CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3
PANEL REPORT
JULY 2006
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3
PANEL REPORT
ELIZABETH JACKA, CHAIR
HELEN MARTIN, MEMBER
JULY 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY...... 1
2. WHAT IS PROPOSED? ...... 3 2.1 CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME – HERITAGE OVERLAY ...... 3 2.2 THE AMENDMENT...... 3 3. STRATEGIC CONTEXT...... 5 3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 5 3.1.1 LEGISLATED PRINCIPLES ...... 5 3.1.2 SPPF...... 5 3.1.3 LPPF...... 6 3.1.4 HERITAGE GUIDELINES & PLANNING PRACTICE NOTE...... 8 3.1.5 CAMPERDOWN HERITAGE STUDY ...... 11 3.2 STATUTORY PLANNING FRAMEWORK...... 12 3.2.1 HERITAGE OVERLAY...... 12 3.2.2 SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY ...... 12 4. ISSUES ...... 13 4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS...... 13 4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL ...... 13 5. MAPPING OF HERITAGE ITEMS ON RURAL LAND HOLDINGS ...... 14 5.1 BACKGROUND ...... 14 5.2 SUBMISSIONS...... 16 5.2.1 HO41 – EDDINGTON HOMESTEAD ...... 16 5.2.2 HO56 – GALA HOMESTEAD...... 16 5.2.3 HO104 AND HO118 – TALINDERT HOMESTEAD AND HOLM OAK ...... 17 5.2.4 HO65 AND HO129 – TITANGA HORSE TROUGH AND HOMESTEAD ...... 17 5.2.5 HO22 AND HO86 – CRAIGBURN HOMESTEAD AND OLD TIMBOON BURIAL SITE/SIEVWRIGHT GRAVE...... 18 5.3 DISCUSSION...... 18 5.3.1 PLACES ON THE VICTORIAN HERITAGE REGISTER ...... 21 5.3.2 THE EXTENT AND ACCURACY OF THE MAPPING...... 21 6. MAPPING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ...... 26 6.1 LAKE TIMBOON SETTLEMENT HISTORIC SITE (HO72) ...... 26 6.2 DISCUSSION...... 26 7. MAPPING OF PRECINCTS...... 30 7.1 PRECINCTS IN THE CAMPERDOWN HERITAGE STUDY...... 30 7.2 MANIFOLD STREET CONSERVATION PRECINCT...... 30 7.3 MOUNT LEURA CONSERVATION PRECINCT...... 32 7.4 ST PAUL’S ANGLICAN CHURCH COMPLEX...... 33 8. OTHER MAPPING ISSUES...... 35 8.1 MAPPING HERITAGE PLACES IN TOWNSHIPS ...... 35 8.1.1 STONE BAKEHOUSE, LISMORE (HO114)...... 35 8.1.2 TEAPOT COTTAGE, CAMPERDOWN (HO157)...... 36 8.2 ADDITIONAL MAPPING CORRECTIONS ...... 36 8.3 AMENDMENT MAPPING APPROACH ...... 37
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006
9. PROPOSED NEW HERITAGE PLACES...... 38 9.1 ‘GLENORA’, 8 WARE STREET, CAMPERDOWN (HO201)...... 38 9.2 INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PLACES IN THE HERITAGE OVERLAY ...... 38 10. CORRECTIONS TO THE SCHEDULE ...... 39
11. CHANGES TO THE MSS AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY...... 41
12. PRIVACY AND OTHER MATTERS ...... 42 12.1 IMPACT OF THE OVERLAY ON PRIVACY ...... 42 12.2 FUTURE WORK...... 42 13. CONCLUSIONS...... 44
14. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45
APPENDICES
A. THE PANEL PROCESS THE PANEL HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS SUBMISSIONS
B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 1
1. SUMMARY
Amendment C3 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme proposes changes to the Heritage Overlay, plus related amendments to the MSS, Clause 22.02-5 (which relates to Natural & Cultural Heritage), and to Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 1 (Volcanic Landscape Area) and Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (Botanic Gardens). The Amendment seeks to implement recommendations of the Camperdown Heritage Study by including some 61 heritage places in Camperdown in the Overlay. The Amendment also seeks to show on the Planning Scheme maps a large number of places currently listed in the Heritage Overlay Schedule, but which are not mapped at present. A number of corrections are also proposed to the Overlay Schedule and maps. The proposed changes to the MSS and Clause 22.02-5 comprise insertion of objectives, strategies and implementation measures relating to cultural heritage in the MSS, and conservation policies and decision guidelines based on recommendations of the Camperdown Heritage Study in Clause 22.02-5.
Eleven submissions were received in relation to the Amendment and only two related to inclusion of new places in the Schedule. Seven of the remaining submissions related to places that are currently listed in the Schedule and are either not mapped or are incorrectly mapped, and five of these related to rural properties.
The main issue with the Amendment related to mapping heritage items on rural properties. The exhibited Amendment mapped the entire extent of properties included in the Overlay Schedule, which in many cases involved very large pastoral properties. Application of the Overlay to the full extent of these rural properties raised concerns about the impact of the overlay on farming operations by adding costs, delays and uncertainty in relation to normal farm management activities. Following exhibition of the Amendment, and in response to submissions the Council adopted a different approach to mapping heritage items on rural land holdings. Revised maps were provided to the Panel hearing that limited the Heritage Overlay on these properties to an indicative area enclosing the homestead or other listed heritage item, and a limited curtilage. These revised maps had been circulated to the property owners prior to the Panel hearing and only one landowner had made comment – expressing support for the revised mapping approach.
In general, the Panel accepts the Council’s revised approach to mapping heritage places on rural properties. The Panel considers that the Council has taken a practical approach to what is likely to be a very complex, and potentially time consuming and costly mapping exercise. However, the Panel notes that whilst the VPP Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay does suggest that mapping on large holdings can be confined to the heritage item and immediate surrounds, it does also suggest that: The wording to describe the Heritage Place in the schedule should be specific to identify the area covered by the overlay control.
The Panel therefore considers that the indicative mapping should be accompanied by a detailed description of the heritage items included in the schedule, once this information is available.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 2
The Panel notes that the Shire of Corangamite contains some of the most significant heritage places in the State. In particular, the Shire forms part of Victoria’s Western District and contains important evidence of the early settlement of Victoria and remnants of the large pastoral runs and grand houses of the squatters. The remnants of Koori occupation, the volcanic landscapes and the endangered grasslands in the Shire are also culturally significant.
There has been no Shire-wide heritage study and whilst the Camperdown Heritage Study provides an excellent start to recording the heritage assets of the Shire, much more work needs to be done. In particular, the Panel considers that work needs to be done to record the nature of the heritage significance of rural properties and the heritage items on those properties. The Panel considers that the heritage significance of these places may extend well beyond the ‘homestead’ building. Without an understanding of the heritage significance of the place, ie whether its significance relates to the architecture of the homestead, the association of the place with a particular person, or the role of the place in the history of pastoral settlement in Victoria, it is difficult to determine the appropriate setting or context of the ‘homestead’ and the extent of the property that should be included in the Overlay area. In some cases mapping of the whole property and application of an Incorporated Plan may be a more appropriate approach to protecting the heritage assets on the site.
The Council does propose to include as a cultural heritage strategy the completion of a Shire-wide heritage study and the Panel strongly supports this strategy.
The Panel’s overall conclusions in relation to the Amendment are: That the Camperdown Heritage Study provides appropriate justification for inclusion of the additional heritage places in the Heritage Overlay, as proposed by the Amendment; That the Council’s endeavours to map existing heritage places listed in the Heritage Overlay Schedule is an initiative that should be given strong support; That the Council’s revised approach to indicative mapping of heritage items on rural and other properties is a practical approach to the task, but that more detailed descriptions of the heritage places should be included in the schedule, once this information is available; That the revised Amendment maps and schedule submitted to the Panel hearing should be adopted by the Council, with the changes recommended by the Panel. That the changes to the MSS and Clause 22.02 proposed by the Amendment are appropriate and should be adopted by the Council; That the proposed Shire-wise heritage study should be given high priority by the Council, and that external financial assistance for this work should be sought, if this is available; and That the Council should investigate the feasibility of carrying out a joint Thematic Environmental History of the Western District with the other Western District Shires.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 3
2. WHAT IS PROPOSED?
2.1 CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME – HERITAGE OVERLAY
The Corangamite Planning Scheme currently applies the Heritage Overlay to 140 places listed in the Schedule. Listings appear to be derived from a number of sources, including pre-existing planning schemes, the recommendations of the Land Conservation Council, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), the Register of the National Estate and the Victorian Heritage Register.
A large number of the places, particularly homesteads or other places on rural properties and significant trees are not shown on the planning scheme maps.
Prior to local government amalgamation, the Town of Camperdown had commissioned a heritage study of the township and this project was continued under Corangamite Shire. Volume 1, dealing with places identified as being of State significance and/or worthy of listing on the Register of the National Estate, was published in 1995. Volume 2, which identifies places of local historic significance, was published in 1998.
The study forms the basis for the addition of places to the Heritage Overlay in the Corangamite Planning Scheme.
There is no systematic heritage study covering the remaining areas of Corangamite Shire and no thematic environmental history has yet been produced.
2.2 THE AMENDMENT
Amendment C3 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme applies to 212 individual places, including existing and proposed heritage items within Corangamite Shire. The amendment proposes to revise the policy statements in the planning scheme that relate to heritage conservation and to apply the Heritage Overlay to individual buildings identified in the Camperdown Heritage Study.
In particular, the Amendment: Includes individual places recommended for protection within the schedule to the Heritage Overlay and on the planning scheme maps; Deletes from Camperdown’s Manifold Street Conservation Precinct those items that are to be listed individually; Amends the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and a number of local planning provisions to provide conservation policies and guidance based on the recommendations of the Camperdown Heritage Study (Volumes 1 & 2) and advice from Council’s heritage adviser; Shows on the planning scheme maps those places listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay that are not mapped at present;
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 4
Removes from the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay and from the planning scheme mapping those places – Mt Leura Reserve and Mt Sugarloaf - covered by Schedule 1 – Volcanic Landscape Area – to the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO); and Removes from the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay a number of places that are located outside Corangamite Shire.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 5
3. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK
This section identifies the existing strategic context within which issues associated with Amendment C3 must be considered, together with any proposed changes to it.
The relevant documents that provide the context for considering Amendment C3 are as follows: The objectives of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF); Corangamite Planning Scheme – Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF); The Local Government Heritage Guidelines (Department of Planning & Housing 1991) and the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) Planning Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay (February 1999); and The Camperdown Heritage Study – Volume 1 (1995) and Volume 2 (1998).
The relevant policies are briefly summarised below.
3.1.1 LEGISLATED PRINCIPLES
The Planning & Environment Act 1987 contains an objective at 4[1] [b]: To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas and other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.
3.1.2 SPPF
Clause 15.11 provides for the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance or other special value important for scientific or research purposes.
The general implementation provisions of this clause require planning authorities to identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. Places to be protected include: Sites associated with European discovery, exploration and settlement of Victoria; and Important buildings, structures, parks, gardens, sites, areas, landscapes, towns and other places associated with the historic and cultural development of Victoria, including places associated with pastoral expansion, gold mining, industrial development and the economic expansion and growth of Victoria.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 6
The clause provides that planning authorities should have regard to the Local Government Heritage Guidelines (Department of Planning & Housing 1991) when preparing planning schemes or amendments to assist the conservation and enhancement of places, sites and objects of non-Aboriginal cultural heritage values.
3.1.3 LPPF
Clause 21.01 of the Municipal Strategic Statement deals with Heritage and Landscape matters: Heritage and landscape As well as the natural attractions along the coastline, the Shire has a number of significant natural and built sites of heritage and landscape significance. These include the volcanic cones and crater lakes, and the extensive lake system that has Ramsar classification. Of particular note are Lake Gnotuk and Lake Bullen Merri and their surrounds which are both internationally recognised for their scientific, environmental and landscape significance. Much of the cultural heritage of the Shire is represented in buildings, stone walls, gardens and formal plantings, and in the layout and settlement pattern in townships and on rural holdings. Significant cultural heritage items and places include the Timboon Railway Trestle Bridge, Finlay Avenue streetscape, Glenample Homestead and the Camperdown Clocktower. There is a significant number of registered Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the Shire. These include mounds, middens and burial remains.
The Vision in Clause 21.03 seeks to work for the sustainable development of the Shire, based on, amongst other things: protection and enhancement of items, places and areas of natural or cultural heritage; …
Clause 21.04-2 - Environment deals with Heritage and landscape and identifies the main components of the heritage of Corangamite Shire as including: Aboriginal cultural resources; buildings, stone walls, gardens and formal plantings; the layout and settlement pattern of 19th Century towns; and rural properties and historic infrastructure.
The issues listed include the need to identify heritage buildings and places not presently protected by the Heritage overlay.
The objectives for this section include: To preserve heritage buildings, places, significant landscapes and Koori sites; …
Strategies identified to achieve this objective include: Extend the level of heritage planning controls for all notable buildings and places throughout the Shire by completing further heritage studies.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 7
Implementation measures proposed include applying the Heritage Overlay to all heritage buildings and places. A number of supporting actions are also listed, including seeking funding to assist with maintenance and preservation of privately- owned places, developing guidelines for restoration of heritage areas and features and providing heritage and design advice.
Clause 22.02, Environment (under 22.02-5 Natural & Cultural Heritage) provides further guidance on the exercise of discretion in relation to places of local natural or cultural significance, including those listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.
Amendment C3 proposes to make a number of detailed changes to the MSS and the Local Policy on Environment by: Updating population figures for the Shire and various towns within it in Clause 21.01; Changing the text of Clause 21.01 to present issues relating to heritage and landscape in separate sections. The discussion of heritage issues is expanded and that of landscape/environmental issues is reduced somewhat; Minor changes to Clause 21.02, under the heading Tourism, to stress the growing tourism significance of the volcanic landscapes and the heritage assets of the inland areas of the Shire; Alterations to Clause 21.04-1 Settlement, under Camperdown to: - strengthen the treatment of the historic character and features of the town; - identify the need for design guidance for new residential areas; - add objectives and strategies concerning compatibility of new development with the established character of the town, stronger guidance on policies concerning future planning and management of heritage items, and identify the need for an Urban Design Framework for the town; - refer to the proposed local policy (included as part of C3) to guide development of properties within the heritage area; and - add various reference documents. Changes to Clause 21.04-2 Environment to provide separate sections on Landscape and Heritage and to: - make minor changes of wording the Landscape section and to add a reference document; and - add to the issues, objectives, strategies, implementation, supporting actions and reference documents in the Heritage section. Changes to the local policy on Environment, at Clause 22.02. The section on Natural & Cultural Heritage at Clause 22.02-5 is to be altered substantially, to concentrate its effect on places listed in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay. It includes new objectives and much more explicit policies, particularly in relation to Camperdown and also introduces decision guidelines and application requirements, as well as adding new policy references.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 8
3.1.4 HERITAGE GUIDELINES & PLANNING PRACTICE NOTE
Local Government Heritage Guidelines
As noted above, Clause 15.11 of the SPPF provides that planning authorities should have regard to the Local Government Heritage Guidelines (Department of Planning & Housing, 1991). These guidelines were prepared some years before the introduction of the new-format planning schemes and the Victoria Planning Provisions, but contain useful advice on the preparation of heritage amendments and the conservation of Victoria’s post-contact cultural heritage.
In relation to heritage areas the Guidelines state that: A heritage area might encompass a small urban or suburban area, a town or a landscape of cultural significance. A heritage area might be significant because: the area itself, or the places within it have intrinsic heritage value; the area is composed of places that individually have little or no intrinsic value but which are important for what they tell us as a group or collection of places. Heritage areas, particularly those of a large size, are also likely to include places that have little or no intrinsic value and are not contributory to the significance of the area. Within a heritage area, the primary objective is to ensure the conservation of those elements that contribute to the area’s significance. The removal or alteration of non-contributory elements or the development of their sites, while requiring a planning permit, is usually not a major concern. The objective is to ensure that where development does occur, it occurs in a manner which is appropriate to the significance, character and appearance of the heritage area.
The Guidelines recommend use of planning policies and guidelines to: assist in coming to an appropriate decision on a planning application; ensure that discretion under the planning controls is exercised in a consistent manner; assist permit applicants to have some idea as to what will be considered favourably by the council and what will not; and ensure support for council’s actions should it be necessary to justify a decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In relation to heritage amendments, the Guidelines indicate the following expectations: That all places proposed for planning scheme protection are documented in a manner which clearly substantiates their scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historic interest, or other special cultural value. The documentation ... must include a Statement of Significance. The Department may request further supporting information where it is considered that the:
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 9
Statement of Significance or documentation justifying the amendment fails to sufficiently establish the scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historic interest, or other special cultural value; or The approach taken to identifying heritage places for planning scheme protection lacks rigour. That heritage amendments will be in a ‘plain-English’ and ‘user-friendly’ format in accordance with Department standards. ... That in the preparation of any major heritage amendment, consideration will be given to the general effect of the amendment in terms of the overall planning of the municipality and the achievement of Council’s strategic planning objectives. That in the case of amendments applying to an extensive list of heritage places, the Department expects the Council to have given some consideration to supporting measures (e.g. advice, guidelines, policies etc) to provide assistance to the community, to effectively administer the proposed controls and to ensure the consistent and justifiable application of discretion under the planning scheme.
VPP Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay
The practice note, published in February 1999, gives guidance about the use of the Heritage Overlay in new-format planning schemes.
It advises that places included in the heritage overlay should include any place that: is listed on the Register of the National Estate; has been recommended for planning scheme protection by the Heritage Council; is listed on the Register of the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), provided the significance of the place can be shown to justify the application of the overlay; and is identified in a local heritage study, provided the significance of the place can be shown to justify the application of the overlay.
It goes on to say: All places that are proposed for planning scheme protection, including places identified in a heritage study, should be documented in a manner that clearly substantiates their scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest or other special cultural or natural values. ... The heritage process leading to the identification of the place should be undertaken with rigour. The documentation for each place should include a statement of significance that clearly establishes the importance of the place.
In discussing the need to use recognised heritage criteria for the assessment of the heritage values of places, the Practice Note refers to the criteria adopted by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) and Heritage Victoria. It then outlines the AHC criteria in detail, but comments that other sets of criteria, including those used by
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 10 the Victorian Heritage Council and those set out in the 1991 Local Government Heritage Guidelines 'may be acceptable'. This section concludes: The most important thing is that the assessment of heritage places has been rigorous and that heritage controls are applied judiciously and with justification.
The Practice Note includes advice for the preparation of a heritage overlay schedule. It describes a 'heritage place' as follows: A heritage place could include a site, area, building, group of buildings, structure, archaeological site, tree, garden, geological formation, fossil site, habitat or other place of natural or cultural significance and its associated land.
It also provides that places listed on the Victorian Heritage Register should be included in the Schedule, with the VHR reference number given for ease of use. Dashes should be inserted in the columns dealing with whether or not controls apply to external painting, internal alteration or trees.
In relation to conservation precincts and areas, the Practice Note provides that: Significant precincts and areas should be identified in the schedule as well as being mapped. As the controls applying to individual buildings and structures are the same as the controls applying to areas, there is no need to separately schedule and map a significant building, feature or property located within a significant area. The Heritage Overlay map, like all overlay maps, is intended to show which places are subject to a control. The Heritage Overlay map is not intended to indicate those buildings, structures, trees or other features considered to be important within a significant area. The only instance where an individual property within a significant area should be scheduled and mapped is in instances where it is proposed to trigger a variation to the control. For example, external painting controls may be justified over an individual building of significance but not over the heritage precinct in which the building is located. Alternatively, tree controls over a specific tree or property within a significant precinct but not over the precinct as a whole. In such situations the individual property or tree should be both scheduled and mapped. If it is considered important to identify the significant buildings or structures within a significant precinct, this can be achieved through a local planning policy.
In regard to mapping, the Practice Note advises All heritage places, both individual properties and areas, should be both scheduled and mapped. However, mapping some heritage places may need to be undertaken in the long term as it is recognised that precise cadastral information for some places is currently not available. This is especially true of some places on
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 11
the Victorian Heritage Register. The Heritage Overlay allows a heritage place to be included in the schedule without being mapped. Heritage places which are not mapped should be mapped as soon as practicable.
It also deals specifically with mapping of individual buildings, trees or properties on large parcels of land (quoted in full in Section 5.3).
3.1.5 CAMPERDOWN HERITAGE STUDY
In 1991, with funding from the Victorian National Estate Committee and the Town of Camperdown, Allan Willingham was appointed to conduct a heritage and conservation study of the town.
The purpose of the study was to identify, evaluate and document the built and environmental heritage of the Town of Camperdown and develop a comprehensive programme for the conservation of the cultural heritage and its integration into the town's planning scheme.
The report of the project, which was completed under the newly-formed Shire of Corangamite, was published in two volumes in 1995 and 1998. The full title of the study is Camperdown - a Heritage Study: assessment of places of cultural significance in the Town of Camperdown. Study Findings and Final Report to the Corangamite Shire but we will refer to it as the Camperdown Heritage Study. Volume 1 (1995) deals with historic places identified as being of State cultural significance proposed for listing on the Victorian Heritage Register, while Volume 2 (1998) covers places of local cultural significance proposed for protection under the planning scheme.
Volume 1 of the study report describes in detail the process by which places of potential heritage significance were identified and assessed. This included a preliminary survey, historical research and evaluation. The criteria used for the assessment of cultural significance were those developed by the former Historic Buildings Council of Victoria.
The report - which is extremely detailed - provides general conservation guidelines for historic places at Camperdown, as well as citations, photographs, reference material, statements of significance, and specific conservation guidelines for each individual place and precinct.
Thirty-five places were assessed as being of State cultural significance and 66 individual places and nine precincts were determined to be of local significance. These formed the basis of the listings under the Heritage Overlay proposed in Amendment C3.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 12
3.2 STATUTORY PLANNING FRAMEWORK
3.2.1 HERITAGE OVERLAY
Amendment C3 proposes to amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) as discussed above. The changes involve: adding a number of places identified by the Camperdown Heritage Study to the schedule and maps; deleting some places from existing precincts and listing them individually; regrouping some related places already included in the schedule; deleting Mt Leura Reserve and Mt Sugarloaf from the coverage of the Heritage Overlay (apparently on the grounds that they are already protected by the Significant Landscape Overlay); deleting a small number of places, now found to be outside Corangamite Shire, which were listed in error as well as one place that has been demolished; and minor changes of wording to clarify the locations and extent of significance of listed places.
3.2.2 SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY
Amendment C3 proposes minor changes to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Clause 42.03) Schedule 1 – Volcanic Landscape Area and Schedule 2 – Botanic Gardens, to explicitly identify historical values in relation to these significant landscapes and to include consideration of any heritage studies or historical research in the decision guidelines for each schedule.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 13
4. ISSUES
4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS
Eleven submissions were received on Amendment C3. Some submissions referred to more than one heritage place. Two submittors indicated that they supported or had no objection to the amendment, three objected to the inclusion of places under the Heritage Overlay (two of these referred to a place already listed in the Schedule but not mapped) and seven proposed alterations to the way in which places were to be mapped.
Submittors who opposed listing of places under the Heritage Overlay gave the following reasons: That application of the overlay to a place where no visible evidence of settlement remained was an unreasonable restriction on farming operations; Conservation and maintenance obligations contained in the Camperdown Heritage Study are unreasonable and unaffordable; Application of the overlay over the whole of a property may place unreasonable restrictions on future land use and development, including subdivision; Listing and mapping the place would compromise the owners’ privacy; and The owner objected to the listing, but put forward no planning or heritage reasons to support this view.
Most of the submissions concerning mapping dealt with places already listed in the Schedule. In the majority of cases, land owners or their representatives proposed that the mapping should apply only to the identified significant places and their immediate curtilage, rather than to a more widely defined setting and/or the whole property.
4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL
The Panel has identified the following issues as a result of submissions on Amendment C3: Appropriate mapping of heritage places, when the extent of significance is not easily defined by the boundaries of the land parcel on which it is located, including mapping of heritage items on rural properties and mapping archaeological sites; The potential for increased use of Incorporated Plans to identify matters for which permits are not required, as an alternative to very narrow specification of the land affected by the Overlay; Mapping of heritage precincts; The listing of new heritage places in Camperdown recommended in the Camperdown Heritage Study; The amendments to the MSS and Environment local planning policy; and The impact of listing under the Heritage Overlay on privacy.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 14
5. MAPPING OF HERITAGE ITEMS ON RURAL LAND HOLDINGS
5.1 BACKGROUND
Five of the submissions received relate to heritage places on rural land holdings that are currently included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule. Four of those heritage places are currently not mapped. The remaining place (Titanga - HO65 and HO129) is only partly mapped and the mapping does not cover the heritage items listed in the Schedule – the homestead and horse trough.
The Amendment seeks to correct existing mapping deficiencies, and to include additional places identified in the Camperdown Heritage Study. The exhibited Amendment mapped the entire extent of properties included in the Overlay Schedule. However, when the Amendment was placed on exhibition, comment on the proposed mapping was sought from property owners. The owners were advised that: The purpose of the map is to identify the actual item of significance and an appropriate curtilage around the item to offer reasonable protection for the item and its setting. The customary method of mapping is to incorporate the entire site for suburban or commercial lots and just the relevant portion of the lot for large rural properties. For example a homestead can be identified by mapping the house and yard which is often fenced within the larger area of the farm. The result of this method is that the heritage controls only apply to the area specifically identified and the remainder of the property may continue to operate without the need for unnecessary permits.
A number of the submissions received are in response to this request for comment, and provide information on the location of the heritage items included in the Schedule.
At the hearing, Ms Segafredo provided the Panel with revised Amendment maps that respond to submissions and implement a change of approach to mapping of heritage items on rural land holdings that was adopted by the Council following exhibition of the Amendment. Ms Segafredo informed that Panel that: Following consideration of submissions by Council staff and the Camperdown Heritage Advisory Committee, the lack of feedback from rural property owners was identified as a gap in information. It was agreed that the mapping should be revised to identify the significant items within the rural landholdings primarily using aerial photography and these revised maps should be sent to the landholders to seek further feedback. The second round of notification was sent on 29th March 2006 and feedback was requested by 7th April 2006.
One letter was received from the owner of Tandarook homestead (HO120) in response to the second round notification, supporting the revised mapping.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 15
In support of the revised mapping approach, Ms Segafredo commented that: ….. the revision of the mapping of the existing items was an unexpected addition to the project and raised a number of issues for Council. The primary issue to resolve is how best to ensure that the application of the planning scheme is clear and transparent. Many owners advised that they had no notion of the listing of their properties in the planning scheme. The application of the overlay also needs to be practical for landowners and for those administering the scheme. Identifying the actual item of significance within a property in large rural holdings should be achieved without affecting the usual operation and development of the property where it has no impact on the heritage significance. A number of mapping options exist to achieve this to a more or lesser extent. Map the entire property Map one or more titles within the property that cover the item/s Map the item roughly using aerial photography etc Map the item exactly using GPS, scaled plans or similar Map the item by a dot point, star etc All these options would include the HO reference number as a link to the schedule. Council believes that option 4 would offer the best result but is not sufficiently resourced to prepare maps to this detail. In addition it would be difficult to detect some items at the scale planning scheme maps are usually viewed. Therefore Council favours option 3 and has prepared revised maps to this effect. These maps reduce the exhibited overlay areas substantially and without detriment to the protection of the heritage significance of the properties. The maps must be considered in conjunction with the schedule, which gives a written description of the actual item of interest. Eg homestead or horse trough or tree etc.
The revised maps show a circular or oval area enclosing the listed heritage items on large rural land holdings. The revised maps also show some other corrections to the exhibited maps.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 16
5.2 SUBMISSIONS
5.2.1 HO41 – EDDINGTON HOMESTEAD
The property is currently not mapped in the planning scheme. The exhibited Amendment map shows the full extent of the land holding and the revised map proposes to reduce the extent of the Overlay to cover the homestead, significant outbuildings and house garden area.
The property owners expressed concern about application of the Overlay to the whole of the property, and potential restrictions in relation to future use and development of the property. The owners sought heritage advice from Bryce Rayworth, heritage consultant. Mr Rayworth concluded that: the homestead is of local significance and warrants inclusion in the heritage overlay some other elements, being the entry avenue of oaks and elms, the bluestone outbuilding near the rear of the house, and the bluestone shearers’ quarters also warrant inclusion within the overlay it is not appropriate to have a heritage overlay over the extent of land shown in the Amendment maps as an alternative, an aerial photo could be used to identify the key elements on a scale plan with substantial accuracy Council should be asked to prepare a citation that clearly identifies these elements as the only structures and land of interest prior to the Panel’s consideration of the matter. A map should be included in the Council’s citation.
In response to the submission the Council has accepted the need for a more precise description of the heritage place in the Schedule and proposes to amend the Schedule in relation to HO41 to state: Eddington Homestead, 620 Eddington Road, Boorcan. Including the 1879 house, the neighbouring basalt outbuilding, the nearby basalt shearers’ quarters and the land associated with the entry avenue and house garden.
5.2.2 HO56 – GALA HOMESTEAD
The property is currently not mapped in the planning scheme. The exhibited Amendment mapped the full extent of the land holding and the revised map reduces the extent of the overlay to an area encompassing the homestead and immediate curtilage.
The submission from the landowners requested deletion of the property from the Overlay. The submittors advised that they were not aware that their property was covered by the Heritage Overlay – presumably because the property was not mapped. They expressed concerns about privacy issues and this matter is discussed later in Section 12.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 17
5.2.3 HO104 AND HO118 – TALINDERT HOMESTEAD AND HOLM OAK
The property is currently not mapped in the planning scheme. The exhibited Amendment mapped the full extent of the land holding and the revised map reduces the extent of the Overlay to an area encompassing the homestead and surrounding curtilage.
The submission from the landowners supports inclusion of the property in the Heritage Overlay, but expresses concern about application of the Overlay to the entire land holding. A plan and GPS coordinates of the homestead and house garden area were provided with the submission.
5.2.4 HO65 AND HO129 – TITANGA HORSE TROUGH AND HOMESTEAD
The Titanga homestead complex (comprising the homestead, manager’s cottage, woolshed and house paddock) is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and the current mapping of the heritage place in the planning scheme accords with the Heritage Victoria mapping of the place. However, the mapping covers only part of the property and does not cover the sites of either the homestead complex or the horse trough. The exhibited Amendment map shows the full extent of the land holding and the revised map proposes to reduce the extent of the Overlay to cover two small areas comprising the homestead, house garden and house paddock and the horse trough.
The property owners in their submission provided details of the location and extent of the homestead, house garden and paddock, and the horse trough plus a 15m curtilage.
At the request of the Panel, the Council sought the views of Heritage Victoria on the proposed extent of mapping of the heritage items at Titanga. Heritage Victoria, in response commented that: The Heritage Act requires that all places on the Victorian Heritage Register are mapped in planning schemes. The procedure is to map all registered places EXACTLY as per the extent of registration. This is usually done as a Ministerial amendment when places are registered. We do have some problems though, where our own mapping of registered places is incorrect, and the incorrect mapping gets transferred to the planning scheme. I think in this instance it looks like we may have to review the extent of registration for Titanga. My advice is to leave any proposed changes to the schedule and mapping out of your amendment. When Heritage Victoria have reviewed the registration and/or corrected the mapping, we can do a Ministerial amendment to correct the planning scheme. Until then, the requirements of the Heritage Overlay will still apply to the homestead and the well because they are listed in the schedule.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 18
5.2.5 HO22 AND HO86 – CRAIGBURN HOMESTEAD AND OLD TIMBOON BURIAL SITE/SIEVWRIGHT GRAVE
The heritage places are currently not mapped in the planning scheme. The exhibited Amendment map shows the full extent of the property owner’s land holding and the revised map reduces the extent of the Overlay to three small areas containing the homestead, the burial place/grave site, and the possible extent of the Old Timboon Settlement Site (which is discussed in Section 6).
The submittors expressed concern about the effect of the Overlay on their farming operations and possible costs arising from maintenance obligations. The heritage places are located within a property that is currently operated as a dairy farm. At the hearing Mr Ryan and family made submissions in relation to each of the heritage places on their land.
In relation to the Craigburn homestead the written submission raised concerns about the cost of conservation and maintenance obligations contained in the Camperdown Heritage Study. At the hearing Mr Ryan also raised additional concerns about inclusion of the house garden area in the Overlay. He submitted that whilst the Camperdown Heritage Study refers to the ‘residence and surrounding gardens’, there is no historic garden. He also expressed concern about inclusion of the early timber building at the rear of the homestead in the Overlay area. He submitted that this building is in a derelict and dangerous state and should be demolished.
In relation to the burial/grave site, the submittors request that the Overlay be confined to the area defined by an existing enclosing pipe rail fence, and that the exact location of the burial/grave site be confirmed by GPS mapping. At the site inspection Mr Ryan suggested that the burial/grave site may be closer to the Timboon Creek than is shown on the revised planning scheme map.
5.3 DISCUSSION
The submissions highlight a number of issues associated with application of the Heritage Overlay and mapping of heritage places on rural land holdings. The Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01-1 contains a permit requirement to: Subdivide or consolidate land. Demolish or remove a building (‘building’ as defined in the Planning and Environment Act includes outbuildings, fences, and service installations such as drainage and irrigation). Construct a building (see above). Externally alter a building by structural work, rendering, sandblasting or in any other way. Construct or carry out works (‘works’ as defined in the Planning and Environment Act includes any change to the natural or existing topography of land including the removal, destruction or lopping of trees and the removal of vegetation or topsoil). Construct or display a sign.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 19
Externally paint a building if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as one where external paint controls apply. Externally paint an unpainted surface. Externally paint a building if the painting constitutes an advertisement. Internally alter a building if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as one where internal alteration controls apply. Remove, destroy, prune or lop a tree if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as one where tree controls apply. This does not apply: - To any action which is necessary to keep the whole or part of a tree clear of an electric line provided the action is carried out in accordance with a code of practice prepared under Section 86 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998. - If the tree presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property.
Furthermore, whilst Clause 62.02 of the planning scheme exempts some developments (including a fence and domestic rainwater tank of not more than 4500l) from a permit requirement - provided a permit is not specifically required - Clause 43.01-1 specifically states that: The construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works includes a fence, domestic rainwater tank ….
Thus the permit exemption provisions of Clause 62.02 do not apply to fencing and some other developments.
Clearly, application of the Heritage Overlay to an entire rural property can have a significant impact on the operation of a farm by adding costs, delays and uncertainty in relation to farm management activities such as fencing, irrigation installation, earthworks etc that may have no impact on the heritage significance of the place.
The VPP Practice Note ‘Applying the Heritage Overlay’ acknowledges the need to adopt a special approach to mapping heritage items on rural properties. In relation to mapping items on large parcels of land, the Practice Note comments that: The Heritage Overlay applies to both the listed heritage item and its associated land …. It is usually important to include land surrounding a building, structure, tree or feature of importance to ensure that any new development does not adversely affect the setting or context of the significant feature. In most situations, the extent of the control will be the whole of the property (for example, a suburban dwelling and its allotment). However, there will be occasions when the control should be reduced in its extent so that it does not apply to the whole of the property. Examples might include: a homestead on a large pastoral property where only the buildings and their immediate surroundings are important but not the remainder of the property
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 20
a significant specimen tree on an otherwise unimportant property a horse-trough, fountain or monument in a road reservation a grandstand or shelter in a large but otherwise unimportant public park. Where a heritage place does not encompass the whole of the property, care should be taken to show the most accurate parcel of land affected by the control. For instance, if a homestead is affected by the Heritage Overlay but not the whole of the farm, a polygon should be allocated to the area of affected buildings and associated land. The wording to describe the Heritage Place in the schedule should be specific to identify the area covered by the overlay control.
The following example is provided of the appropriate description of the Heritage Place in the Schedule: Moreton Bay Fig Tree, 26 Bryant Street, Ceres. The heritage place is the Moreton Bay Fig Tree and land beneath the canopy edge of the tree for a distance of five metres from the canopy edge.
There are 26 homesteads, stables, woolsheds, shearers’ quarters and other buildings on rural properties that are covered by the Heritage Overlay in the Corangamite Planning Scheme. It is now proposed to indicate these heritage places by a circle or oval that approximates to the location of the building/s and other items.
In general, the Panel accepts the Council’s amended approach to mapping heritage places on rural properties. The Panel considers that the Council has taken a practical approach to what is likely to be a very complex, and potentially time consuming and costly mapping exercise.
The Heritage Overlay allows a heritage place to be included in the Schedule without being mapped - as is currently the case with most of the rural properties listed in the Heritage Overlay Schedule in the planning scheme. However, the Panel considers that this situation is unsatisfactory and should be a short term measure only. Most people when checking whether an overlay applies to land (including many professional planners) will check the maps first and then refer to the ordinance to establish the detail of the overlay provisions. If the maps do not show that a property is covered by the Heritage Overlay, the assumption may be made that the property is not affected. This problem has been highlighted by submissions and comments made in relation to the current Amendment, whereby many landowners were not aware that their property was affected by the Heritage Overlay. The Panel therefore strongly supports the Council’s attempts to map properties currently affected by the Heritage Overlay.
The Panel, however, has already indicated that it considers that mapping the entire land holding containing the heritage item (as proposed by the exhibited Amendment) is unsatisfactory because of the potential impact of the Overlay’s permit requirements on normal farming operations.
The Panel considers that the indicative mapping, based on information derived from aerial photographs, is likely to be adequate until more accurate information about the extent and location of the item of significance is available. The Panel, however, has
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 21
some concerns about the revised Amendment maps submitted to the Panel hearing. These concerns relate to: mapping of places that are included on the Victorian Heritage Register; and the nature of the heritage significance of the item and its setting or context, and the extent and accuracy of the mapping.
5.3.1 PLACES ON THE VICTORIAN HERITAGE REGISTER
Places included on the Victorian Heritage Register are required to be mapped exactly as shown on the registration. There are six rural properties in the Shire that contain places that are included on the Victorian Heritage Register – Glenample (HO58), Glenormiston (HO59), Larra (HO74), Meningoort (HO80), Purrumbete (HO102) and Titanga (HO129). Heritage Victoria has made comment on the mapping of Titanga (see Section 5.2.4 above), and a check of the Heritage Victoria’s website has revealed that mapping of the Larra stables and the Purrumbete homestead relates to either the entire or a substantial part of the land holding. The extent of registration of the other properties is not shown, but is likely to be more extensive than that shown on the Council’s maps. Mapping of the Glenample, Glenormiston, Meningoort, Purrumbete and Titanga homesteads, and the stables at Larra will have to be changed to accord with the Victorian Heritage Register. However, the Larra homestead (HO73) and the Titanga horse trough (HO65) can be mapped as shown on the Council’s revised maps because these places are not included on the Heritage Register.
5.3.2 THE EXTENT AND ACCURACY OF THE MAPPING
Apart from the Camperdown Heritage Study there has been no heritage study of the Shire of Corangamite. The origin of the places listed in the Heritage Overlay Schedule is not known and it is assumed that the listing is largely a combination of places listed on the Register of the National Estate, the Victorian Heritage Register and the National Trust Register, or identified in the LCC’s Historic Places - South Western Victoria. Most of the heritage items on rural land holdings are simply described as the ‘homestead’. In one case there is reference to the ‘homestead and garden’ (Dalvui - HO25), and in a number of cases there is a separate listing of other items on the property such as stables (Mt Elephant - HO82 and Larra – HO74), woolshed and shearers’ quarters (West Cloven Hills – HO1334), the chapel at Gnarput (HO60), the Titanga horse trough (HO65) and the Old Timboon burial place and Sievwright grave on the Craigburn property (HO86). Some significant trees on rural properties are also separately listed.
The Panel notes that many of the rural properties listed are the remnants of the pastoral runs of the early Western District squatters, and the heritage significance of these places may extend well beyond the ‘homestead’ building. This is discussed in Section 12.2. Without an understanding of the heritage significance of the place, ie whether its significance relates to the architecture of the homestead, the association of the place with a particular person, or the role of the place in the history of pastoral settlement in Victoria, it is difficult to determine the appropriate setting or context of the ‘homestead’ and the extent of the property that should be included in the Overlay area.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 22
Some mapping difficulties associated with the rural properties are highlighted by submissions in relation to Eddington homestead (HO41) and Craigburn homestead (HO22).
The submission in relation to Eddington includes a heritage assessment of the property by Bryce Rayworth, heritage consultant. The homestead is included on the Register of the National Estate and is listed on the National Trust Register. However, the description of the property is very scant and refers only to the ‘austerely designed homestead of 1879’. On the other hand Mr Rayworth’s assessment has concluded that the homestead, a bluestone outbuilding, bluestone shearers’ quarters and an entry avenue of oaks and elms warrant inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. Mr Rayworth recommended that the listing of the property in the Schedule be amended as follows: Eddington homestead, Eddington Road, to the extent of the 1879 house, the neighbouring basalt outbuilding, the nearby basalt shearers’ quarters, and the land associated with the entry avenue and house garden.
This recommendation formed part of the submission on behalf of the property owner and the Council has included the recommended description of the heritage place in an amended schedule provided to the Panel at the hearing.
Whilst Mr Rayworth’s assessment does not assess the property against heritage criteria, his assessment does provide a better understanding of the items of significance on the property. The Panel suspects that a heritage assessment of many of the other rural properties included in the Overlay would also reveal a similarly greater extent of items of significance embraced by the general term ‘homestead’.
The Panel supports inclusion of the more detailed description of heritage place HO41 in the Schedule and notes that the amended wording is more in accordance with the guidance provided in the VPP Practice Note - that the wording ‘should be specific to identify the area covered by the overlay control’. However, whilst the Panel supports the Council’s attempts to map properties currently affected by the Heritage Overlay it notes that a great deal of additional work is necessary to accurately identify the area of significance on rural properties as suggested by the Practice Note. Despite this deficiency, the Panel considers that the work done so far is a welcome start.
In relation to the mapping of HO41 on the revised Amendment maps, the Panel has had difficulty in confirming whether the area shown on the maps includes the house, outbuilding and shearers’ quarters. Furthermore, the mapping does not appear to include the entry avenue of oaks and elms, and the Schedule does not apply tree controls to the heritage place. The Panel considers that the entry avenue should be included in the mapping and that the mapping of the three buildings should be confirmed with the property owners. Furthermore, given that the entry avenue and house garden is included in the description of the heritage place at the suggestion of the property owner’s consultants, the Panel considers that it would be reasonable to apply tree controls to the extent of the heritage place proposed in the amended Schedule.
The submissions by the Ryan family in relation to Craigburn (HO 22) highlight the confusion that can arise if mapping of a heritage place on a rural property is not accompanied by a clear description in the Schedule of the heritage items. The revised mapping of Craigburn appears to include the Colonial Georgian house, an adjacent
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 23 timber hut and another more recent building to the south that would have no heritage significance. The submissions by the Ryan family expressed concern about application of the overlay controls to the house garden area and the timber hut (which they state is in dangerous condition and should be demolished).
The Camperdown Heritage Study includes a detailed assessment of Craigburn, including a statement of significance and an assessment against heritage criteria. The statement of significance describes Craigburn as a Colonial Georgian house and also notes the ‘original stone walls which formed an early homestead paddock enclosure’. The statement of significance also refers to ‘an earlier timber hut of 1847’ that was replaced by Craigburn, and the assessment includes photographs of the hut. However, the statement of significance does not deal with the timber hut, other than make passing reference to it and the Schedule refers only to Craigburn, and not to the earlier hut.
The Panel (like the Ryan family) is unsure what items at Craigburn are intended to be protected by the Heritage Overlay. Clearly the more recent building to the south should not be protected by the Overlay, and the Panel confirmed during its site visit that there is no established garden around the house. The Schedule refers to Craigburn, but not to the remnant stone walls and the timber hut. The Panel considers that in the case of Craigburn, where there has been a heritage assessment of the property, the Schedule should clearly identify the items that are protected by the Overlay in accordance with the VPP Practice Note. The description of the heritage place could include the existing description and further state that ‘The heritage place is the squared basalt rubble Colonial Georgian house, the remnant stone walls that formed part of the homestead paddock enclosure .....’ The Panel is unsure whether the hut should be covered by the Overlay or not. The building is of historic interest, but the statement of significance in the Heritage Study fails to refer to the hut as a significant building. This may have been an oversight by Mr Willingham, or he may not consider it significant. This is something that should be resolved by the Council and Mr Willingham.
Mapping of the heritage items at Craigburn is further discussed in Section 6 in relation to the Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site. The issues associated with mapping this site give rise to an alternative approach to mapping and scheduling the Craigburn property.
In response to the Ryan family’s submission in relation to the timber hut, the Panel assures the family that inclusion of the building in the Overlay does not mean that the building may not be demolished. However a planning permit would need to be obtained and demolition of the building would need to be justified. Furthermore, a condition of permit for demolition of the building may require documentation of the building prior to demolition and provision of that documentation to a relevant historical society or other appropriate organisation.
Findings & Conclusions
In conclusion, the Panel strongly supports the Council’s attempts to map properties currently affected by the Heritage Overlay. Furthermore, in relation to rural properties, the Panel considers that the Council’s approach of indicating the heritage places by a circle or oval that approximates to the location of the
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 24 heritage place is a practical approach to the task. However, the Panel considers that the indicative mapping should be accompanied by a detailed description of the heritage items included in the schedule, once this information is available.
The Panel also considers that there has been appropriate consultation with property owners in relation to the revised mapping of rural properties and that the Amendment maps can be changed in accordance with the revised maps without further exhibition.
In relation to specific submissions and information provided to the Panel, the Panel finds that: Mapping of the heritage places included on the Victorian Heritage Register – the homesteads at Glenample (HO58), Glenormiston (HO59), Meningoort (HO80), Purrumbete (HO102) and Titanga (HO129), and the stables at Larra (HO74) should be in accordance with the extent of registration on the Victorian Heritage Register and not as shown on the revised Amendment maps submitted to the Panel at the hearing. Mapping of other places included on the Victorian Heritage Register should also be checked; The Larra homestead (HO73) and the Titanga horse trough (HO65) can be mapped as shown on the Council’s revised Amendment maps; The proposed mapping of the identified heritage items at Eddington (HO41) shown on the revised Amendment maps should be confirmed with the owners of the property and should include the entry avenue of oaks and elms; The Schedule should include tree controls for Eddington; The amended description of Eddington as proposed by Mr Rayworth is an appropriate change and should be included in the Schedule as part of the Amendment; A more detailed description of the heritage items at Craigburn (HO22) should be included in the Schedule, in accordance with the heritage assessment of the property included in the Camperdown Heritage Study; and The heritage significance of the 1847 timber hut at Craigburn should be checked with Mr Willingham.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: Mapping of rural properties that are currently included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule be generally in accordance with the revised Amendment maps submitted to the Panel hearing; Mapping of the heritage places included on the Victorian Heritage Register, including the homesteads at Glenample (HO58), Glenormiston (HO59), Meningoort (HO80), Purrumbete (HO102) and Titanga (HO129), and the stables at Larra (HO74) be in accordance with the extent of registration on the Victorian Heritage Register; Mapping of other places included on the Victorian Heritage Register also be checked;
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 25
Mapping of the identified heritage items at Eddington (HO41) shown on the revised Amendment maps be confirmed with the owners of the property and include the entry avenue of oaks and elms; The description of the heritage items at Eddington (HO41) included in the Schedule be amended to state: Eddington Homestead, 620 Eddington Road, Boorcan. Including the 1879 house, the neighbouring basalt outbuilding, the nearby basalt shearers’ quarters and the land associated with the entry avenue and house garden; The Schedule be amended in relation to Eddington to include tree controls; and A detailed description of the heritage items at Craigburn (HO22) be included in the Schedule, in accordance with the heritage assessment of the property included in the Camperdown Heritage Study, and confirmed by Mr Willingham.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 26
6. MAPPING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
6.1 LAKE TIMBOON SETTLEMENT HISTORIC SITE (HO72)
The Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site is the site of the first settlement in the Camperdown area. However, the only buildings that remain from that time are Craigburn (and the associated timber hut) referred to in Section 5.2.5 above and the former Lake Inn (which is separately owned and listed). The remainder of the former settlement area comprises an archaeological site located within the dairy farm paddocks. There is, however, some evidence of a former track or other structure close to an existing spring and waterhole adjacent to Timboon Creek, and mounding within the surrounding paddock that may be the site of other structures.
The settlement is currently not mapped, the exhibited Amendment map shows the full extent of the property owner’s land holding and the revised map reduces the extent of the Overlay to a small area near Old Geelong Road and Timboon Creek.
The submittors expressed concern about the impact of the Heritage Overlay on normal dairy farming operations and on future subdivision potential. Initially they argued that the site should be removed from the Overlay. However, at the hearing the submittors expressed support for use of an ‘incorporated plan’ that provides for continuing use of the land for farming purposes.
Inclusion of the whole of the property in the Overlay area will impose a permit requirement (and associated costs and delays) for day-to-day farming operations, including matters such as construction of a fence or the carrying out of ‘works’. However, even if the Overlay is limited to the smaller area proposed in the revised maps, the Overlay would include the site of the spring and waterhole, which may be important to future farming operations on the property. The Ryan family hold a license to use the spring water, and they anticipate that there may be a need in the future to clean out the heavily silted spring dam, and perhaps extend the dam area. The permit requirement for ‘works’ under the Heritage Overlay may limit their ability to carry out this work. They therefore seek some assurance that they will be able carry out appropriate earthworks in the vicinity of the spring, should the need arise.
6.2 DISCUSSION
Mr Ryan’s submission in relation to the Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site highlights the difficulty in defining the extent of heritage places in the case of largely invisible archaeological sites.
The source of the listing of the settlement site in the Overlay is not known. However, there is reference to the Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site in the Camperdown Heritage Study, which states that: The site of the first settlement on the Mederanooke Creek is located within the later defined land subdivision boundaries and is essentially bounded
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 27
by Depot Road (formerly Turkey Lane) Old Geelong Road, Old Timboon Road and Bowyer Street. This site should be the subject of historical interpretation only, as individual buildings and places in the area are separately listed. The origins and development of Lake Timboon settlement are fully documented in the cultural history of Camperdown.
A map of conservation precincts and historic sites in the Heritage Study shows the Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site as described in the paragraph above - comprising part of the Ryan property between Depot Road and Old Timboon Road, the former Lake Inn site (HO128), and some land to the south of the Ryan property.
Ms Segafredo advised the Panel that the ‘cultural history of Camperdown’ referred to in the Heritage Study is a collection of historical information that was collated by Mr Willingham for the study. Ms Segafredo discussed the mapping of the site with Mr Willingham after the Panel hearing and subsequently advised the Panel that: Mr Willingham advised that the majority of the relevant information pertaining to the settlement area was contained in the inventories for the three remaining built items in the area: the Timboon Inn, Craigburn and the grave site. It was not his intention that the hatched area on pg 32 would form a separate item in the heritage overlay schedule, but that it would offer an opportunity for some interpretation should the owner or Historical Society or indeed Council wish to pursue such an action. We agreed that the Camperdown Structure Plan would offer an opportunity to have the area identified within the planning scheme without imposing any development controls under the heritage overlay. 1
However, the settlement site is a currently listed place in the Heritage Overlay and the objective of Amendment C3 is to map currently listed places and to implement recommendations of the Camperdown Heritage Study. The Amendment has not sought to review the validity of places currently listed in the Schedule and the task of the Panel is to consider submissions in relation to mapping of existing listed places and the inclusion of additional places as recommended by the Camperdown Heritage Study.
Furthermore, whilst the settlement site is not included on the Heritage Inventory, the Heritage Act 1995 does provide for the protection of archaeological places whether or not they are registered. Section 127 of the Act in relation to unregistered relics and archaeological sites states that:
(1) A person must not knowingly or negligently deface or damage or otherwise interfere with an archaeological relic or carry out an act likely to endanger an archaeological relic except in accordance with a consent issued under section 129.
Early mapping of the area and evidence on the ground on the Ryan property clearly indicates that the property has archaeological potential. The difficulty is in establishing the extent of that potential.
1 Panel’s underlining
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 28
Mr Ryan provided the Panel with an extract from R A McAlpine’s history, the ‘Shire of Hampden 1863-1963’. This history provides reference to the settlement site, and refers to discovery of the spring on the Ryan property in 1841 and the construction of turf huts. Later, the first public house in the district was built and: Close to this, in the 1850s, was a slab hut where Charlie Henry lived, and on the opposite side of the creek a store built by Duncan and Donald McNicol. This was merely a slab hut, with a door made of canvas nailed to a frame. David McPherson was in charge of the store, and afterwards it was bought by John Paton. Sandy McPhee had a bootmaker’s shop nearby, which was also a post office; and Duncan McNicol built a house to the south of the village (Craigburn?). Near to this a hut was erected, which was used for Divine worship on Sundays, and later became a schoolroom on weekdays.
The McAlpine history implies that the settlement buildings may have extended much further than the indicative circle on the Council’s revised Amendment maps. Based on limited information that is currently available neither the Panel nor anyone else is in a position to properly determine the extent of the settlement site.
The Panel considers that the most practical way to provide for protection of archaeological remnants on the Ryan land and allow for day-to-day farming operations is to map the settlement site (and the burial/grave site and Craigburn) as the extent of the Ryan property between Depot Road and Old Timboon Road, and to introduce a simple Incorporated Plan that provides appropriate exemptions for farming and other activities on the land. The Incorporated Plan could also apply to Craigburn (and perhaps the burial/grave site – which is included on Heritage Inventory) and provide appropriate permit exemptions in relation to Craigburn (and the burial/grave site if this is appropriate).
The Ryan family has expressed support for introduction of an Incorporated Plan that sets out appropriate permit exemptions and conservation measures in relation to the heritage items on their land. The Panel therefore considers that an Incorporated Plan could be prepared, in consultation with Heritage Victoria and the Ryan family, and introduced into the planning scheme through Amendment C3, without further exhibition.
The Panel considers that the Incorporated Plan should include conditions requiring the presence of an archaeologist on site during any earthwork activity, and appropriate procedures and notification requirements in accordance with the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 should any archaeological relic be found. These are actions that are necessary to ensure that obligations under the Heritage Act are complied with. The conditions should also set out the requirements of the Heritage Act in relation to disturbance and/or removal of any archaeological material from the site. Furthermore, the Incorporated Plan could provide guidance in relation to any application for demolition of the timber hut adjacent to Craigburn.
Whilst the former Lake Inn site is also included in the extent of the settlement site in the Camperdown Heritage Study the citation for this site on the Victorian Heritage Register refers to the ‘remains of the former Timboon Inn and outbuildings’ and all other archaeological remains. The archaeological remains on that site are therefore appropriately protected. The other land to the south of the Ryan land is a considerable
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 29 distance from the main area of the former settlement and is unlikely to contain any archaeological remains.
Findings & Conclusions
In conclusion, the Panel considers that there is strong evidence of archaeological potential on the land owned by the Ryan family, but the likely extent of the archaeological material is difficult to establish. The Panel also considers that the permit requirements of the Heritage Overlay could significantly impact on normal farming operations on the property. For these reasons the Panel considers that the most practical approach in relation to this property would be to map the whole of the Ryan property between Depot Road and Old Timboon Road as the sites of Craigburn (HO22), Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site (HO72) and the Old Timboon Burial Place and Sievwright Grave (HO86), and to introduce a simple Incorporated Plan that provides appropriate exemptions for farming and other activities on the land. The Panel suggests that the Incorporated Plan be developed by the Council, and that Council engage a consultant to carry out this work. The text of the Incorporated Plan should be developed in consultation with Heritage Victoria and the Ryan family.
Should the Incorporated Plan be introduced into the planning scheme via a separate amendment, the Panel suggests that the Minister for Planning be requested to provide exemption from giving notice of the amendment as provided for under Section 20 of the Planning and Environment Act.
The Panel also considers that the more extensive mapping of the property in relation to Craigburn and application of an Incorporated Plan is a preferable approach to the more limited mapping and inclusion of a detailed description of the heritage items at Craigburn in the Schedule, as recommended in Section 5.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: The whole of the Ryan property between Depot Road and Old Timboon Road be mapped as the sites of Craigburn (HO22), Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site (HO72) and the Old Timboon Burial Place and Sievwright Grave (HO86); An Incorporated Plan that provides appropriate permit exemptions for activities on the property be developed in consultation with Heritage Victoria and the Ryan family; and The Schedule be amended to include reference to the Incorporated Plan in relation to HO22, HO72 and HO86.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 30
7. MAPPING OF PRECINCTS
7.1 PRECINCTS IN THE CAMPERDOWN HERITAGE STUDY
The Camperdown Heritage Study identified a total of seven precincts in the town of Camperdown. These were: Manifold Street Conservation Precinct; Mt Leura Conservation Precinct; The Brooke Street Conservation Precinct; The Leura Street Conservation Precinct; The Cressy Street Conservation Precinct; The Camperdown Botanic Gardens and Arboretum Conservation Precinct; and The Camperdown Cemetery Conservation Precinct.
Of these, the Manifold Street precinct is already included under the Heritage Overlay in the Corangamite Planning Scheme, partly as HO9 (which includes the Finlay Avenue of Elms and the Manifold Clock Tower and public monument precinct (which are listed on the VHR as a single place) and partly as HO76 (which encompasses many of the adjoining buildings on the northern side of the street, and those on the south side between Brooke and Adeney Streets). HO76 also includes the road reserves and plantations of Brooke Street, Leura Street north of Errey Street and Cressy Street south of the railway.
The Mt Leura Reserve (HO83) is listed in the Schedule to the existing HO but is not shown in the existing Planning Scheme maps. Amendment C3 proposes to remove Mt Leura Reserve from coverage by the Heritage Overlay and rely on an amended Significant Landscape Overlay for its protection.
7.2 MANIFOLD STREET CONSERVATION PRECINCT
The Manifold Street precinct contains many places of individual local - or indeed State - significance, as well as those that are contributory or not of significance.
According to Ms Segafredo, the Department of Sustainability & Environment advised that places of individual significance within a precinct should be mapped and listed separately. As a result, Amendment C3 proposes to remove many individual places from HO76 and to re-list them with new individual HO numbers in the Schedule and on the maps. The places on the Victorian Heritage Register are already listed separately, as is recommended by Heritage Victoria. The Amendment also corrects some mapping errors in the precinct area.
The exhibition maps are rather confusing regarding Council's intentions for the balance of the existing HO76 (ie. the places that are not individually significant). The deletion map indicates that the Overlay is to be removed from the individually significant properties. However, as the Schedule still lists the Manifold Street
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 31
Conservation Precinct as HO76, so the Panel has concluded that it is to be retained. This was confirmed by Ms Segafredo at the Panel hearing.
The Panel perceives a number of problems with the excision of individually significant places from the Manifold Street Precinct. These include the weight to be given to individual Statements of Significance as opposed to the contribution of these buildings or places to the overall heritage significance of the precinct. This is exacerbated by the fact that the otherwise extremely thorough Camperdown Heritage Study does not contain a Statement of Significance for the Manifold Street Precinct as a whole, only a map. It should also be noted that the precinct defined in the study is slightly more extensive than the current extent of HO76 in Manifold Street, in that it includes all properties with a frontage to Manifold Street within the boundaries of the town.
The VPP Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay recommends that precincts should be listed as one place, except where a variation in controls applies (e.g tree controls, external painting or internal alteration, etc). This may have been the reason for DSE's advice to Council that significant places should be mapped separately, since tree controls apply to the whole of HO76, but in the new listings only a few of the individually significant places (reserves, road reserves, avenues and the like) have controls on trees. Except for the tree-related places, all the newly-listed individual places are recommended to have external paint controls - as does HO76 - and none has internal alteration controls (also the same as the precinct).
This has resulted in the anomalous situation of the contributory or non-significant buildings remaining in HO76 being subject to more stringent controls - as regards tree removal - than the more important properties that are now proposed to be individually listed.
Findings & Conclusions
The Panel considers that the need for and desirability of tree controls in the residual HO76 should be reviewed (the Panel did not note any significant trees within the precinct, apart from street trees, during its site inspection). If Council decides that this control is not required and it is eliminated in the adopted version of the Amendment, the Panel would then have a preference for the mapping to encompass the whole of the built form in the precinct. Only the avenues, reserves, and road reserves (ie. those places with tree controls) would need to be listed individually in the Schedule and mapped separately. The individually significant places in the precinct should be listed in the Local Policy on Natural and Cultural heritage (Clause 22.02-5) as recommended by the Planning Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay.
The only impediment to this course of action would be the absence of a Statement of Significance for the precinct as a whole. However, this situation exists at present. On the whole, the Panel believes that emphasising the coherence of the precinct should be the dominant consideration. A precinct Statement of Significant should be prepared at a later stage.
In the revised Amendment map submitted to the Panel at the hearing, Ms Segafredo made a number of corrections to the mapping, including changing the designation HO188 to HO186 and HO187 and changing HO175 to HO174, and
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 32
adding HO175 to the adjoining property to the north. The Panel also notes that HO182 is shown in two locations on the maps – on the north side of Manifold Street adjacent to HO183 (presumably the correct location), and on the south side of the street between HO85 and HO193. However, if the Panel’s recommendations in relation to the precinct are accepted by the Council, these corrections to the mapping are irrelevant.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that the Council review the need for tree controls in HO76. Should it be found that tree controls are not required in the residual HO76, the Panel further recommends that: Mapping of HO76 be amended to include the whole of the built form in the precinct, and that only the avenues, reserves, road reserves and places on the Victorian Heritage Register should be listed separately; Individually listed places within the precinct be listed in the local policy at Clause 22.02-5; Tree controls not apply to HO76; and A Statement of Significance for the precinct be prepared at a later time.
7.3 MOUNT LEURA CONSERVATION PRECINCT
The Amendment proposes to delete the Mount Leura Reserve from the Schedule. Mount Leura Reserve is included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone and the whole of the Leura Nested Maar, including Mount Leura and Mount Sugarloaf, are covered by Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 1 (SLO1) which relates to the volcanic landscapes of the Shire.
The Amendment also proposes to amend SLO1 (and SLO2 which relates to the Botanic Gardens) to include reference to the ‘historical’ significance of the volcanic features and include in the decision guidelines for both SLOs: Any applicable heritage study or historical research for the area.
The citation for Mount Leura Reserve in the Camperdown Heritage Study states that: The Leura Nested Maar and the dominant volcanic scoria cones of Mount Leura and Mount Sugarloaf is of primary landscape significance as a notable geological formation.
SLO1 sets out comprehensive landscape character objectives and decision guidelines for the volcanic features (including reference to any adopted landscape or management plan). The Council has adopted the ‘Mount Leura and Mount Sugarloaf Landscape Masterplan and Management Plan’ prepared by Thomson, Hay and Associates P/L, and the Heritage Study states that this plan includes: ….. details on the botanical history of the area, the geological history and identification of the pre-European settlement landscape character of the mounts and craters in the Leura Nested Maar.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 33
The Panel is satisfied that the provisions of SLO1, as proposed to be amended by Amendment C3, will provide appropriate protection of the cultural and landscape significance of this volcanic feature.
The Panel also supports the proposed amendments to SLO1 and SLO2 to include reference to historic significance.
7.4 ST PAUL’S ANGLICAN CHURCH COMPLEX
The church complex is currently not mapped in the planning scheme. In the existing Heritage Overlay St Paul's Anglican Church (HO111), the Vicarage (HO112), the Parish Hall and Sunday School (HO87), and the former Master’s Residence and Dormitory (HO46) are all listed separately (The latter is incorrectly described in the Schedule as the Former Church of England Grammar School).
Amendment C3 proposed to group all the properties belonging the Anglican Church under HO87. This included the three heritage properties, adjoining vacant land facing Hamilton Street and a modern accommodation building next to the church on Fergusson Street. The buildings were listed separately within the place number, presumably to reflect the fact that the church has slightly different controls from the other two (ie. it has internal alteration controls). The master’s residence/dormitory, which is privately-owned, was to remain as HO46.
The Parish Council of St Paul's Anglican Church submitted that the vacant land should be excluded from the heritage listing and mapping, as the Diocese is considering selling this land in future. It requested that the Amendment reflect the Church’s future plans for the site.
Ms Segafredo told the hearing that the existing title boundaries do not correspond with the arrangement of the buildings and vacant land, so they cannot be used as the basis for revised mapping.
She also advised that the Diocese of Ballarat had recently agreed to sell Peacock Hall, a small historic building located between and to the rear of the parish hall/Sunday school and the master's residence/dormitory, to the owner of the residence (HO46) and a plan of subdivision had been prepared to facilitate this. Peacock Hall, although historic, is not mentioned in either of the relevant Statements of Significance.
The revised Amendment map proposes to delete the vacant land from the area covered by HO87, and to delete Peacock Hall from the church site and include it in the site of the adjacent former master’s residence/dormitory (HO46).
Ms Segafredo, at the hearing, also raised the possibility of listing and mapping the four significant buildings as a single precinct, to reflect their relationship as part of the original St Paul’s church complex.
Findings & Conclusions
The Panel agrees that the vacant land, which faces a different street and is not visually linked to the important buildings along Church Street, should be excluded from the listing and the mapping. However, the accommodation
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 34 building directly adjoins the Church and any extension or redevelopment has the potential to impact on it. This property should, therefore, be included in the mapping of the place.
With regard to the proposal to map the four significant buildings as a precinct, the Panel suggests that the Vicarage, Parish Hall/Sunday School and the Master's Residence (including Peacock Hall) should all be mapped as a single place - whether called a precinct or 'St Paul's Parish complex' or similar, but that rather than having a separate line in the Schedule for each, they should each be described fully within the same listing. The mapping for this place should also include the modern accommodation building (on the grounds that if it was included with the Church, internal alteration controls would apply, which is not justified or desirable). St Paul's Church, because of the internal alteration controls, needs to be listed and mapped as a separate place.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: The Vicarage, Parish Hall/Sunday School, Peacock Hall, Master’s Residence and modern accommodation building be mapped as a single heritage place, and described in the Schedule as the ‘St Paul’s Parish complex’; Internal Alteration Controls not apply to the ‘St Paul’s Parish complex’; St Paul’s Church be listed and mapped separately, and that Internal Alteration Controls apply to the Church; The vacant land to the east of the Church complex be deleted from the heritage place; and HO46 include Peacock Hall as shown on the revised Amendment map
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 35
8. OTHER MAPPING ISSUES
8.1 MAPPING HERITAGE PLACES IN TOWNSHIPS
The Amendment corrects mapping of currently listed heritage places in townships, and introduces additional heritage places in Camperdown. One submission was received in relation to the mapping of the currently listed Stone Bakehouse in Lismore (HO114) and another submission relates to mapping of a new heritage place in Camperdown – Teapot Cottage (HO157).
8.1.1 STONE BAKEHOUSE, LISMORE (HO114)
The Stone Bakehouse at Lismore is currently not mapped. The exhibited Amendment mapped the heritage place across three allotments (lots 4, 5 and 6) that run between High Street and Gray Street. The bakehouse building is centrally located between High Street and Gray Street and spans the boundary between lots 5 and 6. The lots are in a Township zone and comprise part of the township commercial area. Lot 4 and the front portion of lots 5 and 6 facing High Street are used for commercial purposes. The rear sections of lots 5 and 6 that contain the bakehouse building are currently otherwise vacant.
The submission provides details of the location of the bakehouse, and proposes that the overlay be limited to the bakehouse, plus a 2m curtilage around the building.
The revised Amendment maps show the overlay deleted from the western most lot that is not affected by the bakehouse building.
Ms Segafredo in her submission to the Panel commented that: Council recognises that there is substantial potential for development of this property and encouraging sustainable commercial development in our towns is very important to the Shire. However, as this item has been identified as of heritage significance, Council believes that any future development in the vicinity of the bakehouse should take account of that significance. To this end it is considered important that the heritage site not be restricted to the immediate building surrounds as this may create a development that turns its back entirely on the bakehouse and takes up the whole High Street frontage offering no recognition of the building. It is not suggested that there is no development potential for the land between the bakehouse and the site frontage, but that the design of any building or associated outdoor area should be sympathetic to the heritage significance of the bakehouse.
The Panel supports the Council’s revised proposal to limit the mapping of the heritage place to the two lots containing the bakehouse.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 36
8.1.2 TEAPOT COTTAGE, CAMPERDOWN (HO157)
Teapot Cottage is a simple timber cottage that is in near intact form. The Camperdown Heritage Study has assessed it as being of local cultural significance and has recommended that it be included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule.
The submission does not oppose inclusion of the property in the Overlay, but seeks to have the overlay mapping limited to the cottage, and not include a timber garage, colorbond garage and a paddock at the rear of the site.
The Council supports a reduction in the extent of the Overlay and in the revised Amendment maps proposes that the overlay include the cottage and the timber shed (which has been built in a style matching the cottage).
The Panel supports the Council’s revised proposal to limit the mapping of the heritage place to the cottage and timber shed, as shown on the revised Amendment maps.
8.2 ADDITIONAL MAPPING CORRECTIONS
The revised Amendment maps include a number of corrections in addition to the different approach to mapping heritage items on rural properties, and matters already dealt with in this report. These other corrections are set out in the following table: Table 1: Additional mapping corrections. HO Change/correction HO99 Reduction of the overlay area to apply the overlay to the Presbyterian Church land fronting High Street, Lismore. HO16/23/59 Deleting mapping of the Glenormiston items from land in Castle Creek Road and adding HO59 to the Glenormiston site in Blacks Road. HO122 Correcting the mapping of an Irish Yew tree at the St Thomas Apostle Catholic Church, Terang. HO19 Correcting the mapping of the Kilnoorat Cemetery. HO128 Correcting the mapping of the former Lake Inn to accord with the Victorian Heritage Register. HO155 Correcting the mapping of the former Camperdown Angling Fish Hatchery. HO40 Correcting the mapping of the dry stone wall at ‘Grassyvale’. HO75 Mapping ‘Leslie Manor’ homestead. HO2 More accurately mapping the site of the aircraft remains in Lake Corangamite and deleting repeated references to the item across the lake. HO135 More accurately mapping the site of the WW2 Practice Range in Lake Corangamite and deleting repeated references to the item across the lake.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 37
HO Change/correction HO36/HO37 Correcting the mapping of dry stone walls. HO115 More accurately mapping the location of the Stoneyford stone causeway. HO140 Mapping the former Wattle Hill Pub to accord with the Victorian Heritage Register.
The Panel supports inclusion of these mapping corrections in the adopted Amendment.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: Mapping of the Stone Bakehouse at Lismore (HO114) be amended as shown on the revised Amendment map; Mapping of Teapot Cottage at Camperdown (HO157) be amended as shown on the revised Amendment map; and Other mapping corrections set out in Table 1 of the Panel report and shown on the revised Amendment map be adopted.
8.3 AMENDMENT MAPPING APPROACH
In its review of the Amendment material the Panel has noted that the Amendment maps appear to include only the proposed changes to the Heritage Overlay maps, ie only the new places and corrections/mapping of existing heritage places. Existing heritage places that are correctly mapped do not appear to have been included on the maps. For example, the Terang Railway Station (HO138) and the Terang Post Office (HO139) are currently shown on map 15, but are not shown on the Amendment C3 map 15. The Panel noted a number of other existing correctly mapped places that are not shown on the Amendment maps.
The Panel considers that the Amendment mapping should show: all existing heritage places that are currently correctly mapped; mapping corrections to existing heritage places; mapping of existing heritage places, where they are currently not mapped; and all proposed heritage places.
This approach is consistent with the format of the Amendment Schedule, that lists existing heritage places, as well as the proposed additions and correction.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that the Council discuss the correct approach to mapping Heritage Overlay amendments with officers of DSE, and if necessary make appropriate changes to the mapping prior to adoption of the Amendment.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 38
9. PROPOSED NEW HERITAGE PLACES
9.1 ‘GLENORA’, 8 WARE STREET, CAMPERDOWN (HO201)
Only one submission objected to inclusion of a new heritage place in the Overlay. The submission relates to ‘Glenora’ (HO201), described variously as 8 Albert Crescent, 8 Moodie Street and 8 Ware Street.
The Camperdown Heritage Study describes ‘Glenora’ as one of the oldest surviving timber houses in the district, and a building ‘of architectural interest for the unusual timber verandah details and the Colonial Georgian form’. The building is assessed as being of local cultural significance in the Heritage Study and it has recommended that the house be included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule.
The submission simply objected to listing of the property in the Schedule and provided no supporting argument.
Ms Segafredo in her submission to the Panel commented that: The objection is not supported with any evidence to dispute the heritage significance of thee building. Therefore Council has no justification for rejecting the CHS’s conclusion that the place has heritage significance and should be given the protection offered by the planning scheme.
The Panel agrees with Ms Segafredo’s submission.
9.2 INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PLACES IN THE HERITAGE OVERLAY
The Amendment proposes to add a further 72 places in Camperdown to the Heritage Overlay. Inclusion of these places in the Overlay is recommended by the Camperdown Heritage Study. The Camperdown Heritage Study is the work of Mr Allan Willingham, a recognised architectural historian and Camperdown resident.
The Camperdown Heritage Study provides a very detailed assessment of each of the recommended heritage places, including a comprehensive statement of significance. The study does not provide a specific assessment of each place against recognised heritage criteria. However, the Panel is satisfied that the statements of significance in the study provide adequate justification for application of the Overlay to each of the identified places.
Finding & Conclusion
The Panel finds that the additional heritage places identified by the Camperdown Heritage Study and proposed to be included in the Heritage Overlay are of heritage significance and that application of the Overlay to the places is justified.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 39
10. CORRECTIONS TO THE SCHEDULE
The Panel has noted a number of matters in the schedule that should be corrected in the adopted Amendment.
Both the exhibited version of the overlay schedule, and the schedule provided to the Panel at the hearing included an additional column for the Council’s property reference number, presumably taken from the Council’s rate records. Whilst this additional column will be of assistance to Council staff in identifying the affected properties, inclusion of the column is not in accordance with the Minister’s Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes. The column should be removed.
The exhibited version of the schedule also inserted the word ‘yes’ in the column ‘Included on the Victorian Heritage Register’ for places recommended for inclusion on the Register in the Camperdown Heritage Study. These insertions have been premature and in the schedule provided to the Panel this had been corrected. The schedule in the adopted Amendment should be in the form of the corrected version.
Heritage places HO156, HO158, HO159 and HO168 as shown on map 17 relate to the road reserves of Cressy Road, Brooke Street, Curdie Street and Leura Street respectively. The heritage items are the avenue plantings in these streets. However, the descriptions of the heritage places in the schedule do not match the mapping, or are duplicated: HO156 is correctly described as the Cressy Road Elm Avenue, but this avenue is also referred to in the description of HO168. Reference to the Cressy Road Elm Avenue should be deleted from HO168; HO158 is described as the ‘Coronation Avenues’. However the Panel has not been able to find a detailed description of these avenues in the Camperdown Heritage Study. The Heritage Study does however include a description and citation for the Oak Avenue in Brooke Street. The Panel considers that the description of HO158 should be changed to Oak Avenue, Brooke Street; HO159 is correctly described as the Curdie Street Oak Avenue, but this avenue is also referred to in the description of HO168. Reference to the Curdie Street Oak Avenue should be deleted from HO168; and HO168 is described as the Elm Avenues in Cressy Road and Leura Streets and the Oak Avenues in Brooke Street and Curdie Street. This description should be altered to refer only to the Elm Avenue in Leura Street.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 40
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: The Property Number column be deleted from the Schedule; The word ‘yes’ only be inserted in the ‘Included on the Victorian Heritage Register’ column where the heritage place is on the Register; The description of HO158 in the schedule be changed to Oak Avenue, Brooke Street; and The description of HO168 refer only to the Elm Avenue in Leura Street.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 41
11. CHANGES TO THE MSS AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
The Amendment proposes to introduce additional reference to historic buildings and places in the MSS, to substantially rewrite Clause 21.04-1 relating to Camperdown and to introduce a new section in Clause 21.04-2 relating to Cultural Heritage, including objectives, strategies, implementation measures and supporting actions. The first listed strategy is to: Extend the level of heritage planning controls for all notable buildings and places throughout the Shire by completing a shire- wide heritage study.
The Amendment also proposes to substantially rewrite Clause 22.02-5 of the Environment local planning policy that relates to Natural & Cultural Heritage. In particular, the amended policy provides guidelines in relation to protection and restoration of the heritage assets in Camperdown, including the Manifold Street Conservation Precinct.
Finding & Conclusion
The Panel finds that the proposed changes to the MSS and Clause 22.02 provide additional guidance to applicants and decision makers in relation to heritage assets in the Shire. The Panel supports the proposed changes.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 42
12. PRIVACY AND OTHER MATTERS
12.1 IMPACT OF THE OVERLAY ON PRIVACY
One submission raised concerns about the impact of application of the Heritage Overlay on their privacy. The property is currently included in the Heritage Overlay and the proposal to map the property has initiated the concerns raised by the property owners. In response to the submission Ms Segafredo wrote to the submittors and advised that: Identification of the property by address and property name does not provide the land owner’s identity; The information provided in the planning scheme is less than that available through the white pages telephone directory (printed or on the web); and The information provided in the planning scheme is less than that available through the land titles office via a title search.
Ms Segafredo invited the submittors to discuss the matter with her, but there was no further response to her letter.
The Panel notes that many hundreds of properties throughout the State are covered by Heritage Overlays and is not aware of any privacy concerns that have arisen through application of the Overlay.
The property is one of considerable heritage significance and the Panel agrees that the Overlay should be retained over the property.
12.2 FUTURE WORK
The Shire of Corangamite contains some of the most significant heritage places in the State. In particular, the Shire forms part of Victoria’s Western District and contains important evidence of the early settlement of Victoria and remnants of the large pastoral runs and grand houses of the squatters. The remnants of Koori occupation, the volcanic landscapes and the endangered grasslands in the Shire are also culturally significant.
There has been no Shire-wide heritage study and whilst the Camperdown Heritage Study provides an excellent start to recording the heritage assets of the Shire, much more work needs to be done. In particular, the Panel considers that work needs to be done to record the nature of the heritage significance of rural properties and the heritage items on those properties. The Overlay schedule currently generally refers to the property ‘homesteads’, and in a few cases other items are listed, such as woolsheds or shearers’ quarters. However, the Panel suspects that many more properties may contain heritage items in addition to the ‘homestead’, including archaeological remains. This view is supported by the submission in relation to Eddington – where
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 43 the Overlay Schedule refers to the ‘homestead’, but the heritage assessment carried out on behalf of the owners of the property identified an outbuilding, shearers’ quarters and an avenue of trees as also significant. The Panel further considers that there needs to be an assessment of the appropriate setting or context of heritage items on large rural properties to ensure that the significance of the place is not impacted upon by future subdivision or development. In some cases mapping of the whole property and application of an Incorporated Plan may be a more appropriate approach to protecting the heritage assets on the site.
The Council does propose to include as a cultural heritage strategy the completion of a Shire-wide heritage study and the Panel strongly supports this strategy. However, the Panel is aware that there are generally limited resources available in local government to carry out a study of this scale. The Panel is unsure of the extent of external funding that may be available to carry out this work, but it does urge the Council to seek external financial assistance for this work, should it be available.
The first step in this process would be preparation of a Thematic Environmental History and the Panel considers that there would be great benefit in carrying out this work as a joint project in conjunction with the other Western District Shires, as so much of the history of the area extends across the Shire boundaries.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends that: the Council seek external financial assistance to complete a Shire-wide heritage study, if such assistance is available; and the Council investigate the feasibility of carrying out a joint Thematic Environmental History of the Western District with the other Western District Shires.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 44
13. CONCLUSIONS
The Panel has considered all the submissions referred to it and all the material presented at the hearings and has reached the following conclusions: That the Council’s endeavours to map existing heritage places listed in the Heritage Overlay Schedule is an initiative that should be given strong support; That the Council’s revised approach to indicative mapping of heritage items on rural and other properties is a practical approach to the task, but that more detailed descriptions of the heritage places should be included in the schedule, once this information is available; That the Camperdown Heritage Study provides appropriate justification for inclusion of the additional heritage places in the Heritage Overlay, as proposed by the Amendment; That the revised Amendment maps and schedule submitted to the Panel hearing should be adopted by the Council, with the changes recommended by the Panel; That the changes to the MSS and Clause 22.02 proposed by the Amendment are appropriate and should be adopted by the Council; That the proposed Shire-wise heritage study should be given high priority by the Council, and that external financial assistance for this work should be sought, if this is available; and That the Council should investigate the feasibility of carrying out a joint Thematic Environmental History of the Western District with the other Western District Shires.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 45
14. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following primary recommendation to the planning authority:
Amendment C3 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations: That mapping of rural properties that are currently included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule be generally in accordance with the revised Amendment maps submitted to the Panel hearing; That mapping of the heritage places included on the Victorian Heritage Register, including the homesteads at Glenample (HO58), Glenormiston (HO59), Meningoort (HO80), Purrumbete (HO102) and Titanga (HO129), and the stables at Larra (HO74) be in accordance with the extent of registration on the Victorian Heritage Register; That mapping of other places included on the Victorian Heritage Register also be checked; That mapping of the identified heritage items at Eddington (HO41) shown on the revised Amendment maps be confirmed with the owners of the property and include the entry avenue of oaks and elms; That the description of the heritage items at Eddington (HO41) included in the Schedule be amended to state: Eddington Homestead, 620 Eddington Road, Boorcan. Including the 1879 house, the neighbouring basalt outbuilding, the nearby basalt shearers’ quarters and the land associated with the entry avenue and house garden; That the Schedule be amended in relation to Eddington to include tree controls; That the whole of the Ryan property between Depot Road and Old Timboon Road be mapped as the sites of Craigburn (HO22), Lake Timboon Settlement Historic Site (HO72) and the Old Timboon Burial Place and Sievwright Grave (HO86); That an Incorporated Plan that provides appropriate permit exemptions for activities on the property be developed in consultation with Heritage Victoria and the Ryan family; That the Schedule be amended to include reference to the Incorporated Plan in relation to HO22, HO72 and HO86; That the Council review the need for tree controls in HO76. Should it be found that tree controls are not required in the residual HO76, the Panel further recommends that: - Mapping of HO76 be amended to include the whole of the built form in the precinct, and that only the avenues, reserves, road reserves and places on the Victorian Heritage Register be listed separately; - Tree controls not apply to HO76;
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Page 46
- Individually listed places within the precinct HO76 be listed in the local policy at Clause 22.02-5; and - A Statement of Significance for the precinct be prepared at a later time. That the Vicarage, Parish Hall/Sunday School, Master’s Residence, Peacock Hall and modern accommodation building be mapped as a single heritage place, and described in the Schedule as the ‘St Paul’s Parish complex’; That Internal Alteration Controls not apply to the ‘St Paul’s Parish complex’; That St Paul’s Church be listed and mapped separately, and that Internal Alteration Controls apply to the Church; That the vacant land to the east of the Church complex be deleted from the heritage place; That HO46 include Peacock Hall as shown on the revised Amendment map; That mapping of the Stone Bakehouse at Lismore (HO114) be amended as shown on the revised Amendment map; That mapping of Teapot Cottage at Camperdown (HO157) be amended as shown on the revised Amendment map; That other mapping corrections set out in Table 1 of the Panel report and shown on the revised Amendment map be adopted; The Panel recommends that the Council discuss the correct approach to mapping Heritage Overlay amendments with officers of DSE, and if necessary make appropriate changes to the mapping prior to adoption of the Amendment; and That the following changes be made to the Amendment schedule as exhibited: - The Property Number column be deleted from the Schedule; - The word ‘yes’ only be inserted in the ‘Included on the Victorian Heritage Register’ column where the heritage place is on the Register; - The description of HO158 in the schedule be changed to Oak Avenue, Brooke Street; and - The description of HO168 refer only to the Elm Avenue in Leura Street. The Panel further recommends that: The Council seek external financial assistance to complete a Shire-wide heritage study, if such assistance is available; and The Council investigate the feasibility of carrying out a joint Thematic Environmental History of the Western District with the other Western District Shires.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Appendices Page 1 APPENDICES
A. THE PANEL PROCESS ...... 2 THE PANEL ...... 2 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS...... 2 SUBMISSIONS...... 3 B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES...... 4
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Appendices Page 2
A. THE PANEL PROCESS
THE PANEL
This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 16 February 2006 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of Amendment Corangamite C3. This amendment proposes apply the Heritage Overlay to places identified in the Camperdown Heritage Study, to make other minor changes to the Schedule to the Overlay, to amend the Municipal Strategic Statement and other local planning provisions and to refine mapping of places already listed in the Schedule.
The planning authority is Corangamite Shire and the proponent is Corangamite Shire.
The Panel consisted of: Chairperson: Elizabeth Jacka Member: Helen Martin.
HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS
A Directions Hearing was held on 10 April at Corangamite Shire offices, Manifold Street, Camperdown. A number of directions were made, which performed the following functions: Council was asked to include in its submission a discussion on the merits of using Incorporated Plans to provide permit exemptions vs mapping of actual items of significance; Council was requested to seek the views of Heritage Victoria on appropriate mapping of places included in the Victorian Heritage Register; and Submittors on behalf of the Estate of E L Ryan were asked to provide details of the locations of the heritage items HO22, HO86 and HO72.
The Panel Hearings were held on 24 May 2006 at Camperdown Community Centre, Manifold Street, Camperdown.
The Panel members inspected relevant sites and surrounding areas from adjoining roadways and also made an accompanied visit to the following locations: HO22, Craigburn Homestead, Depot Road, Camperdown; HO72, Lake Timboon Settlement historic site, Depot Road, Camperdown; and HO86, Old Timboon burial place & Sievwright grave, off Depot Road, Camperdown.
The accompanied site visit was carried out after the hearing on 24 May 2006. Other sites were inspected by the Panel on the following day, including 8 Ware Street, St Paul’s Anglican Church, Teapot Cottage and the Lismore Bakehouse.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Appendices Page 3 SUBMISSIONS
A list of all written submissions to Amendment C3 is included in Table A.1 below.
The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.
The Panel heard the parties listed in Table A.2 below.
Table A.1 Submitter Organisation (if any) Anita Scordia (Southwest Region) Environment Protection Authority Dr Kerry Jordan (Architectural National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Historian) Jonathan Emanuel Talindert Pty Ltd Thomas C & Monica M Dennis E Kaye Mitchell Lawrence J Ryan & Helen E Chivell Estate of E L Ryan Marie Thornton (Warden) St Paul’s Anglican Church, Camperdown Kathy Hallyburton E Farah Val Lang Maggie Ene (Urban Planner), Urbis For W Webb JHD
Table A.2 Submitter Represented By Corangamite Shire Council Sophie Segafredo (Manager Strategic Planning & Environment) Estate of E L Ryan Mr Kevin Ryan, Ms Beverley Fleming and Ms Maureen Adeney. Ms Helen Chivell attended the accompanied site visit.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006 Appendices Page 4
B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
The Panel has considered the response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines included in the exhibited Explanatory Report for the amendment, together with submissions on the guidelines from the planning authority. It endorses the planning authority’s response and considers that the amendment complies with the guidelines.
CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PANEL REPORT: JULY 2006