a Victorian era market which retains much of its original 19th century fabric intact. Its present configuration is largely that which was established by the end of the Interwar period. Architecturally, there is a mixture of utilitarian buildings – the sheds – and more elaborate brick buildings, with the most exuberant being the 1884 façade of the Meat Hall, by noted architect William Salway. The later but more intact Dairy Produce Hall (1929) features a distinctive Georgian Revival style to the upper part of the façade in combination with Art Deco style to the lower part (canopy, tiling and shop fronts).The groups of shops to Victoria and Elizabeth Streets are rare examples of such extensive, intact rows of Victorian period commercial buildings, as are the Interwar period shops2 to Franklin Street.
Key Attributes
2 The reference to ‘shops’ is understood to refer to the Franklin Street ‘stores’.
LOVELL CHEN 12
The historic character of the precinct as a retail area.
The generally simple, low-scale and remarkably intact example of a utilitarian form from the period of its construction. Taken as a whole, the Market and its component buildings are substantially intact in its 1923 form.3
The visual dominance of the Queen Victoria Market in the surrounding area. 20. The above statement is extracted from a fuller statement included in the relevant incorporated document, the City North Heritage Review. The Review statement is as follows:
Significance
What is Significant? The land and all the buildings located on the Queen Victoria Market site and bound by Peel Street (west), Victoria Parade (north), Elizabeth Street (east), as well as Therry and Franklin Streets (south). This includes the meat and dairy halls, substation to Therry Street, all the sheds (A-F and H-M), the shops to Elizabeth Street (nos 507-523) and Victoria Street (nos 65-159) and the stores to Franklin Street (nos 160-196).
In addition, several adjacent and nearby shops: the east side of Elizabeth Street between Therry and Victoria Streets (nos 510-16); east side of Queen Street between Franklin and Therry Streets (nos 422- 460); the south side of Therry Street between Queen and Elizabeth Streets (nos 93-141); and two earlier, 19th century warehouses in Franklin Street (nos 126-130 and 132-140). How is it Significant?
The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of historic, social and aesthetic significance to the City of Melbourne.
Why is it Significant?
The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of historic and social significance as Melbourne's premier market in operation for over 130 years (since the late 1870s), with origins dating back to 1859. It is the last surviving 19th century market established by the City of Melbourne, and has been an important hub of social life in the city. The Meat Hall, the oldest extant building, was constructed in 1869. It is one of the earliest, purpose-built market complexes in Australia, with its single span roof only the second of its type when erected. The market has evolved throughout its history in line with changing requirements, with several phases of expansion. (AHC Criteria A4, B2 and G1)
The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of aesthetic significance as a fine example of a Victorian era market which retains much of its original 19th century fabric intact.
3 The basis of the 1923 date is unclear as both the Dairy Hall and the Franklin Street stores date from after this date.
LOVELL CHEN 13
Its present configuration is largely that which was established by the end of the Interwar period. Architecturally, there is a mixture of utilitarian buildings – the sheds – and more elaborate brick buildings, with the most exuberant being the 1884 façade of the Meat Hall, by noted architect William Salway. The later but more intact Dairy Produce Hall (1929) features a distinctive Georgian Revival style to the upper part of the façade in combination with Art Deco style to the lower part (canopy, tiling and shop fronts).The groups of shops to Victoria and Elizabeth Streets are rare examples of such extensive, intact rows of Victorian period commercial buildings, as are the Interwar period shops to Franklin Street. (AHC Criteria E1) Victorian Heritage Inventory
21. The QVM was formerly included in the Victorian Heritage Inventory (VHI), place ID 8719. The latter is an inventory of known historical archaeological places, subject to the Heritage Act 1995. However, it has been ‘delisted’ from the VHI and is identified as such in the Victorian Heritage Database. Other properties located within the area of the proposed DPO11 are also included in the VHI. These are listed above in Table 1.
22. The VHI listing normally requires that a ‘consent’ be obtained from Heritage Victoria for any subsurface works or other activities which may affect the archaeology of the property.
National Heritage List Nomination
23. The QVM has been nominated to the National Heritage List (NHL), under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
24. In June 2015 the Minister for the Environment announced that the market had been added to the Finalised Priority Assessment List for assessment. The Australian Heritage Council will undertake an assessment of the place for inclusion in the NHL.
25. Context Pty Ltd undertook a NHL assessment of the QVM, with the final report completed in September 2015.4 The extent of the nomination is the market itself, mirroring the extent of the VHR listing for the place.
Proposed DPO Schedule 11 26. Proposed Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay sets out the following requirements. Those of most relevance to the heritage considerations are highlighted/bolded: Any permit issued for the use, subdivision or development of the land must be consistent with the Queen Victoria Market Precinct Framework Plan 2015 at Figure 1 [reproduced below at Figure 6], the Vision in Clause 3.0 of this Schedule and must achieve all of the following design requirements: New development should not cast a shadow across the proposed public open space in Figure 1 between 11am and 2pm on 21 June, unless the Responsible Authority considers the overshadowing will not significantly prejudice the amenity of the proposed public open space area. New development should not cast any additional shadows across Flagstaff Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 22 September. Podiums fronting Therry Street and Queen Street north of Franklin Street should have a minimum podium height of 10 metres and must have a maximum podium height of 20 metres.
4 Context Pty Ltd, Queen Victoria Market National Heritage List Assessment, Vols 1-3, prepared for Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd, September 2015.
LOVELL CHEN 14
Podiums fronting other streets should have a minimum podium height of 20 metres and must have a maximum podium height of 40 metres. All building podiums should: o be oriented to complement the street system and constructed to the street edge. o be of a scale that provides an appropriate level of street enclosure having regard to the width of the street. o complement adjoining building podiums. o include high quality treatments to side walls where visible above adjoining buildings. o be of a height, siting and detailing that does not adversely affect the heritage significance of the Queen Victoria Market or any adjoining heritage building(s). o be designed to internalise above ground car parking behind active uses such as dwellings or offices to ensure a visual relationship between occupants of upper floors and pedestrians to improve surveillance of the public realm. o be able to mitigate wind impacts at street level in accordance with the wind amelioration design standards of this Schedule. Tower setbacks must be at least: o Towers facing New Franklin Street – 10 metres behind the northern masonry facades of the existing sheds5 (but may cantilever over the rear half of the existing sheds);
o Towers fronting the former alignment of Franklin Street - 6 metres from front of podium;
o Towers fronting all other streets – 10 metres from front of podium;
o Side and rear boundaries – 10 metres from side and rear boundaries.
Towers should be setback a minimum of 24 metres from an existing or likely future tower on an adjoining site(s), and must be set back a minimum of 10 metres. Towers should be designed and spaced to: o equitably distribute access to an outlook, sunlight between towers and to ensure adequate sun penetration at street level. o ensure habitable room windows do not directly face one another and that consideration has been given to the development potential of adjoining lots. o ensure sunlight, good daylight and privacy and an outlook from habitable rooms for both existing and proposed development can be provided. o encourage the reasonable sharing of access to daylight and an outlook, and the mitigation of wind effects. o ensure towers do not appear as a continuous wall at street level. New development adjoining the proposed public open space shown on Figure 1 [reproduced below] and the frontages of Therry Street, Queen Street, the southern side of the New Franklin Street and Peel Street should be designed to be generally acceptable for short term stationary wind exposure (where the peak gust speed during the hourly average with a probability of exceedence of 0.1% in any 22.5o wind direction sector must not exceed 13ms-1). New development adjoining all other public spaces should be designed to be generally acceptable for walking (where the peak gust speed during the hourly average with a
5 Note: While the DPO schedule refers to these buildings as ‘sheds’, they are more generally known as ‘stores’, including in the VHR statement of significance for the QVM. In the following comments, they are referred to as market stores. This also differentiates them from the historic market sheds in the market proper, to the north of the car park.
LOVELL CHEN 15
probability of exceedence of 0.1% in any 22.5o wind direction sector must not exceed 16ms-1). Buildings to be occupied by a residential use should be designed to limit internal noise levels in habitable rooms to a maximum of 45dB in accordance with relevant Australian Standards for acoustic control. Buildings and works should incorporate at least one mid-block publicly accessible pedestrian link where the length of a street block exceeds 100 metres. For street blocks exceeding 200 metres in length, two mid-block publicly accessible pedestrian links should be provided. New publicly accessible pedestrian links should be located to connect to the area’s pedestrian network and enhance the pedestrian permeability of the public realm, generally as shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule. Where consistent with the heritage significance of existing buildings, continuous weather protection should be provided to the footpaths of Therry Street, Queen Street, Peel Street and to the southern side of the New Franklin Street to promote pedestrian amenity and provide protection from rain, wind and sun. An active frontage should be provided to the ground level of buildings fronting Therry Street, Queen Street, the southern side of New Franklin Street and Peel Street, comprising: o At least 5 metres or 80% of the street frontage (whichever is the greater) as an entry or display window to a shop and/or a food and drink premises, or o At least 5 metres or 80% of the street frontage (whichever is the greater) as other uses, customer service areas and activities, which provide pedestrian interest and interaction. o Vehicular ingress and egress to new development (excluding loading and unloading facilities) should not be constructed within a frontage to Therry Street, Queen Street, Peel Street or the southern side of the New Franklin Street, where vehicle access via an alternative frontage is possible. For the purposes of this Schedule, "podium height" is the vertical distance between the footpath or natural surface level at the centre of the site frontage and the highest point of the podium, with the exception of architectural features and building services. 27. Proposed Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay also identifies requirements for a development plan. The points of most relevance to the heritage considerations are highlighted/bolded:
A development plan must be generally in accordance with the QVM Precinct Framework Plan 2015 at Figure 1 [reproduced below at Figure 6]. A development plan must be consistent with the following Vision: Development contributes to the Melbourne CBD’s distinctive character by reinforcing the distinction between the Hoddle Grid and adjoining areas whilst not adversely affecting the heritage significance of the Queen Victoria Market. Use and development contributes to safe and activated streets and public spaces via appropriately scaled podiums that incorporate ground floor uses that foster interaction with the street and uses at upper levels that achieve passive surveillance of public spaces. Use and development defines and activates the Queen Victoria Market’s edge as a special place by creating a taller built form around, and oriented towards, the Queen Victoria Market, which does not overwhelm the public domain and does not adversely affect its heritage significance. Solar access to the proposed public open space shown on Figure 1 to this Schedule is protected. Development is configured and designed to minimise negative amenity impacts of shadows on the Flagstaff Gardens. Public spaces are protected from adverse wind impacts so they are comfortable to use for outdoor cafes, window shopping and walking.
LOVELL CHEN 16
Development respects the future development potential of adjacent sites including access, privacy, sunlight, daylight and an outlook from habitable interiors and allow for an equitable spread of development potential on these sites. Development achieves a high standard of architectural quality and provides a high level of amenity for building occupants. Existing numbers of car parks associated with the Queen Victoria Market are relocated and maintained to service the ongoing viability of the Queen Victoria Market. A development plan must include the following: A comprehensive Site and Context Analysis Plan that identifies, among other things, the key attributes of the land, its context, and its relationship with existing and proposed use and development on adjacent land. A development concept plan that includes among other things, indicative: o Building heights and setbacks; o Elevations and cross sections; o Building materials and treatments; o Shadow diagrams for the hours between 9am and 3pm at the Equinox (22 September); o Shadow diagrams for the hours between 11:00am and 2pm at the Winter Solstice (21 June) demonstrating any shadow impacts on the proposed public open space; and o The alignment of existing and new roads and pedestrian links. A wind effects assessment that demonstrates that wind impacts will not adversely affect the amenity of the public realm. An Integrated Transport Plan which assesses the transport, traffic, pedestrian and bicycle access needs of development. An Environmental Sustainable Design and Water Sensitive Urban Design Assessment that outlines the initiatives to be included in future development. A Heritage Impact Statement that demonstrates that the significance of the Queen Victoria Market will not be adversely affected by new development.6 A Staging Plan, where the land is to be developed in stages, which demonstrates interface treatments with adjoining land. A planning report that demonstrates how the development plan is consistent with the design requirements and Vision of this Schedule. Indicative waste storage and collection points. A road management plan which provides details of the alignment, design and finish to new public roads as illustrated on Figure 1 to this Schedule. An acoustic assessment demonstrating how noise sensitive uses will be protected from impacts from noise generating uses in the area. The existing 720 car parking spaces associated with the Queen Victoria Market located within the proposed public open space and New Franklin Street should be relocated to Parcels A and/or D on Figure 1. Where dwellings are proposed on land owned or controlled by the City of Melbourne, consideration should be given to incorporating affordable housing. A new community facility that may include a Victoria visitor centre, Queen Victoria Market management facilities, public amenities, Queen Victoria Market-related education facilities, and retail and hospitality uses should be located within Parcel C on Figure 1 [Figure 6 in this statement].
6 It is noted that this dot point limits the consideration to the Queen Victoria Market and not the Heritage Overlay Precinct
LOVELL CHEN 17
Figure 6 Figure 1: QVM Precinct Framework Plan 2015 Source: Amendment C245 Schedule 11 to the DPO
Figure 7 Proposed extent of DPO11 Source: Participate Melbourne Amendment C245 information
LOVELL CHEN 18
Comments on heritage issues and considerations
28. This section of the statement addresses the proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements; the QVM, including its setting and context, with reference also to its heritage values (as per the VHR statement of significance and the National Heritage values identified in the recent NHL nomination); the QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct (HO7); and other heritage properties included in the area subject to the proposed DPO11. Proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements
29. The proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements, as reproduced above, are relevant to the heritage considerations in a number of areas. The key points or issues for consideration are summarised and commented on below. In addressing the requirements they are considered, as relevant, in the context of the four discrete areas affected (refer Figure 8): (1.) Therry and Queen streets (north of Franklin), (2.) Queen Street (Market Square), (3.) Franklin Street east (north side) and (4.) New Franklin Street.
Figure 8 Proposed DPO11 showing the four discrete heritage contexts
Podiums (height and design)
30. The proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements in relation to podiums are as follows:
Podiums fronting Therry Street and Queen Street north of Franklin Street should have a minimum podium height of 10 metres and must have a maximum podium height of 20 metres. Podiums fronting other streets should have a minimum podium height of 20 metres and must have a maximum podium height of 40 metres. All building podiums should: o be oriented to complement the street system and constructed to the street edge.
LOVELL CHEN 19
o be of a scale that provides an appropriate level of street enclosure having regard to the width of the street. o complement adjoining building podiums. o include high quality treatments to side walls where visible above adjoining buildings. o be of a height, siting and detailing that does not adversely affect the heritage significance of the QVM or any adjoining heritage building(s). For the purposes of this Schedule, "podium height" is the vertical distance between the footpath or natural surface level at the centre of the site frontage and the highest point of the podium, with the exception of architectural features and building services. 31. The Proposed Public Open Space between Peel and Queen streets is flanked to the east by Development Parcel C, which features a 10 to 20 metre high podium. The north and western boundaries of Development Parcels A and B similarly feature a 10 to 20 metre high podium. 32. The western, southern and eastern flanks of Development Parcel D show a planned 20 to 40 metre high podium, while the northern flank shows areas where building heights will be matched with existing heights and existing QVM buildings will be retained.
Comment Therry and Queen streets (north of Franklin)
33. Where existing buildings are to be replaced, the introduction of defined podium heights, in combination with setbacks to taller building components, is a means of mediating between higher and lower scale development. Less so than tower height, the street wall/podium height combined with the tower setback are the key considerations which most directly impact on the heritage interfaces and relationship of new development with streetscapes and streetscape scale. 34. The minimum podium height of 10 metres responds directly to the existing streetscape scale in this area of the proposed DPO11 and the heritage precinct (HO7) context. It relates to the typical tall single level market buildings and the existing, heritage graded two and three level buildings on the south side of Therry Street (Figure 9). Considered in isolation it is a height which accords with existing heritage controls. 35. The maximum podium height of 20 metres or effectively six levels, moves above the existing heritage built form and presents as a height which more directly addresses the intention to mediate between the lower street wall and potential tower development behind. As related to the south side of Therry Street the height is such that it will generate a form which contrasts with the QVM site opposite (Figure 10). From a scale perspective such a scale transition from one side of the street to the other is in my assessment acceptable in a central city context and not one that will result in buildings which dominate or overwhelm the QVM opposite.
36. Where development occurs on the south side of Therry Street, potentially adjacent to graded buildings, the contrast in height between the existing largely two storey built form and a 20 metre podium will be more pronounced. Such a contrast in the central city context is not unusual and in my assessment could generate an acceptable response, recognising that the management of detailed design will be critical in achieving a successful outcome.
37. In this regard a key heritage consideration will be the treatment of the podium façade or street wall and the exposed flanking walls. In addressing this issue, the DPO11 Schedule requires that the new building podiums should have a ‘siting and detailing that does not adversely affect the heritage significance of the QVM or any adjoining heritage building(s)’. This approach is supported under the key design considerations, which include consideration of articulation and materiality, the balance of solid wall to openings, and the use of verandahs and awnings.
LOVELL CHEN 20
Importantly, the rhythm and proportion of the frontages and ‘grain’ of adjoining historic commercial buildings should be respected.
38. Such considerations align with the relevant heritage policy for the applicable heritage overlay area and provide for a workable interface between the DPO and that policy.
Figure 9 Munro’s Store buildings located on the south side of Therry Street (93-141); graded C in a level 2 streetscape Source: Lovell Chen
Figure 10 View looking towards the Dairy Hall on the north side of Therry Street Source: Lovell Chen
LOVELL CHEN 21
39. In delivering such an outcome in Therry Street, including to the Queen Street corner (Figure 11), the manner in which the podium levels achieve a scale and intimacy, which maintains the sense of the market atmosphere and character of the street, is important. Critically, the most sensitivity will be within the first 10 metre rise of the podium wall, an area where in Therry Street in particular, verandahs are encouraged. The critical sensitivity with regard to the street wall is the delivery of a treatment which responds to the pedestrian exposure and experience in the street, and proximity to the market opposite. Tying together opposing sides of the street, by way of a commonality in the design response at ground level, such as the use of verandahs, will be important both in heritage and urban design terms.
Figure 11 The Mercat Cross Hotel (Munro’s corner) on the corner of Queen and Therry streets; graded C in a level 2 streetscape Source: Lovell Chen
Figure 12 Buildings on the east side of Queen Street between Therry and Franklin streets; variously graded C and D in a level 2 streetscape Source: Lovell Chen
LOVELL CHEN 22
40. In Queen Street, on the east side south of the Therry Street corner, the immediate interface sensitivity with the market opposite diminishes from a heritage perspective. Notwithstanding, I believe that it is desirable to maintain the minimum and maximum podium heights as proposed along this section of the street to manage the transition from taller built form located within this block (Figure 12).
41. As related to this issue I note that the former James McEwan & Co warehouse at 501-503 Elizabeth Street (Figure 13), on the south-west corner of Therry and Elizabeth streets is not included in the proposed DPO and would be subject to the controls applicable under DDO14. The subject site is in my assessment a critical site in the contemplation of the QVM interface with Therry Street and notwithstanding that it is not included in the heritage precinct HO7, should be included in the area covered by the DPO. At present it is included in HO1125, the Elizabeth Street heritage overlay precinct, the ascribed significance of which is unrelated to the market.
Figure 13 View looking west up Therry Street with B2 graded 501-503 Elizabeth Street to the left Source: Lovell Chen
42. In arriving at the 20 metre height as a maximum podium height in this location it is a height which presents as well scaled to its context. In a contextual sense it is a height which relates to the traditional taller built form constructed on the perimeter of the central city area in both the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It is low enough to manage the interface with tall two storey buildings which predominate in Therry Street in particular and also to achieve a successful transition across the street to the market site. It is a height which if delivered in a well-designed building can deliver an outcome whereby the new podium form will relate well to the heritage context and pedestrian scale. As already noted, with regard to its purpose it presents as a height which will achieve the desired mediation between the immediate streetscape and potential tower development behind. 43. In this regard a podium height which exceeds 20 metres has the potential to increasingly divorce the new form from its surrounds. The podium would tend to dominate in the lower scale heritage environment and no longer be viewed as a pedestrian scaled form. It would be a height which would move outside that which might be comfortably accommodated within the context of relevant heritage policy.
LOVELL CHEN 23
44. In considering this issue a relevant example in a related context is the development which has occurred around the former Covent Garden Market in London. In this case the one and two storey market structures are in part enclosed by five and six level development. At street level the arcading of the market is directly referenced in the new work, while the solidity of the upper levels is broken with the introduction of an open loggia arrangement. A significantly taller structure would begin to overwhelm the lower scale of the original market buildings.
Figure 14 Former Covent Garden Market as interfacing with the back of the Royal Opera House. Source: Lovell Chen, 2015
Figure 15 View towards the former Covent Garden Market as approached down James Street
LOVELL CHEN 24
Queen Street (Market Square)
45. Development Parcel C on the west side of Queen Street, within the existing road reserve, provides for development of between 10 and 20 metres in height (Figure 16 & Figure 17). The area is located outside the VHR registered QVM site but within the heritage overlay area.
46. As limited to the consideration of height, the proposed minimum and maximum heights accord with those proposed for podiums on the east side of Queen Street and in this regard present as consistent with the potential height of street wall in the immediate area. In this case the podium height is also the maximum height for development on the site as a whole. 47. Recognising that development on the existing road reserve is not an outcome which existing heritage overlay controls contemplate, the location of Parcel C has no direct interface with the QVM buildings or with graded buildings within the overlay area. A development on this site would however be strongly visible from within the market, and from the surrounding streets and proposed public open space, and management of height will be important. It will effectively create a new built edge condition to the historic market, a change which parallels, as related to visual impact, the introduction of New Franklin Street through the southern half of the market area. Such changes will alter the reading of the traditional market area and need to be approached with care.
48. While a sensitively designed development at the proposed maximum height could deliver an outcome which would not diminish the significance of the heritage place, a lower form of up to 13 metres (4 storeys) is likely to sit more comfortably as a transition building between the existing market buildings and the taller development to the south and east contemplated by the DPO. In this regard it is relevant that the policy within the QVM Conservation Management Plan notes that the preferred development height on the perimeter of the existing car park is 1 to 2 storeys, with scope for taller forms of up to 4 storeys within the site.7 If adopted, a lesser height than that currently proposed might be treated as discretionary rather than mandatory.
Figure 16 View looking towards the Parcel C land in Queen Street Source: Lovell Chen
7 Lovell Chen, Queen Victoria Market, Elizabeth Street Melbourne, Conservation Management Plan, 2011, p.117.
LOVELL CHEN 25
Figure 17 Another view looking towards the Parcel C land in Queen Street Source: Lovell Chen
Figure 18 Franklin Street, east of Queen Street with 132 Franklin Street (D graded in a level 2 streetscape) on the right. Source: Lovell Chen
LOVELL CHEN 26
Franklin Street east (north side)
49. The proposed DPO includes a small section of the north side of Franklin Street, east of Queen Street, with a planned 20 to 40 metre high podium. This area is located within the heritage overlay area (Figure 18). As related to height this section of Franklin Street has been the subject of significant development. It is an area which has no heritage sensitivity as related to the QVM and, with the south side of the street, increasingly presents as part of the central city core. Accordingly, the proposed podium heights in my assessment are acceptable having regard to heritage overlay provisions and the potential interface with graded buildings.
50. In forming this view an issue arises with regard to the interface between the 10-20 podium height on Queen Street, north of Franklin Street and the 20-40 metre podium height in Franklin Street. Understanding that from an urban design perspective there may be a desire to mirror the height of development on the opposite corner of Franklin and Queen streets (Melbourne Terrace, Figure 19) my assessment is that from a heritage perspective it would be preferred to retain the lower podium height on the northern corner site (422 Queen Street) that are currently proposed by DPO11 should the existing graded building be replaced. A taller podium on this corner would in my assessment present as dominant in the context of the market area to the north and west.
Figure 19 Melbourne Terrace, on the south-east corner of Franklin and Queen streets
New Franklin Street 51. Within the new Franklin Street precinct the western, southern and eastern edges are depicted with a planned 20 to 40 metre high podium. On the northern edge in the area occupied by the Franklin Street stores buildings (Figure 20 & Figure 21 ), heights are to match the existing built form. Under the proposed controls the ability to partially cantilever over the rear half of the market stores is also noted.
52. The heritage sensitivities in this area as related to height of development are associated with the heritage registered stores. The DPO contemplates tall development abutting the stores on the south side and a 20 to 40 metre high podium abutting the stores at the eastern and western
LOVELL CHEN 27
ends. Given the low scale of the existing buildings, the requirement for Heritage Victoria approval for any development on the registered land, and the heritage policy as related to HO7, the expectation is that the maximum podium heights contemplated by the DPO would be moderated in this area (abutting the stores at the eastern and western ends), consistent with the design parameters identified in the schedule to the DPO. In preference the maximum height in the immediate context of the shed ends would be reduced to 20 metres.
53. Recognising also that in the first instance my expectation is that Heritage Victoria would require the stores to be retained (and I am instructed that Melbourne City Council has confirmed that the stores are to be retained), any development immediately abutting would need to have regard to the existing scale and relationship of the stores to the QVM. While the introduction of a new road through the registered market site would to a degree separate the stores from the main market activity area, it would be anticipated that there would be a sensitivity to maintaining the legibility of the link, such as it is, between the two areas. Such legibility would be sensitive to the proximity of new taller built form hard abutting the stores.
54. With regard to the south façade of the stores building it is noted that there is an attached awning verandah (Figure 21). This presents as an original element but is not included in the VHR extent of registration, nor does it fall within the heritage overlay area. Works to remove the verandah would necessarily require a permit from Heritage Victoria as they would impact on the registered place. This is a factor which would need to be considered in any proposed development in this location, and may impact on the proximity of that development to the south face of the stores building. This is, however, a matter which would be addressed under the detailed approval considerations contained in the DPO.
55. To the south and on the east and west ends, south of the abuttal with the QVM stores, the area impacted sits outside the QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct and the heritage sensitivity of the proposed podium heights is low. In this location the proposed minimum and maximum heights are acceptable.
Figure 20 The north façade of the Franklin Street stores with the original awning verandah Source: Lovell Chen
LOVELL CHEN 28
Figure 21 The south façade of the Franklin Street stores with the original awning verandah Source: Lovell Chen
Setbacks to towers and taller built form 56. The proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements in relation to tower setbacks are as follows:
Tower setbacks must be at least: o Towers facing New Franklin Street – 10 metres behind the northern masonry facades of the existing stores (but may cantilever over the rear half of the existing stores);
o Towers fronting the former alignment of Franklin Street - 6 metres from front of podium;
o Towers fronting all other streets – 10 metres from front of podium;
o Side and rear boundaries – 10 metres from side and rear boundaries.
Comment
Therry and Queen streets (north of Franklin) 57. The proposed setback of 10 metres on Therry and Queen streets presents as a depth which is sufficient to ensure that tower elements do not dominate within the immediate streetscape. As related to the city more generally, such setbacks vary depending upon location and context. Within heritage precincts, either as new build or where a tower is constructed behind a retained façade, setbacks typically sit within the 5 to 10 metre range. Greater setbacks recently have been introduced in the Bourke Hill precinct, but this is related to the generally low scale form of the precinct as a whole and in particular as related to the views to Parliament House and its generally lower scale surrounds. 58. In considering the rationale for the proposed setback, the 10 metres presents as a depth of building which is sufficient to ensure that the foreground structure, whether incorporating retained fabric or as new build, has a legible three dimensional form which relates to the lower scale street context. The intention of the setback is not one of attempting to achieve concealment but rather to ensure that the experience of the place as a pedestrian is one which is
LOVELL CHEN 29
defined by lower scale buildings. While tower elements will be visible in closer and more distant views they will not overwhelm such that the cultural heritage significance of the market or the precinct is diminished.
Franklin Street east (north side)
59. As with the proposed podium height of 20-40 metres, the proposed minimum setback of towers in Franklin Street east is consistent with the provisions of DDO14. In the case of the DPO the 10 metre setback is a mandatory minimum and is directed to ensure:
– an appropriate streetscape scale is achieved.
– the tower’s siting above the podium does not dominate or overwhelm the public realm when viewed from ground level.
– the tower’s siting does not adversely affect the heritage significance of the Queen Victoria Market.
60. In establishing the basis for the setback there is no reference to the QVM Heritage Overlay Precinct HO7.
61. Recognising that the setback of a tall tower in this location might well warrant a setback of 10 metres or more to meet the above objectives, the setback required for a lower structure which meets the same objectives may be less. Accordingly, from a heritage perspective, and recognising that this area presents as more within the city core than in the QVM Precinct, it is not clear that a mandatory 10 metre setback for all towers constructed above a podium in this location must be a set back 10 metres. For lower towers a lesser setback may be sufficient.
New Franklin Street
62. The tower setbacks in the New Franklin Street area propose a minimum mandatory 6 metre setback on the former Franklin Street frontage and a minimum mandatory 10 metre setback from the north masonry façade to the Franklin Street stores located on New Franklin Street. In the latter case the DPO proposes that a new tower may cantilever over the rear half of the stores. The minimum mandatory setback of 10 metres is also applicable on related street frontages on Peel Street and Queen Street.
63. On the former Franklin Street frontage the proposed minimum setback of 6 metres does not give rise to any specific heritage issues. This is an entirely new frontage on the north side of the street and while there are sites which are subject to site specific heritage overlays on the south side of the street, these are not sites where the scale of built form opposite will have an adverse impact.
64. On the Queen Street and Peel Street frontages heritage interface considerations as related to the assessed significance of the QVM or the Heritage Overlay Precinct HO7 are also limited. In such a context such considerations in my assessment would not justify a mandatory minimum setback of 10 metres for towers constructed above a podium. As in the case of Franklin Street east, while a tall tower may well warrant such a setback, a lower structure may not. In either case there is not a heritage sensitivity other than at the direct interface with the existing stores building.
65. As with the podium provisions the primary heritage sensitivity in this area is as related to the Franklin Street stores. Any proposed development on or over the registered land will require Heritage Victoria approval and on the assumption that the stores are retained in full, such a proposal would need to demonstrate that there was no adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place, and/or that a refusal to grant a permit would impact on the reasonable or economic use of the place. 66. In this context the contemplation of a cantilever outcome in the DPO does not in itself give rise to a specific heritage concern, recognising that the acceptability or otherwise in the first instance will be a design issue. It is however an unusual provision to include in a DPO and to a degree
LOVELL CHEN 30
openly contemplates an outcome which could have an adverse heritage impact. Recognising that the approval of cantilevers over registered places occurs rarely and typically only where strongly justified on economic and or reasonable use grounds, my assessment is that the cantilever provision in the DPO is unnecessary. Removal of the provision would not preclude the exploration of a cantilever design but recognises that the primary consideration of such a proposal will be the heritage impact.
67. In relation to the setback from the north façade and tower construction behind I note that an outcome of the DPO is that a cantilevered tower could rise up behind the existing stores with a setback of 10 metres to the northern face of the cantilevered facade. In such an outcome the retained stores would present as a single storey podium structure. Dependent upon the proximity of the soffit of the cantilever to the roof of the stores such an outcome would potentially overwhelm the stores. Given that the stores are in the order of 21 metres deep and a 10 metres cantilever would project over approximately half their depth a deeper mandatory setback of 15 metres is in my assessment to be preferred.
Relationship of new development to the QVM
68. As specifically related to heritage the proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements for new development relating to the QVM are as follows:
Development contributes to the Melbourne CBD’s distinctive character by reinforcing the distinction between the Hoddle Grid and adjoining areas whilst not adversely affecting the heritage significance of the QVM. Use and development defines and activates the QVM’s edge as a special place by creating a taller built form around, and oriented towards, the QVM, which does not overwhelm the public domain and does not adversely affect its heritage significance. A new community facility that may include a Victoria visitor centre, QVM management facilities, public amenities, QVM-related education facilities, and retail and hospitality uses should be located within Parcel C on Figure 1 [Figure 6 in this statement].
Comment The Hoddle Grid and taller built form 69. The DPO provides for significant change in the siting and scale of new built form to the south of the QVM. This includes the construction of taller buildings in close proximity to the market and changes to the road alignment and road reserve. The heritage sensitivity is primarily that associated with maintaining the cultural heritage significance of the market, both as related to the place itself and its immediate precinct. 70. As related to height and as addressed above, the DPO contemplates a more sharply defined transition in scale of built form between the Hoddle Grid and the adjoining area. Such a transition can be observed in other areas of the city, including on Spring Street, on the eastern edge of the grid and increasingly on Victoria Street, on the northern edge. From a heritage perspective the appropriateness or otherwise of such a transition is whether or not the change will adversely impact on the assessed significance of the impacted place or places.
71. With regard to the QVM the assessed significance at a State and local level is not one in which emphasis has been placed on the low scale surrounds. The focus in both contexts is on the history and physical form of the market rather than as related to the history and form of its wider setting. The one direct reference to context is contained in the third dot point to the local heritage precinct citation which references ‘the visual dominance of the QVM in the surrounding area’.
72. As addressed in the Queen Victoria Market Renewal Precinct Built From Controls Review and Recommendations report, it is evident that the existing interface conditions vary and that there
LOVELL CHEN 31
are varying levels of sensitivity with regard to the manner in which the market presents as a heritage place. In this regard the sensitivities to the west (across Peel Street) and north (across Victoria Street), differ from those to the east (across Elizabeth Street) and south (across Therry and Franklin streets). The former are interfaces whereby the market sits in a wider low scale context extending across North and West Melbourne, whereas the interface to the east and south is one of the developing central city.
73. In reviewing the market in the context of the surrounding areas, it is evident that the QVM has historically operated as an island site and it continues to exist operationally and physically quite independently of its surrounds. While on most of its boundaries there is a heritage context, the significance of the market is not reliant upon that context.
74. As relevant to the southern boundary interface there are three discrete interface conditions. 75. On Therry Street there is a unique market boundary condition where the street is narrower and more intimate as compared to other streets around the market. It is a street in which there is an awareness of both sides contributing to the atmosphere of the market environs. While in many respects the older buildings on the south side are of limited heritage significance individually, they are of a comfortable form and scale as related to the market buildings opposite and contribute to streetscape character.
76. Progressing into Queen Street, while older buildings continue along the east side of the street, any direct contextual relationship with the market falls away as the market sheds end and the interface is with the open car park area. The Queen Street buildings contain a range of commercial operations, similar to those found in the market, but these present as largely opportunistic uses rather than ones of long standing.
77. Finally, on Franklin Street to the south of the market, the latter’s boundary is defined by the stores buildings, while the south side of the street comprises a mix of individually significant buildings and more recent development. There is no strong visual or physical link between the market and its surrounds at this point and it is very much an interface in which high rise development is more strongly present. The road, central median and car park area also provide a substantial break between the market stores and development to the south.
78. Within this context the DPO provides for taller built form closer to the market than is currently the case. While such a change will alter the physical surrounds to the market the change is not one which will alter the visual dominance of the market. As a low scale complex extending over some seven hectares the market will remain dominant within the area. Unlike the Royal Exhibition Building and surrounding gardens, where there is a buffer zone (the World Heritage Environs Area) which addresses the height of new development as related to the dome, the market has no such sensitivity, particularly as related to its central city interface. Accordingly the DPO requirements with regard to the Hoddle Grid and the management of height of development, present as able to be met without adversely affecting the significance of the QVM. Development Parcel C
79. Queen Street as separating the Upper and Lower Markets has for some time operated as a shared pedestrian and vehicle area. Historically it presents as a street which has operated more as a service road for the market rather than as a through street for city traffic, and I note that the section of Queen Street that is north of Therry St was closed as a road by the Queen Victoria Market Lands Act 1996, and now forms part of the QVM land. This condition is reflected in its current shared use, by both pedestrians and vehicles. It is a use which is reinforced by the large island services and toilet block located in the centre of the road (Figure 22 & Figure 23) and in more recent times, the modification of footpaths and expansion of grassed and paved areas to manage traffic.
LOVELL CHEN 32
80. The heritage sensitivity arising from the proposition of development in this location is whether or not it has the potential to diminish the heritage significance of the market and its immediate surrounds. With regard to the market, the proposed site is to the south of the Upper and Lower Markets and development will have no direct impact on either their physical or visual connectivity. A development in this location will present as a distinctive new form, but it is sufficiently removed to ensure that it does not dominate in relation to the low scale market buildings to the north. 81. However, as already commented upon above at paragraph 47, a development on this site would be strongly visible from within the market and surrounds, and management of height will be important. At up to 20 metres, a sensitively designed development at the proposed maximum height could deliver an outcome which would not diminish the significance of the heritage place, although a lower height of up to 13 metres is likely to sit more comfortably as a transition building between the market buildings and the taller development to the south and east as contemplated by the DPO.
82. The greater sensitivity is in relation to the Franklin Street stores and the degree to which these buildings will be increasingly separated from the market proper.
83. On the assumption that development occurs, both development Parcel C and the New Franklin Street introduce elements which have the potential to increase the isolation of the stores buildings. While this isolation already exists as a result of the physical separation of the stores from the main market buildings, the introduction of a new development in Queen Street and the road may increase the detachment. The implication from a heritage perspective is that the stores could potentially no longer be understood as a former part of the market. 84. Recognising that the stores reflect a remnant of the last major phase of development of the market and are considered to be of contributory rather than primary significance, such a change will have a generally limited impact on the significance of the market as a whole. Desirably, however, there should be an active program of interpretation associated with development in the area as a whole, which reinforces the association of these buildings with the market proper. Such interpretation could be included within a visitor centre which has the potential to strongly support the heritage values of the market as a whole.
Figure 22 Aerial view of the recently completed market stores area, c. 1931, showing the toilet block in the centre of Queens Street at bottom left Source: Melbourne Markets 1841-1979: The Story of the Fruit and Vegetable Markets in the City of Melbourne, C E Cole, Melbourne, 1980
LOVELL CHEN 33
Figure 23 The existing service block located in the centre of Queens Street
Other DPO11 requirements 85. Other relevant proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements are:
Where consistent with the heritage significance of existing buildings, continuous weather protection should be provided to the footpaths of Therry Street, Queen Street, Peel Street and to the southern side of the New Franklin Street to promote pedestrian amenity and provide protection from rain, wind and sun. A Heritage Impact Statement that demonstrates that the significance of the QVM will not be adversely affected by new development 86. Additionally it is proposed that through block links be provided within Parcel D on New Franklin Street.
Comment
87. The introduction of ‘continuous weather protection’ is generally supported in heritage terms, although as recognised in the DPO11 requirements, this should be ‘consistent with the heritage significance of existing buildings’. Issues for consideration include the presence of original awnings or verandahs which should in preference be retained; the reconstruction or reinstatement of missing awnings/verandahs to building frontages, where the original form is known; and as an alternative to the latter, the introduction of contemporary awnings in an appropriate form and materials, subject to avoiding or minimising impacts on the heritage buildings.
88. The requirement to prepare a Heritage Impact Statement is supported in heritage terms. 89. With regard to the proposed through block links in Parcel D, these are supported from a heritage perspective. Two links are proposed: one as existing located centrally between the two stores buildings and one located at the east end of the eastern stores building. It is understood that the latter link is intended, amongst other outcomes, to reference the original edge of the Old Melbourne Cemetery. Such an outcome is desirable from a heritage perspective and should be considered in the active interpretation of the site as a whole.
LOVELL CHEN 34
Interface of the DPO11 with existing heritage values and controls
90. The following section provides a summary of issues which arise in considering the interface of DPO11 with the existing heritage values and controls. National heritage values
91. As noted above, the QVM has been nominated to the National Heritage List (NHL), and is awaiting assessment by the Australian Heritage Council. The potential National Heritage values, as identified in the nomination, are summarised below, although it is recognised that these have not yet been tested and accordingly are not formalised.
92. According to the ‘Final Assessment Report’ which supports the nomination,8 the QVM National Heritage significance relates to four criteria:
Criterion A: the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history Criterion C: the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history Criterion D: the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's natural or cultural places Criterion G: the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons 93. A summary statement of the National heritage values is included in the ‘Final Assessment Report’, which is not reproduced here. However, the values are summarised and paraphrased as follows:
The QVM of 1876 is a clear and extensive demonstration of the economic and political processes of marketing and retailing. As a market where a large variety of fresh food is bought and sold, the QVM has played a major part in sustaining the growing population of Melbourne from its establishment in 1867, and been a vital contributor to the economic and political development of the City of Melbourne. The market's location on the edge of the city and close to the inner suburbs of North and West Melbourne, Parkville, Carlton, Flemington and Brunswick supported this function. The location provided easy access from the City's market gardens for the buying and selling of fresh produce to the rapidly growing city and its suburbs. Unlike earlier Melbourne markets, the QVM was purpose-built as a grower's market to serve the needs of the population for fresh food, rather than expressly for the import and export of goods. Today the market serves many functions but still focusses on fresh produce as a core activity. The QVM, established by the City of Melbourne Council in 1876, but operating from the current site as a Meat Market from 1869, and as a Market Reserve from the 1850s, contributed in fundamental ways to the growth and development of the city. At the time of its establishment it was considered an essential service for Melbourne and its region, contributing to the health and subsequent productivity of the population. The QVM and the City of Melbourne have had a profound influence on each other from the 1840s until the present time. The QVM provided a vital revenue base for the City of Melbourne and has contributed to the development of local government. From 1841 the establishment of the ward system of political representation was based on the
8 As prepared by Context Pty Ltd, for Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd, Volume 3, September 2015.
LOVELL CHEN 35
appointment of Market Commissioners for various parts of the city. The QVM continues today to be an important part of the City of Melbourne's activities. The importance of the QVM to the economic development of Melbourne is reflected through its evolution and growth in the 1880s, 1890s, 1920s, 1930s, and 1980s and is currently evidenced through major strategic planning for the QVM site by the City of Melbourne. The QVM also demonstrates wholesale marketing functions that were consolidated largely on the Old Melbourne Cemetery from the 1930s until relocation of the wholesale market to Footscray in 1969. The QVM is a rare example of a retail market that retains evidence of the activity of wholesaling. The QVM is an outstanding illustration of the importance of a market as both an essential service and an economic driver in the development of the city. Since the demolition of the Western and Eastern markets in 1880 and 1962 respectively, it is the only remaining central city market in Melbourne. It demonstrates its functions through its location, extent, use, built form and urban spaces as well as through continuing ownership and management by the City of Melbourne and its agency Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd. The Old Melbourne Cemetery, established in 1837 as a public cemetery, has demonstrable research value for Australian history and culture as the resting place for virtually the whole founding population of Melbourne who died prior to the gold rush in the early 1850s. It comprises a large burial ground of approximately 6,500 burials arranged in eight sections along religious denominational lines and with a section for Aboriginal community burials. It thus includes the remains of Melbourne's founding inhabitants across the full range of their cultural backgrounds. The Old Melbourne Cemetery has the potential to yield information about the early population of Melbourne, including diet, living conditions, pathology and material culture. This potential has been demonstrated by several archaeological excavations in recent years. The scale and completeness of the below ground evidence is equal to or greater than other examples of early Colonial burial grounds, including the Old Sydney Burial Ground and the North Brisbane Burial Grounds, the two most comparable examples. As well as on-site evidence, much information on burials can also be gathered through documentary sources, or through a combination of the documentary and physical evidence. The records of approximately 2200 Anglican burials from 1836-1856 held at St James Old Cathedral are of value especially when combined with what is known of the burials as a result of archaeological investigation. The QVM represents an optimal development of a major metropolitan market and retains a very high degree of authenticity, including that of ongoing use. As a major metropolitan produce market, the QVM exhibits all of the key characteristics of markets generally, and is the most complete example of its type in Australia with virtually all of the critical elements of a market in evidence and in use. The QVM has an outstanding array of features that have evolved from 1869 until the present time. The buildings and spaces of the QVM are extensive, clearly delineated, functional and purpose-built. When compared with other nineteenth century produce markets still in use such as Fremantle, Haymarket (Sydney) and Adelaide Central Market, the QVM has a higher integrity and comprises the most extensive and outstanding range of buildings and urban spaces. These include: o The Meat Hall of 1869, with its remodelled facade of 1884; and the Dairy Produce Hall of 1928 are excellent examples of enclosed market halls. The interior of the Dairy Produce Hall is exceptionally well designed for its purpose and retains a high degree of integrity in its layout and high quality interior fittings. o The Upper Market sheds A to F, built between 1878 and 1923 represent the functional requirements of market trading and they have retained their integrity of form and structure through a series of extensions in 1891, 1903, and 1922; and their refurbishment in 1977. These sheds are derived from earlier models employed in the now demolished Eastern Market, elements of which are now reconstructed as Sheds H & I in the Lower Market.
LOVELL CHEN 36
o The two blocks of the Elizabeth Street terraces of 1884 by architect William Salway are an example of Melbourne Town Clerk E G Fitzgibbon's plan to both maximise the income from the market through the provision of perimeter shops, and to screen the noise, smells and refuse of the market from the city. o The lower Victoria Street terraces of 1886 and the Upper Victoria Street shops built in three stages in 1887, 1890 and 1923 form an extensive built edge between the market and its surrounding streets, and represent a specific and rare Australian design response to the interface of the market to the city. o The Franklin Street Stores of 1930, K & L Shed built in 1923 and the carpark demonstrate the functions and the site of the former wholesale market that was consolidated and expanded from the 1930s to 1969. No other markets in Australia have been identified that retain, to the extent of the QVM, the different market building typologies including market halls, open sheds and stores. It is the only market identified in Australia to exhibit the English market town tradition of extensive perimeter terraced shops with residences. The Old Melbourne Cemetery site is an outstanding example of an 'early colonial cemetery' as a result of the anticipated number of burials that remain at the site, and as an example of an early multi-denominational cemetery representing virtually the entire founding population of a state capital. The brick cemetery wall located in F Shed contributes to the understanding of the place during the1870s when the QVM was established. The market trader and regular market shopper community, value the QVM as a place of social connection. Community connections are strong, visible and maintained over generations. This value is embodied primarily in certain intangible attributes of the market including community, interaction and expressions of cultural diversity which are played out in the contemporary market spaces. The QVM is also a key reference point in the identity and sense of self of the market trader community, developed through the long-term associations that this community holds with both the physical space, their co-workers and regular customers. For the Melbourne and wider Australian communities, the QVM is a quintessential symbol of Melbourne's identity and a landmark demonstrated through strong expressions of its importance as a key Melbourne locality, its highly valued Victorian and other era buildings. The service it provides to its communities continues to be strongly voiced through public forums. The market's landmark qualities are derived from its inner city location, its large scale, low rise scale in relation to its surroundings, as well as its range of buildings, spaces, produce and market wares. The Old Melbourne Cemetery is of social value to the Indigenous, Melbourne and wider Australian communities as an important commemorative place. This value is embodied in the cemetery block (that sits under today's market), the John Batman Memorial, the Old Melbourne Cemetery wall and related historical archives. The Old Melbourne Cemetery is outstanding in terms of the number of burials, and the large number of contemporary Melbournians and other Australians who today hold special connections to the place. For the Indigenous community, the QVM is a rare example of an early colonial cemetery where both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people were interred (no other colonial, municipal cemetery has been identified as containing a dedicated section for Aboriginal community burials).
Comment 94. Recognising that the process of National heritage listing is in an early stage, consideration of any specific implications arising from the interface of such a listing, should it eventuate, and the proposed DPO11, is of limited value. Should National listing eventuate it is anticipated that the sensitivities arising would be similar to those considered in relation to the State listing as discussed below.
LOVELL CHEN 37
State heritage values and controls
95. The statement of significance for the QVM, as included in the VHR, is reproduced above at paragraph 13. The statement identifies that the market is of historical, archaeological, social, architectural and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria. The significant attributes and values are summarised below:
Historical significance:
QVM is one of the great nineteenth century markets of Victoria and the only one surviving from a group of important central markets built by the City of Melbourne. QVM has remained in operation from the 1870s. QVM is the site of Melbourne's first official cemetery, in use between 1837 and 1854, and intermittently from 1854 until its final closure in 1917. Archaeological significance:
Former cemetery site contains an estimated 6,500 to 9,000 burials. Has the potential to yield information about the early population of Melbourne, including the Aboriginal and European communities, and their burial practices and customs. Social significance: QVM has an ongoing role and continued popularity as a fresh meat and vegetable market, shopping and meeting place for Victorians and visitors alike. Architectural significance: QVM has a remarkably intact collection of purpose built nineteenth and early twentieth century market buildings, which demonstrate the largely utilitarian style adopted for historic market places. Aesthetic significance: Elizabeth Street and Victoria Street terraces are significant for their demonstration of an attempt to create a more appealing 'public' street frontage and increase revenue by enclosing the market and concealing the stalls behind a row of nineteenth century shops.
Comment 96. The proposed DPO11 has been prepared with an awareness of the significance of the QVM, and applies both to land and buildings within part of the market footprint.
97. The DPO11 will not impact on or detract from the State heritage values of the QVM. The historical and social values will be maintained, and the architectural and aesthetic values will not be affected.
98. The proposed New Franklin Street will be located on the car park site which in turn is associated with the former cemetery site. The introduction of the roadway may impact on the archaeological remains in this area but this presents as a manageable activity. I am instructed that Professor Richard Mackay has been engaged to provide expert evidence in relation to the potential impacts of the QVM Precinct Renewal project on the former cemetery site. Visually, the change from car park to roadway will have no additional impact on this sensitive area. The impact of the roadway, in terms of separating the stores from the market proper, is already commented on above.
99. Development Parcel C on the east side of the carpark, is identified for construction of a new community facility. This facility is outside the VHR registered area, and accordingly outside the site of archaeological significance.
LOVELL CHEN 38
100. The creation of new public open space, in the location of the current car park, will not result in an adverse impact.
101. Redevelopment contemplated for the area to the south and east of the Franklin Street stores, including the stores themselves, has the potential to have an impact on the stores building. As directly related to the registered land and buildings the expectation is that the development potential will be tempered by the requirement to obtain approval from Heritage Victoria. Local heritage values and controls
102. The proposed DPO11 will apply to the southern half of the Heritage Overlay Precinct, HO7, including land and properties on the south side of Therry Street and east side of Queen Street. The affected properties, as included in the precinct, are listed above at Table 1 and shown at Figure 24.
Figure 24 Map showing proposed DPO11 area, part of precinct HO7, and affected properties
103. The statement of significance for the precinct is reproduced above at paragraph 19. The statement identifies the precinct as being of historic, social and aesthetic significance. The significant attributes and values are summarised below:
Historical and social significance:
QVM is Melbourne's premier market, in operation for over 130 years (since the late 1870s), with origins dating back to 1859.
LOVELL CHEN 39
It is the last surviving 19th century market established by the City of Melbourne, and has been an important hub of social life in the city. It is one of the earliest, purpose-built market complexes in Australia, with its single span roof only the second of its type when erected. The market has evolved throughout its history in line with changing requirements, with several phases of expansion. Aesthetic significance: QVM is a fine example of a Victorian era market which retains much of its original 19th century fabric intact. Its present configuration is largely as was established by the end of the Interwar period. Architecturally, there is a mixture of utilitarian buildings and more elaborate brick buildings. The groups of shops to Victoria and Elizabeth Streets are rare examples of extensive, intact rows of Victorian period commercial buildings, as are the Interwar period shops to Franklin Street. 104. The statement at Clause 22.04 also identifies the ‘Key Attributes’ of the precinct, as follows:
The historic character of the precinct as a retail area The generally simple, low-scale and remarkably intact example of a utilitarian form from the period of its construction. Taken as a whole, the Market and its component buildings are substantially intact in its 1923 form.
The visual dominance of the Queen Victoria Market in the surrounding area 105. The full citation for the precinct, as included at Annexure B, in addition includes a table or schedule of properties in the precinct. The table identifies the gradings of the properties, including streetscape gradings, and provides a description of the properties. The descriptions are not reproduced here, although the property gradings are.
Comment
106. With regard to the level of heritage protection afforded by the HOs, this is consistent with all such places in the City of Melbourne and dependent upon location, development would be subject to the provisions of Clauses 22.04 Heritage Places Within the Capital City Zone. Equally, final decisions on development would be determined after consideration of all relevant overlay controls and broader strategic planning policy and objectives.
107. Matters for consideration in the heritage controls and policy context include podium heights, setbacks to taller built form, the height and overall form of new development, and street walls and facades. As relevant to height and setback considerations, these include:
Objectives
. To conserve and enhance all heritage places, and ensure that any alterations or extensions to them are undertaken in accordance with accepted conservation standards.
. To conserve and enhance the character and appearance of precincts identified as heritage places by ensuring that any new development complements their character, scale, form and appearance. Policy
LOVELL CHEN 40
The following matters shall be taken into account when considering applications for buildings, works or demolition to heritage places as identified in the Heritage Overlay:
. All development affecting a heritage precinct should enhance the character of the precinct as described by the following statements of significance.
. Regard shall be given to buildings listed A, B, C and D or significant and/or contributory in the individual conservation studies, and their significance as described by their individual Building Identification Sheet 108. In considering redevelopment within HO7, other aspects of the heritage policy, as related to demolition and the nature and scale of redevelopment, will also be relevant. 109. In considering the interface of these controls with DPO11, the statement of significance and list of key attributes for the Queens Victoria Market Precinct is in many respects largely silent in relation to the area south of the market. The focus of the statement is on the market itself with little or no reference to its setting. In this context, and subject to the specific development proposal put forward, the provisions of DPO11 do not present as in conflict with the local heritage values of HO7.
Mandatory versus discretionary heights 110. The proposed DPO11 Schedule requirements identify maximum podium heights which ‘must’ not be exceeded, and minimum podium heights which ‘should’ be adhered to. Setbacks to the taller building components behind use similarly prescriptive language.
Comment 111. The Planning Practice Notes address mandatory provisions under Note 59, ‘The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes’ and Note 60, ‘Height and setback controls for activity centres’. PPN59 sets out the basis upon which mandatory provisions should be instituted and establishes a number of criteria to be considered in determining whether or not they are appropriate. As a general comment PPN59 notes:
Mandatory provisions will only be considered in circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that discretionary provisions are insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes 112. Further to this, PPN60 also identifies a preference for discretionary rather than mandatory controls:
Mandatory height and setback controls (that is, controls that cannot be exceeded under any circumstances) will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. 113. Circumstances considered to be exceptional include sensitive coastal environments, significant landscape precincts, significant heritage places (‘where other controls are demonstrated to be inadequate to protect unique heritage values’), sites of recognised State significance where height management adds to the significance of the place, and flight paths. The practice note further discusses the justification for such controls by way of built form analysis and the need to demonstrate that discretionary controls would result in ‘unacceptable built form outcomes’.
114. Mandatory heights have also been considered by a number of planning panels and most recently in Melbourne in Amendment C240. The amendment provided for the implementation of a combination of mandatory and discretionary height controls in the heritage listed Bourke Hill precinct, located at the east end of Bourke Street. The focus of many submitters to this panel was that, while height controls were appropriate, mandatory controls were not. The panel concluded that some mandatory controls were justified in the precinct, particularly as related to
LOVELL CHEN 41
the maintenance of the Parliament House setting, sky views and the generally low scale of the heritage precinct. As related to this, it was also noted that Plan Melbourne makes direct reference to the implementation of mandatory height controls in this area.
115. In this regard, Initiative 4.2.3 ‘Protect Unique City Precincts’, Plan Melbourne notes in relation to the QVM
Implement planning provisions that allow for the strategic redevelopment of the Queen Victoria Market and immediate surrounding area that provides for a low scale market that fits within a back drop to the south and south east of higher density development, with appropriate building spacing, commercial and employment opportunities, community infrastructure and community facilities. 116. Having regard to the above discussion the following table summarises my conclusions regarding the appropriateness of mandatory controls.
Table 2 Summary of conclusions on mandatory controls Control Comment
Podiums
Podiums fronting Therry Street and Development Parcels A and B Queen Street north of Franklin The buildings on the south side of Therry Street and the Street should have a minimum east side of Queen Street, north of Franklin Street are podium height of 10 metres and approximately between 6 and 9 metres in height on the must have a maximum podium street frontage. Some are likely to be retained on height of 20 metres. heritage grounds and any new infill development will need to relate to existing façade heights. In this regard the 10 metre minimum, as a discretionary height, is reasonable/appropriate. It is important that where façade retention occurs the 10 metre setback for a tower would still apply notwithstanding that the retained façade may be lower than the 10 metre minimum. The mandatory maximum podium height of 20 metres, in the context of both the QVM and the heritage buildings in these streets, also presents as appropriate. Having regard to the relevant guidelines and the height sensitivity of the area, a mandatory height is supportable. The 20 metres is also at the maximum height which would generally be acceptable from a heritage perspective and there should be no discretion to exceed this height.
Podiums fronting all other streets Development Parcel B should have a minimum podium Regarding Franklin Street (east of Queen Street and on height of 20 metres and must have the south side of Development Parcel B), while this area a maximum podium height of 40 is located within the heritage precinct (HO7), it has been metres. the subject of significant development and has no heritage sensitivity as related to the QVM. Further, with the south side of the street, it increasingly presents as part of the high rise city core.
LOVELL CHEN 42
Control Comment
In this context, the 20 metre minimum podium, as a discretionary height, is acceptable. There is no heritage justification for setting a mandatory maximum podium height of 40 metres. A 40 metre discretionary height could be supported.
Podiums fronting all other streets Development Parcel D should have a minimum podium The heritage sensitivities relating to development on height of 20 metres and must have this parcel will be those arising from the interface with a maximum podium height of 40 the market stores buildings, which Heritage Victoria metres. would in the first instance expect to be retained, including the interface at the east and west ends of the stores, and as abutting the south face of these buildings. The DPO contemplates a 20 to 40 metre high podium abutting the stores at the east and west ends, and tall development abutting the stores on the south side.
Given the low scale of the existing buildings and the relationship of the stores to the QVM, the requirement for Heritage Victoria approval for any development on the registered land, and the heritage policy as related to HO7, the expectation is that the maximum podium heights contemplated by the DPO would be moderated (i.e. reduced to be less than 40m) in this area (abutting the stores at the eastern and western ends). This would also be consistent with the design parameters identified in the schedule to the DPO.
On this basis, the 20 metre minimum podium, as a discretionary height, is acceptable, with this also being subject to the requirement for Heritage Victoria approval; while the mandatory maximum podium height of 40 metres is supported, due to the proximity to the stores.
Regarding development to the south side of the stores, where development occurs on or above the registered land/building the development outcome will again be one which is determined by Heritage Victoria.
The proposed podium heights of Parcel D, outside the more heritage sensitive areas, are less sensitive to heritage considerations. In this context there appears to be no heritage justification for setting a mandatory maximum podium height at 40 metres, although it is accepted that there may be other urban design and amenity considerations which support such an outcome.
Podiums fronting Therry Street and Development Parcel C Queen Street north of Franklin This is already commented on above, whereby a lower Street should have a minimum building of up to 13 metres is preferred over a building podium height of 10 metres and at the maximum height of 20 metres. The lower height would have an outcome which would likely sit more
LOVELL CHEN 43
Control Comment
must have a maximum podium comfortably in the context of the visibility of this height of 20 metres. development from the market to the north, and its relationship to the market stores to the south and south-west. The height could be stated as a discretionary maximum of 13 metres across the whole of Parcel C.
Tower setbacks
Tower setbacks must be at least: It is assumed that the use of the word ‘must’ implies that the following setbacks are mandatory.
Towers fronting all other streets – Development Parcels A and B 10 metres from front of podium. For Therry Street (south side) and Queen Street (east side), a 10 metre minimum setback to towers is acceptable, but in the absence of height settings once beyond the setback there is no heritage justification for the setback to be mandatory. As noted, while clearly the expectation would be that a very tall tower would be set back at least 10 metres, a lower tower may be acceptable from a heritage perspective with a shallower setback.
Towers fronting all other streets – Development Parcel B 10 metres from front of podium. For Franklin Street (east of Queen Street and on the south side of Development Parcel B), a 10 metre minimum setback to towers is acceptable, but there is no heritage justification for the setback to be mandatory.
Towers facing New Franklin Street Development Parcel D – 10 metres behind the northern A mandatory setback to the face of any tower masonry facades of the existing development behind the retained Franklin Street stores stores (but may cantilever over the is supported from a heritage perspective. The preferred rear half of the existing stores). setback in this regard is 15 metres as opposed to the 10 metres proposed in the QVM DPO.
Towers fronting the former Development Parcel D alignment of Franklin Street - 6 This area is not subject to any heritage control and there metres from front of podium. is no heritage justification for the setback to be mandatory.
Side and rear boundaries – 10 There is no heritage justification for the setback to be metres from side and rear mandatory. boundaries
Conclusion 117. As related to heritage considerations Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme provides for development in proximity to the QVM by way of a permit process or under an approved development plan. Subject to the comments within this statement, as summarised
LOVELL CHEN 44
below, the amendment in my assessment appropriately addresses the heritage sensitivities of the QVM and its surrounds.
118. With regard to the determination as to whether or not podium heights and tower setbacks should be mandatory or not, my assessment considers heritage in isolation. In doing so I recognise that there will be other factors which will influence the determination of a final outcome on this issue. 119. Summary of recommended amendments:
Include 501-503 Elizabeth Street within the QVM Precinct subject to the DPO.
Reduce the maximum height of development on Parcel C to 13 metres or the equivalent of 4 levels.
Increase the mandatory setback from the north façade of the Franklin Street stores building to 15 metres.
In preference delete reference to a cantilever over the Franklin Street stores.
LOVELL CHEN 45 Annexure A Victorian Heritage Register, Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance
LOVELL CHEN A 1
A 2 LOVELL CHEN Victorian Heritage Database Report Report generated 06/04/16
QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET
Queen Victoria Market SOHE 2008 1 queen victoria market victoria street queen victoria market victoria street melbourne front view market sheds melboure interior market shed roof detail
queen victoria market victoria street queen victoria market victoria street queen victoria market victoria street melboure peel & victoria street corner melbourne front view of meat market & melbourne side view meat & fish market food hall
new victoria market plan.jpg Queen Vic Market 2.jpg Queen Vic Market 3.jpg
Queen Vic Market 4.jpg Queen Vic Market 5.jpg Queen Vic Market 6.jpg Queen Vic Market 7.jpg Queen Vic Market 8.jpg Queen Vic Market 9.jpg
Queen Vic Market 10.jpg Queen Vic Market 11.jpg Queen Vic Market 12.jpg
Queen Vic Market 13.jpg Queen Vic Market 14.jpg Queen Vic Market 15.jpg
Queen Vic Market 16.jpg Queen Vic Market 17.jpg Queen Vic Market 18.jpg
Queen Vic Market 19.jpg Queen Vic Market 20.jpg Queen Vic Market 21.jpg Queen Vic Market 22.jpg Queen Vic Market 23.jpg Queen Vic Market 24.jpg
Queen Vic Market 25.jpg Queen Vic Market 1.jpg
vic market plan.jpg
Location
65-159 VICTORIA STREET WEST MELBOURNE, MELBOURNE CITY Municipality
MELBOURNE CITY
Level of significance
Registered
Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) Number
H0734
Heritage Overlay Numbers
HO496
VHR Registration
May 3, 1989
Amendment to Registration
May 17, 2012
Heritage Listing
Victorian Heritage Register
Statement of Significance
Last updated on - October 11, 1999 What is significant? The Queen Victoria Market comprises two separate blocks: a western rectangular block bound by Franklin, Peel, Victoria and Queen Streets, known as the Upper Market; and the eastern triangular block bound by Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth and Therry Streets, known as the Lower Market. The market began operating in 1859, and progressively acquired the Old Melbourne Cemetery site to allow for its expansion. The Market comprises the Meat Market (1869), Sheds A-F (1878), Sheds H and I (1878), Sheds K and L (1923), Elizabeth Street Stores, Victoria Street Shops (1887, 1891, and 1923), Dairy Produce Hall (1928), Franklin Street Stores (1929-1930), M Shed (1936), John Batman Memorial (1881), and the site of the Old Melbourne Cemetery (1837-1917). In 1837, ten acres of land bound by Peel, Fulton, Queen and Franklin Streets were set aside for the purposes of establishing a cemetery for the growing township of Melbourne; the Melbourne Cemetery was officially gazetted in 1839. The cemetery site was surveyed by Robert Hoddle, and divided into seven sections: Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Jewish, Independent, and the Society of Friends. The Society of Friends' (Quaker) section was soon divided in half, to accommodate a section for Aboriginal burials. Concerns about the cemetery's proximity to the increasingly populated areas of the city, led to its closure in 1854, following the opening in the previous year of the Melbourne General Cemetery in Carlton. Despite the closure those who had claims on family plots continued to be interred in the Cemetery until 1917. An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 people were buried at the site from 1837 to 1917. In March 1859, the Melbourne Town Council was granted the eastern triangular block for use as a market. The earliest surviving building is the wholesale Meat Market building. In 1874 it also began operating as a meat and produce retail market, and Sheds H and I were built for use by fruit and vegetable growers. The market was granted permission to take over some of the cemetery land under legislation in 1877, and following the exhumation of 45 burials, Sheds A-F were constructed in 1878. The market was officially opened as the 'Queen Victoria Market' in March of that same year. Sheds A-E were open on all sides with each divided by a service roadway, and Shed F was constructed with a brick wall on its southern side which divided the market from the remainder of the cemetery. Two-storey terrace shop buildings constructed along Elizabeth and Victoria Streets in 1884 and 1887 respectively, provided a 'public' face to the market. Additional shops were also constructed on Victoria Street between 1890 and 1905. Legislation in 1917 provided for the remainder of the cemetery land to be acquired for market purposes. The final burial took place in 1917, and as part of the transition from cemetery to market, 914 bodies are known to have been exhumed and relocated from 1920 to 1922. Developments from this time included the construction of Sheds K and L in the Upper Market in 1923 and in the Lower Market the Dairy Produce Hall in 1928 which provided dairy producers with dedicated accommodation. On the Upper Market site, the Market Square development of 1929-1930 provided storage for market traders and merchants in two rows of sixty brick stores. This development, of which only the Franklin Street Stores survive, enclosed the market site along Franklin Street, and resulted in the market taking over the last of the former cemetery land. Shed M was constructed in 1936 on the Upper Market site. The John Batman Memorial, in the north-east of the carpark, was erected by public subscription in 1881. While no longer in its original location, the memorial recognises John Batman who was buried in the cemetery in 1839, with his remains relocated to Fawkner Cemetery in 1922. In more recent years some of the buildings have been renovated to accommodate the changing needs of market stall holders and shoppers. The Queen Victoria Market is on the traditional land of the Kulin Nation. How is it significant? The Queen Victoria Market is of historical, archaeological, social, architectural and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria. Why is it significant? The Queen Victoria Market is of historical significance as one of the great nineteenth century markets of Victoria and the only one surviving from a group of important central markets built by the corporation of the City of Melbourne. It is also of historical significance for remaining in operation from the 1870s. The Queen Victoria Market is of historical significance as the site of Melbourne's first official cemetery, which was in use between 1837 and 1854, and intermittently from 1854 until its final closure in 1917. The former cemetery site is of archaeological significance because it contains an estimated 6,500 to 9,000 burials. The site has the potential to yield information about the early population of Melbourne, including the Aboriginal and European communities, and their burial practices and customs. The Queen Victoria Market is of social significance for its ongoing role and continued popularity as a fresh meat and vegetable market, shopping and meeting place for Victorians and visitors alike. The Queen Victoria Market is of architectural significance for its remarkably intact collection of purpose built nineteenth and early twentieth century market buildings, which demonstrate the largely utilitarian style adopted for historic market places. The Elizabeth Street and Victoria Street terraces are of aesthetic significance for their distinctive demonstration of an attempt to create a more appealing 'public' street frontage and increase revenue by enclosing the market and concealing the stalls behind a row of nineteenth century shops.'
Permit Exemptions
General Conditions: 1. All exempted alterations are to be planned and carried out in a manner which prevents damage to the fabric of the registered place or object. General Conditions: 2. Should it become apparent during further inspection or the carrying out of works that original or previously hidden or inaccessible details of the place or object are revealed which relate to the significance of the place or object, then the exemption covering such works shall cease and Heritage Victoria shall be notified as soon as possible. General Conditions: 3. If there is a conservation policy and plan , all works shall be in accordance with it. Note: . It may not be necessary to obtain a heritage permit for certain works specified in the management plan. General Conditions: 4. Nothing in this determination prevents the Executive Director from amending or rescinding all or any of the permit exemptions. General Conditions: 5. Nothing in this determination exempts owners or their agents from the responsibility to seek relevant planning or building permits from the responsible authorities where applicable. Minor Works : Note: Any Minor Works that in the opinion of the Executive Director will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place may be exempt from the permit requirements of the Heritage Act. A person proposing to undertake minor works must submit a proposal to the Executive Director. If the Executive Director is satisfied that the proposed works will not adversely affect the heritage values of the site, the applicant may be exempted from the requirement to obtain a heritage permit. If an applicant is uncertain whether a heritage permit is required, it is recommended that the permits co-ordinator be contacted. Specific Exemptions: Alterations to the non-registered buildings or structures on the registered land are permit exempt; however any additions or construction of new structures will require a permit. Surface and above-surface works to the former cemetery site (which do not include subsurface disturbance or the installation of new structures) are permit exempt. Works to the internal features (which do not involve a subsurface component) of both the Meat Market building and Franklin Street Stores at 154-190 Franklin Street are permit exempt. .Permit exempt works as defined in the Guidelines for Food Stalls in Sheds A, B, H and I (QVM October 2011) [Document in Attachments]
Construction dates 1868,
Architect/Designer Salway, William,
Heritage Act Categories Heritage place, Archaeological place,
Melbourne's first General Cemetery, OLD MELBOURNE CEMETERY, Other Names QUEEN VIC MARKET, VIC MARKET,
Hermes Number 1211
Property Number
History
Contextual History:History of Place:
Much of the Queen Victoria Market site was originally occupied by the first Melbourne Cemetery. It closed in 1867, the land eventually being acquired by the Melbourne City Council for extensions to the market. The market began in the meat market building in the irregular eastern block bounded by Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth and Therry Streets in 1869. There have been numerous extensions and renovations over the years, but most of the original fabric remains intact, as do many of the market’s original functions. The Queen Victoria Market is the last of Melbourne’s great markets, the Eastern, Western and Flinders Street Fish markets all having been demolished. The market was the principal wholesale market for fresh fruit and vegetables from 1878 to 1975 and remains a popular source of fresh produce, while also becoming an important leisure and tourism destination. Associated People:
Extent of Registration
1. All the land marked L1 on Diagram 734 held by the Executive Director being all of Crown Allotments 5, 6, and 7, Section F Parish of Melbourne North, Township of Melbourne at West Melbourne. 2. All of the buildings marked as follows on Diagram 734 held by the Executive Director: B1 Meat Market B2 Shops at 507-523 Elizabeth Street B3 Dairy Hall B4 Shops at 65-81 Victoria Street (between Elizabeth and Queen Streets) B5 Shops at 83- 159 Victoria Street (between Queen and Peel Streets) B6 Shed A B7 Shed B B8 Shed C B9 Shed D B10 Shed E B11 Shed F B12 Shed H B13 Shed I B14 Sheds K and L B15 Shed M B16 Franklin Street Stores at 154-190 Franklin Street F1 John Batman Memorial This place/object may be included in the Victorian Heritage Register pursuant to the Heritage Act 1995. Check the Victorian Heritage Database, selecting 'Heritage Victoria' as the place data owner. For further details about Heritage Overlay places, contact the relevant local council or go to Planning Schemes Onlinehttp://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/
Annexure B Queen Victoria Market Precinct (HO7) Statement of Significance
LOVELL CHEN A 1
A 2 LOVELL CHEN QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET PRECINCT (HO7)
Address Refer schedule Date/period 1869 onwards/mostly Victorian and Interwar Building type Commercial Grading Refer schedule
Meat Hall, 1869 Meat Hall with 1884 façade
65-81 Victoria St Sheds K + L, Queen St
Significance
What is Significant? The land and all the buildings located on the Queen Victoria Market site and bound by Peel Street (west), Victoria Parade (north), Elizabeth Street (east), as well as Therry and Franklin Streets (south). This includes the meat and dairy halls, substation to Therry Street, all the sheds (A-F and H-M), the shops to Elizabeth Street (nos 507-523) and Victoria Street (nos 65-159) and the stores to Franklin Street (nos 160-196).
In addition, several adjacent and nearby shops:
the east side of Elizabeth Street between Therry and Victoria Streets (nos 510-16); east side of Queen Street between Franklin and Therry Streets (nos 422-460); the south side of Therry Street between Queen and Elizabeth Streets (nos 93-141); and two earlier, 19th century warehouses in Franklin Street (nos 126-130 and 132-140).
How is it Significant? The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of historic, social and aesthetic significance to the City of Melbourne.
Why is it Significant? The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of historic and social significance as Melbourne's premier market in operation for over 130 years (since the late 1870s), with origins dating back to 1859. It is the last surviving 19th century market established by the City of Melbourne, and has been an important hub of social life in the city. The 79 Meat Hall, the oldest extant building, was constructed in 1869. It is one of the earliest, purpose-built market complexes in Australia, with its single span roof only the second of its type when erected. The market has evolved throughout its history in line with changing requirements, with several phases of expansion. (AHC Criteria A4, B2 and G1)
The Queen Victoria Market precinct is of aesthetic significance as a fine example of a Victorian era market which retains much of its original 19th century fabric intact. Its present configuration is largely that which was established by the end of the Interwar period. Architecturally, there is a mixture of utilitarian buildings – the sheds – and more elaborate brick buildings, with the most exuberant being the 1884 façade of the Meat Hall, by noted architect William Salway. The later but more intact Dairy Produce Hall (1929) features a distinctive Georgian Revival style to the upper part of the façade in combination with Art Deco style to the lower part (canopy, tiling and shop fronts).The groups of shops to Victoria and Elizabeth Streets are rare examples of such extensive, intact rows of Victorian period commercial buildings, as are the Interwar period shops to Franklin Street. (AHC Criteria E1)
80 QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET PRECINCT (HO7) SCHEDULE
Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
Shops 506-16 Elizabeth C1 1922/ By the end of the 19th century, there was limited development on this land. Constructed as showrooms, Street, Melbourne office and shops, the verandah was added in 1923. Interwar 2 storey shops, red brick with stuccoed bands. The parapet steps down from the Victoria Street corner, which features a tower element with a flagpole, and the façade is divided into bays with Tuscan Order pilasters. Modern, sliding aluminium-framed windows replaced earlier multi-paned types. Several elaborate stained glass windows (with Art Nouveau style glass with panels and sinuous floral motifs) survive at the north end, though one of the distinctive burnished frame with arched entry (to a pair of shops) also survives at the southern end. Part of major Interwar development phase creating a consistent streetscape on the square opposite the entry to the market.
Shops 507-523 Elizabeth St, C1 1884/ 2 storey shops in two groups of four, separated by pedimented arched way with a cast iron verandah, Melbourne which have been reinstated, extending across the group. The walls have a grey stuccoed finish with tooled Victorian lines. To the first floor, the pairs of windows are set in recessed arches with a keystone and are separated by pilasters with Tuscan Order capitals. The pilasters flanking each shop extend to the simple entablature with brackets and there are orbs to the parapet. At ground level, the early metal-framed shopfronts with a brass/burnished finish (the manufacturer's name is difficult to determine) are largely intact with recessed entries, and stained glass and leadlight in a lozenge and diamond pattern above (two types are evident). Some also have a band with rectangles and a central panel (south end). Designed by William Salway and built by Kinnaird & McMullen for about £7000. The shop at the southern corner with a timber shop front was originally a post office.
Meat Hall 525 Elizabeth Street, A1 1869 A large, double height building and centre piece of the market. . Initially setback with a plainer façade Melbourne (façade treatment (similar to the extension at the western end, Queen St), constructed by P. Cunningham for about 1884)/
81 Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
Victorian £3,800. The extant façade was added by William Salway in 1884. These works were undertaken by Kinnaird & McMullen for about £3300. The stuccoed façade has paired Giant Order pilasters on tall pedestals, arched thermal windows, and recessed sections, some with doorways. The pediment has smaller pilasters, a central raked section with tympanum (concealing the lantern), bottled balustrading and orbs. The bas-relief in the tympanum features various animals and was the work of sculptor, John Simpson McKennel. Sections of the original bi-chrome treatment and arcading to the side walls are visible. A small goods section was added to the west end (Queen Street) in 1906, however the current western extension dates to the 1980s. It has a wider façade than at the east end because of the differing relationship to the street. There were initially five doorways with timber doors to the façade, the outer two of which have been infilled.
Warehouse 126-130 Franklin D3 1878-1881/ 3 storey, masonry warehouse with basalt plinth and stuccoed façade, which appears to have been recently (Former Gladstone Street, Melbourne renewed without tooled lines. The façade consists of three separate bays, each with three windows. There Victorian Buildings) are cornices at each level, with the most prominent (with brackets) being to the first floor. To the rear the basalt plinth, extended at the curved corners, and face brickwork is intact as are most of the original window openings. Probably constructed by the owner/builder, A.G. Corbett, in a series of stages. Initially nos 128+130 (originally 18-20 Franklin St West) were built in 1878 and 1879 as 2 storey sections. In 1880, no. 126 (originally 16 Franklin St West) was built as a 3 storey section. In 1881, 3rd storey to nos 128+130 was added (Burchett Index nos: 7464, 8033, 8461 + 8659).
Warehouse Rear128-130Franklin C2 1882/ 2 storey, red brick warehouse, with a gable roof. Constructed by owner/builder A G Corbett (Burchett Street, Melbourne Victorian Index, no. 9361).
Former Gordon & 132-140 Franklin D3 1898/ Designed by architects F. Crook & N. Barnet and constructed by Clements Langford. An early image Gotch warehouse Street, Melbourne shows that all the front openings were blocked up except the eastern despatch area (UMA/1/2358). It has Victorian (Concord House) been partly altered by introduction of the central entry and the additional storey, probably added in 1968. The originally single storey warehouse has a rock-faced basalt plinth with red brick walls, now painted.
82 Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
There are six bays, four with pairs of windows. Bullnose bricks have been used extensively to the openings and the panels below the windows, and the basement windows have been blocked up. The rear elevation is largely intact and features pairs of blind niches (mirroring the windows to the front). Some early openings have filled in or altered.
Warehouses 160-176 and 180-196 C2 1930/ Two groups of single storey warehouses, which have a panelled parapet with curved profile to the main Franklin Street, façade (south) and a rectangular parapet to the secondary façade (north). Originally there were four Interwar Melbourne windows to the gable roof to the north elevation, above the verandah, but these have been filled in/boarded over. Pilasters are also barely visible above the broad canopies with panelled edges. The upper part of the walls has a stucco finish and the lower part is of red brick. The south elevation typically has large, central, paired timber doors with a flanking, multi-paned window either side, many of which have sheeting or bars over. . Part of major Interwar development phase creating a consistent streetscape. There had been another row of similar warehouses to the north.
Sheds A-E Peel Street, Melbourne A1 1878, 1905 The first stage was constructed by James Thurgood of Hotham. They have been extended in several (west part stages. Shed C, which was initially slightly shorter, was extended to Peel Street by 1894. All sheds were A-C), 1922 extended to Queen Street in 1903, sheds A+ B were extended to Peel Street in 1905, and sheds D to F (east part were extended to Peel Street in 1922. The extensions at the west end (Peel St) are demarcated by wider D-E) overhangs. Plain gable ends are clad with timber boards to the sheds, alternating with a more decorative timber pediment. A verandah extends in front with cast iron columns with a plain shaft and a decorative fringe in front of a metal fascia. The roof is steel-framed and has a cantilever with bracket and a bracing frieze extends between the capitals. Due to the slope of the site, the roof is configured in stepped sections with steel trusses and clad in corrugated metal sheeting with some translucent panels. There are curved brackets to the outer edges. The large timber posts generally have a pyramidal basalt pad footing, though these are often largely obscured by asphalt paving, and a curvilinear capital/bracket in between the beams that extend along the length of the sheds, all with chamfered edges. Part of early phase of development at the market.
83 Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
Shed F Peel Street, Melbourne A1 Wall 1878 & The wall formed part of the boundary of the Old Melbourne Cemetery. sheds Thomas Walker was engaged in 1877 to construct the attached shed for £2,197. The shed was initially open and individual stalls may have been introduced circa 1890, by which time it was being used for dairy products. It was extended to Peel Street (red brick section) in 1922. The eastern two-thirds have bi-chrome (brown and cream) brick walls with blind, segmental arches on the south side and the shops on the north side. Part of early phase of development at the market.
Shed H-I Queen Street, A1 1878 SimilartoShedsAtoE,althoughshedHappearstobethemostintact(orpossiblyearlier).Initiallylonger, Melbourne they were truncated during the 1920s to allow for the introduction of the Dairy Produce Hall. There had been a third shed adjacent to the meat hall, shed G, which was built 1904/5 (probably transferred from the Eastern Market) and demolished 1980-82 to allow for expansion of meat market.
Shed J PeelStreet,Melbourne D1 1992 Thisareahadbeenaroadway.Thisstructureisclearlyidentifiableasarecentinsertion.Ithasconcrete piers with steel poles, a fully glazed lantern, and a segmental arch canopy at either end.
Sheds K + L Peel Street, Melbourne A1 1923/ These two sheds have a basilica-like configuration of three gable roofs, consisting of a larger central gable with lantern sections, and smaller, outer gables. The timber-framed walls of the clerestory of the main Interwar gable, and those of the central lantern with arched roof, have multi-paned windows alternating with louvered sections. There are steel supports to these sheds and a central arched entry at either end. . Part of major Interwar period of expansion.
Shed M PeelStreet,Melbourne C1 1936 Builtin1936forpeaandbeanmerchants.Aconcretefloorabout30cmthickwasinstalledtokeepproduce dry. It is one of three sheds of similar length that was constructed at this stage, however the other two, which were wider, have since been demolished (sheds N + O). and is a marker of the Interwar development phase. This shed is narrower, more modest, steel-framed structure than the nearby sheds. Enclosed sections at either end have full-height roller-doors and currently there are several container-pods installed in the intermediate area.
84 Toilet Block Queen Street D2 c.1920/Early Red brick, with the original, central section having a plinth and gable roof, now obscured. Windows are Interwar four-paned, timber hoppers to both long elevations (east and west) and a timber door survives on the west (near Therry Street) side. The building has been extended to both the north and south ends and encircling verandah/canopy installed.
Shop 422-428 Queen Street, C2 1964/Post 2 storey, distinctive design with bands of canted windows to the first floor. Remarkably intact. Probably built Melbourne war for the Globe Tyre Co. [Refer K Jalla image of 1966, SLV, no. H36133/220).
Warehouse 432-438 Queen Street, C2 c1915/ 2 storey, stuccoed pediment, flanked by simple piers, metal-framed windows to first floor. Non-original Melbourne verandah with lacework and fluted columns added since 1985 though remains largely intact. Federation
Shop 440-444 Queen Street, D2 1955/Post 2 storey, first floor windows obscured. Melbourne war
Shop 446-450 Queen Street, D2 1932(?)/ Single storey, altered in 1932, but may partly date to an earlier period. Brick walls, now painted. It has a Melbourne broad parapet with an upper soldier course in a dogtooth format. Wide cantilevered canopy. Modern Interwar aluminium-framed openings.
Shops 452-54 Queen Street, C2 1935/ Single storey with wider southern shop and narrower, northern garage. Face, clinker brick with, soldier Melbourne coursing to plinth and upper part of parapet. Pilasters have stucco finish and band above window, (part of Munro's Interwar scalloped to upper and lower margins. Intact and part of major Interwar development phase creating a Corner) consistent streetscape.
Produce Hall 50-60 Therry Street, B1 1928/ An eclectic building with the upper level possessing principal characteristics of Georgian Revival style Melbourne design in the vein of Sir John Soane. It is red brick with a prominent cornice and has three large arched Interwar windows to the central bay, flanked by a small rectangular window to each recessed, side bay. The multi- paned, metal-framed windows have moulded, stucco aedicules. The sawtooth roof however has timber- framed windows. Detailing below is more representative of the Art Deco style, including the awning with original metal sheeting, and the façade, which is clad with speckled tiles, including plinth and those to the entries. The original burnished shop fronts (Federal brand) survive with decorative glass (leadlight in geometric design). Internally, many original elements also survive.
Substation 70-74 Therry Street, C1 1928/ The red brick building has a similar façade treatment as the upper part of the adjacent Produce Hall, with a Melbourne cornice and series of stuccoed, blind arched niches. It has been extended to the west end without the Interwar same detailing. Part of major Interwar period of development.
85 Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
Shops 93-141 Therry Street, C2 Interwar Extensive repair works were undertaken following a fire in 1945. There are 2 sections, nos 97-135 & 137- Melbourne 141. Both parts are two storey red brick. The main section has stucco parapet and multi-paned windows, though in varying rhythms and many covered by roller shutters. The smaller western end has steel-framed windows, some with hoppers and a wide entry with double doors. The shop fronts generally have textured bricks and timber-framed windows and may date to the mid-1940s. Part of major Interwar development phase creating a consistent streetscape.
Munro's Corner 143-151 Therry Street, C2 1935/ Two storey, with glazed infill section at southern end. Similar detailing as nos 452-54 (soldier coursing and Melbourne stucco band with scalloped margins). Multi-paned windows and French doors to first floor. Variety of Interwar opening types to ground floor shops. Prominent corner location, largely intact and and part of major Interwar development phase creating a consistent streetscape.
Shops 65-81 Victoria Street, A1 1889/ Designed by the City Surveyor's department, these were built by R. C. Brocon. Melbourne Victorian They have slate clad roofs, chimneys and timber brackets to the chamfered corner at the western end. There is bi-chrome brickwork to the first floor, with cream bricks employed to the cornice, frieze and string mouldings. The ground floor façade has a stucco finish and consists of shop fronts and doorways to the first floor. The shop fronts have arched windows to the upper part and several decorative features including capitals, leafs to spandrels and a guilloche pattern to the lintel. Some early painted signage also survives. The façade has been improved by the removal of paint to the first floor and reinstatement of the cast iron verandahs. They form part of an extensive and intact, Victorian era streetscape.
Shops (21) 83-129 Victoria Street, A1 1889-90/ Designed by the City Surveyor's department, these were built in two stages: east part (12 shops) by R. R. Melbourne Vincent (1889) and western part (9 shops) by J. R. Allen (1890). They are single storey with slate clad Victorian roofs, partly concealed by the distinctive parapet with circles. The walls are bi-chrome brick with cream brick employed to the cornices and some stuccoed elements (capitals and brackets). Remnants of black pointing are evident to the shaft of the pilasters. The shops have central recessed entries with French doors and a guilloche pattern to the lintel. Original shop fronts have arched window frames with capitals and decorative brackets to the spandrels (possibly cast iron). The shops are distinguished by both front and rear entries and the verandahs have been replaced. and now form part of an extensive and intact, Victorian era streetscape..
86 Name Address Date/ Description Grading Period
Shops 133-159 Victoria Street C1 1923/ The detailing of this group at the corner of Peel Street differs from the adjacent shops along Victoria Street, including verandahs which were constructed later. The plain parapet has a stucco finish and the Interwar rectangular windows have smaller panes to the upper part and a stucco lintel above which extends across the façade. Part of major Interwar period of development.
87