Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report
Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C56
31 December 2013
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme
Margaret Pitt, Chair Dr Timothy Hubbard, Member Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Contents
Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 The Proposal ...... 3 2.1 The Amendment ...... 3 (i) Content of Amendment ...... 3 (ii) Consultation process ...... 5 2.2 Background to the Amendment ...... 5 (i) Previous heritage studies ...... 5 (ii) Heritage studies contributing to the Amendment ...... 5 2.3 Methodology and criteria ...... 7 (i) Methodology ...... 7 (ii) Assessment criteria ...... 7 2.4 Strategic planning context...... 9 (i) State Planning Policy ...... 9 (ii) Municipal Strategic Statement ...... 9 (iii) Local planning policy ...... 12 (iv) Planning Scheme provisions ...... 12 (v) Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 13 (vi) Overall assessment of strategic support for C56 ...... 13 3 Identification of issues ...... 14 3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions ...... 14 3.2 Assessment of issues in this Report ...... 14 4 Strategic and policy changes in C56 ...... 16 4.1 Municipal Strategic Statement ...... 16 4.2 Planning policies ...... 16 4.3 Incorporated Document – Permit Exemptions ...... 18 4.4 Incorporated Document ‐ Citations ...... 19 4.5 Post‐exhibition changes to heritage sites ...... 21 (i) Changes to heritage sites made by Council resolution ...... 21 (ii) Changes to heritage sites now proposed by Council ...... 21 5 Non‐heritage issues ...... 22 5.1 Social and economic issues ...... 22 5.2 Use of most appropriate VPP tools ...... 23 5.3 Adequacy and age of Citations ...... 24 5.4 Impact on property values ...... 24 5.5 Cost of permits ...... 24 5.6 Condition of property ...... 25 5.7 Impact on owners’ rights ...... 25 5.8 Potential impact of Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass options ...... 25 5.9 Failure to implement earlier studies ...... 26
Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
6 Assessment of precincts ...... 27 6.1 New precincts ...... 27 (i) Broadford Commercial Town Centre Precinct HO298 ...... 27 (ii) Broadford Pinniger Street Precinct HO315 ...... 29 (iii) Kilmore Railway Precinct HO302 ...... 31 (iv) Moranding Rural Settlement Precinct HO303 ...... 32 (v) Emu Flat Rural Precinct HO299 ...... 33 (vi) Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 ...... 34 (vii) Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306 ...... 36 (viii) Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 ...... 38 (ix) Seymour Railway Precinct HO308 ...... 40 (x) Wandong Precinct HO309 ...... 42 6.2 Changes to existing precincts ...... 44 (i) Kilmore Town Centre Precinct HO99 ...... 44 (ii) Society Street Precinct (Kilmore) HO100 ...... 47 (iii) Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102 ...... 48 (iv) Old Town Centre Historic Precinct (Seymour) HO156 ...... 52 (v) Seymour Commercial Precinct HO157 ...... 54 (vi) Tallarook Town Precinct HO181 ...... 55 6.3 Group precinct ...... 57 (i) Broadford Pre 1912 Group HO258 ...... 57 7 Assessment of individual sites ...... 59 7.1 Tyaak Cemetery, Broadford – Strath Creek Road, Tyaak HO288 ...... 59 7.2 Australian Light Horse Memorial Park, cnr Goulburn Valley Highway and Telegraph Road, Seymour HO297 ...... 59 7.3 Coronation Hotel domed water tank, 17 Mollison Street, Pyalong HO322 ...... 60 7.4 Castle Glen, 305 Union Lane, Bylands HO246 ...... 61 7.5 Woodburn Homestead Complex, 125 McDougalls Road, Kilmore HO255 ...... 62 7.6 Mt Fraser Homestead, 100 Minton Street, Beveridge HO2 ...... 65 7.7 Oakfield, 75 Stewart Street, Beveridge HO234 ...... 66 7.8 Christ Church Anglican Church, rectory and trees, 3 – 11 Union Street, Church Street, Kilmore HO97 ...... 68 7.9 Wyldecourt farm complex, 370 Lancefield Road, Kilmore HO254 ...... 69 7.10 Broadford Paper Mill 209 High Street and 21 Last Street, Broadford HO265 ...... 70 7.11 Houses, 78‐82 Powlett Street, Kilmore HO248 and HO249 ...... 73 7.12 Smiths Bridge, Heathcote East Boynton Road, Tooboorac HO270 ...... 74 7.13 House and Oak Tree, 16B George Street, Kilmore HO252 ...... 74 7.14 Clonbinane Park, 495 Clonbinane Road, Clonbinane HO30 ...... 75 7.15 Various places, Submission 53, VicRoads ...... 77 7.16 Catholic Church, Submission 54 ...... 78 8 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 79 8.1 Conclusions ...... 79 8.2 Recommendations ...... 80
Appendix A List of Submitters Appendix B Panel request to Council
Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
List of Tables
Page Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing ...... 1
List of Abbreviations
DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure HO Heritage Overlay LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MSS Municipal Strategic Statement SLO Significant Landscape Overlay SPPF State Planning Policy Framework VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
1 Introduction
Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme (the Amendment) was prepared by the Mitchell Shire Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the principal purposes of the Amendment are to: Include 85 new places within the Heritage Overlay, including 10 new precincts and 75 places of individual significance Change the controls of 19 places (including 7 heritage precincts) currently included within the Heritage Overlay Update Clause 21.05‐1 to improve the policy objectives which relate to the management of cultural heritage Update Clause 22.01‐1 by including the four heritage studies implemented in the Amendment and the Heritage Overlay: Guidelines for Assessing Planning Permit Applications as reference documents Implement a Clause 22.08‐ Heritage Policy Include the Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan 2013 in Clause 81. The Amendment also includes a range of housekeeping changes relating to existing heritage places within the municipality (See Chapter 2 for full details). Ministerial Authorisation for preparation of the Amendment was received on 15 April 2013. The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 24 April and 12 July 2013, with 61 submissions received as follows: 53 submissions either opposing the Amendment or seeking changes 8 submissions supporting the Amendment. At its meeting of 26 August 2013, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. A Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 6 September 2013 and comprised Margaret Pitt (Chair) and Dr Timothy Hubbard (Member). A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 2 October 2013. The Panel undertook inspection of all precincts and a number of the individual sites on 1 and 2 October 2013, and undertook further inspections during the course of the hearing. The Panel then met in the Kilmore Library from 12 to 15 November 2013 to hear submissions in respect of the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel hearing are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Parties to the Panel hearing
Submitter Represented by Mitchell Shire Council Amy Reynolds (Senior Strategic Planner) calling David Helms and Louise Honman (Context Pty Ltd) as expert witnesses. Stacey Gardiner (Manager Strategic Planning and Sustainability) was also present during the hearing.
Page 1 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Pamela and Ron Howard Leo Folvig Bruce Trethowan National Paper Industries Neil Burgin (Director) Buzlor Pty Ltd M Brennan calling Anita Brady (Lovell Chen) as expert witness Mark and Tanya Osborne Laura Carter (Still and Co Lawyers) Wandong History Group Di Vidal, David Moran and Lynne Dore Cathy Kerr Douglas Payne Teresa Bisucci (Best Hooper) calling Peter Barrett as expert witness Save Monument Hill Group Lawrie Boyd, Norman Stimson, Wilma Hammond, Lorraine Huddle Kilmore Cricket & Lawrie Boyd Recreation Reserve Norman Stimson Anne Goble Denise Worthington Vyvienne Whitehurst Wilma Hammond Jim Lowden Anne Rose Nubuild Beveridge P/L Panos Nickas (Best Hooper) calling Bryce Raworth as expert witness Requests to be heard from VicRoads and the Roman Catholic Church Trusts Corporation were withdrawn prior to the hearing. Margaret Fleischmann was scheduled to be heard but did not appear at the hearing. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions, evidence and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues raised in submission relating to the Amendment in further detail, with the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations provided in Chapter 8.
Page 2 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
2 The Proposal
2.1 The Amendment
(i) Content of Amendment The Explanatory Report for Amendment C56 sets out in detail the proposed changes to the Mitchell Planning Scheme as follows: Land affected by the Amendment The Amendment applies to all of the land within the Mitchell Shire Council by making changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework at Clause 21.05 and 22.01. The Amendment also seeks to implement a new Local Planning Policy at proposed Clause 22.08‐ Heritage Policy, this policy will affect all land within the Heritage Overlay (proposed and existing). The Amendment also affects particular land by the: Inclusion of 85 new places within the Heritage Overlay, this includes 10 new precincts and 75 places of individual significance. Changing the controls of 19 places (including 7 heritage precincts) currently included within the Heritage Overlay. What the amendment does Amendment C56 seeks to implement the recommendations of the following four proposed reference documents: 1. Mitchell Shire Stage Two Heritage Study (Vol 1‐5), Lorraine Huddle Pty Ltd, January 2006 2. Mitchell Shire Heritage Amendment, Review of Heritage Precincts, Context Pty Ltd, 13 December 2012 3. Mitchell Shire Stage 2, Heritage Study Review, Context Pty Ltd, (12 March 2013) 4. Mitchell Shire Heritage Study ‐ Amendment C56 Heritage Citations, March 2013. In particular the Amendment changes the Mitchell Planning Scheme by: Updating Clause 21.05‐1 to improve the policy objectives which relate to the management of cultural heritage. Updating Clause 22.01‐1 by including the previously mentioned heritage studies and the State Government publication ‘The Heritage Overlay: Guidelines for Assessing Planning Permit Applications’ as reference documents. Implement a Clause 22.08‐ Heritage Policy. Overlay Maps Apply the Heritage Overlay to the 85 new heritage places that were identified in the Mitchell Shire Heritage Study‐ Amendment C56 Heritage Citations, March 2013, on Planning Scheme Maps: 5HO, 6HO, 7HO, 8HO, 9HO, 10HO, 11HO, 12HO, 15HO, 17HO, 18HO, 19HO, 21HO, 24HO and 25HO. Updates planning scheme maps 6HO, 8HO, 16HO, 18HO and 19HO for the purpose of deleting the following existing Heritage Overlays: ‐ HO13, Hume and Hovell Monument, High Street, Broadford ‐ HO127, Anglican Church, Tallarook/Seymour Road, Pyalong ‐ HO30, Clonbinane Park, Clonbinane Road, Clonbinane ‐ HO40, Presbyterian Church, Kyneton‐Tooborac Road, Emu Flat
Page 3 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
‐ HO41, Former State School, No 1232, Kyneton‐Tooborac Road, Emu Flat ‐ HO96, Former Church of England Rectory, 3‐5 Union Street, Kilmore Updates planning scheme maps 8HO, 11HO, 12HO, 16HO, 18HO and 24HO for the purpose of changing the Heritage Overlay polygon which relates to the following existing heritage places: ‐ HO15, State School No 1125, Elizabeth Street, Broadford ‐ HO16, St George’s Presbyterian Church, Cnr Hamilton/High Sts, Broadford ‐ HO121, Former Hotel (“Whitehart”), High Street, Pyalong ‐ HO02, Mt Fraser Homestead Complex, Minton Street, Beveridge ‐ HO99, Sydney Street Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO102, Kilmore Creek and Hudson Park Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO156, Old Town Centre Historic Precinct, Seymour ‐ HO157, New Town Centre Historic Precinct, Seymour ‐ HO181, Town Centre Precinct, Tallarook Planning Scheme Ordinance Amend the existing Schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 for purpose of including the new heritage places identified in Mitchell Shire Heritage Study ‐ Amendment C56 Heritage Citations, March 2013. Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by including internal alteration controls and identifying a Permit Exemption Incorporated Plan for HO97 (Christ Church Anglican Church, Union Street, Kilmore). Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by including tree controls (Mature Oak only) and by identifying a Permit Exemption Incorporated Plan for HO55 (House, 5 Chapel Street, Kilmore) Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by identifying a permit exemption Incorporated Plan for the following existing heritage places: ‐ HO100, Society Street Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO121, Former Hotel (“Whitehart”), High Street, Pyalong ‐ HO181, Town Centre Precinct, Tallarook Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by changing the place and/or address descriptions for the following existing heritage places: ‐ HO02, Mt Fraser Homestead Complex, Minton Street, Beveridge ‐ HO15, State School No 1125, Elizabeth Street, Broadford ‐ HO16, St George’s Presbyterian Church, Cnr High/Hamilton Sts, Broadford ‐ HO121, Former Hotel (“Whitehart”), High Street, Pyalong ‐ HO55, House, 5 Chapel Street, Kilmore ‐ HO97, Christ Church Anglican Church, Union Street, Kilmore ‐ HO99, Sydney Street Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO102, Kilmore Creek and Hudson Park Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO104, Lake Precinct, Kilmore ‐ HO157, New Town Centre Precinct, Seymour ‐ HO181, Town Centre Precinct, Tallarook Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by deleting the following heritage places: ‐ HO13, Hume and Hovell Monument, High Street, Broadford ‐ HO127, Anglican Church, Tallarook/Seymour Road, Pyalong ‐ HO30, Clonbinane Park, Clonbinane Road, Clonbinane ‐ HO40, Presbyterian Church, Kyneton‐Tooborac Road, Emu Flat ‐ HO41, Former State School, No 1232, Kyneton‐Tooborac Road, Emu Flat.
Page 4 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
‐ HO96, Former Church of England Rectory, 3‐5 Union Street, Kilmore Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) by changing the place description for existing HO102 from Kilmore Creek and Hudson Park Precinct to Kilmore Creek Precinct and by identifying a Permit Exemption Incorporated Pan for this precinct. Include the Permit Exemption Incorporated Plan Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013 as an Incorporated Document in the Schedule to Clause 81.01. Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to create new planning scheme map 21HO It is clear that the Council has sensibly used the opportunity created by a new heritage amendment to apply heritage controls and naming and mapping conventions consistently across all heritages places in the municipality, new and existing.
(ii) Consultation process The Amendment was placed on public exhibition from 24 April to 12 July 2013. Notices were sent to the owners and occupiers of all properties affected by Amendment C56. Notices were also sent to owners and occupiers of all other places that are currently within a Heritage Overlay as they were potentially affected by the proposed new Heritage Planning Policy and the proposed Incorporated Document. Public notices were placed in the Government Gazette on 2 May and in the following local newspapers: Free Press North Central Review McIvor Times Seymour Telegraph. Council also conducted a series of 23 community meetings throughout the shire to enable residents to discuss the Amendment with Council officers and the consultants. A number of private meetings were also arranged. The Amendment documentation, including the Citations, was available for viewing at five locations in the shire and on Council’s website.
2.2 Background to the Amendment
(i) Previous heritage studies Council advised the Panel that Amendment C56 is the first heritage amendment to be exhibited by the Shire since it was amalgamated in 1994. Heritage overlays in the current scheme were transferred from the schemes of the previous shires or parts of shires that formed the Mitchell Shire.
(ii) Heritage studies contributing to the Amendment Amendment C56 implements the outcomes of four heritage studies that have been undertaken over the last 10 years.
Page 5 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
1. Mitchell Shire Stage 2 Heritage Study (Volumes 1‐5), Lorraine Huddle Pty Ltd (January 2006) Stage 1 of this study was completed in 2002 and comprised a draft thematic environmental history of the shire and identification of 1318 individual places and 23 precincts as having potential heritage significance, subject to further detailed investigation. Stage 2 of the study was commissioned in 2003. The study recommended heritage protection for 68 individual places and 14 new heritage precincts, and changes to planning controls for 6 existing precincts. The study also recommended further investigation of an additional 27 individual places. On 22 November 2010, Council resolved to proceed with a Planning Scheme amendment to implement the study. However, Council submitted to the Panel that no action was taken on this resolution (and no amendment documentation was prepared) and it has not been relied on in preparation of Amendment C56. 2. Mitchell Shire Heritage Amendment: Review of Heritage Precincts, Context Pty Ltd (13 December 2012) In 2009 Context Pty Ltd were appointed to undertake a review of the heritage precincts recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study, including boundary definition and identification of contributory and non‐contributory places. Context was also commissioned to prepare Incorporated Plans including for design guidelines and permit exemptions. 3. Mitchell Shire Stage 2: Heritage Study Review, Context Pty Ltd (12 March 2013) Context Pty Ltd was asked to undertake a review of 48 places of potential heritage significance. This study included places identified in both the 2006 Huddle Study and the 2012 precinct review, as well as two places identified by Council officers. The study recommended the inclusion of 25 places in the HO. The Shire’s Hermes database was updated as part of this study. 4. Mitchell Shire Heritage Study: Amendment C56 Heritage Citations, Context Pty Ltd (March 2013) This document consolidates the Citations for all places included in Amendment C56. The Citations are sourced from the three previous study documents. Where more than one Citation has been prepared, the most recent version has been used. Following finalisation of the Citations as part of the Amendment process, Council proposes to include the Citations in the Planning Scheme as an Incorporated Document.
Page 6 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
2.3 Methodology and criteria
(i) Methodology The expert witness statement prepared by Ms Honman summarised the methodology used by Context Pty Ltd as follows: The key steps in the 2013 Context Study process were: An initial ‘desktop’ review Field inspection of all places Establishing a shortlist of places for detailed assessment Detailed assessment of shortlisted places Additional research where required In accordance with the VPP Practice Note the HERCON criteria were used in the assessment of significance The thresholds applied in the application of significance were State significance and local significance In accordance with the VPP Practice Note statements of significance were prepared using the format of ‘What is significant?’ How is it significant?’ and ‘Why is it significant?’ A draft report outlining the methodology and key findings A final report including updated Hermes place records. The Panel is satisfied that the methodology used by Context Pty Ltd in the preparation of the study was rigorous and in accordance with current professional standards and practices.
(ii) Assessment criteria Individual heritage places For the assessment of individual heritage places, Context Pty Ltd generally bases its assessment on the 2008 Victorian Heritage Council’s cultural heritage criteria (including historical, social and architectural/aesthetic criteria), modified to suit the particular area being studied. The criteria are broadly consistent with the recognised heritage criteria identified in the VPP Practice Note: Applying the Heritage Overlay (revised version dated September 2012). The HERCON model criteria has been broadly adopted by heritage jurisdictions across Australia. They should be used for all new and revised heritage assessment work and should appear in the “Why” section of the statement of significance in the Citation prepared for a heritage place. Not all criteria need to be met for a place to be significant. The criteria used in the 2012 Context Review are: Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance). Criterion B: Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity). Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential).
Page 7 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness). Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance). Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance). Criterion G: Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance). Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history (associative significance). The Panel is satisfied that the criteria used by Context Pty Ltd in assessing heritage significance of individual places in the study were appropriate and consistent with accepted practice. Heritage precincts In relation to the assessment of heritage precincts, the guidelines applied by Context Pty Ltd in assessing whether or not a precinct meets the threshold for local significance are derived from the AHC criteria modified to assess local significance as proposed by the Advisory Committee Report Review of Heritage Provisions in Planning Schemes (2007). The criteria for precincts, of which only one needs to be met, may be summarised as follows:
It is associated with a key theme identified in the Thematic Environmental History It may be rare within the municipality If representative of a precinct type, it will usually have a high degree of integrity It is an exemplar of an architectural style or significant technical or architectural innovation It has strong social or historic associations to a town, locality, individual or organisation. The Panel is satisfied that the criteria used by Context Pty Ltd in assessing heritage significance of precincts in the study were appropriate and consistent with accepted practice. Because much of the original research, identification and assessment of sites was undertaken in the 2006 Huddle Study, it is appropriate to consider the methodology and criteria used in that study. Chapter 2 of Volume 1 of the study sets out a comprehensive explanation of the methodology and assessment criteria used in that study. The Panel is also satisfied that the methodology and criteria used by Lorraine Huddle Pty Ltd in assessing individual places and precincts were rigorous and consistent with accepted practice at that time.
Page 8 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
2.4 Strategic planning context The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.
(i) State Planning Policy The most relevant State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) clause is 15 Built Environment and Heritage, which states that: Planning should ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value. Creating quality built environments supports the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of our communities, cities and towns. This statement is supported by more detailed objectives and strategies in Clause 15.03‐1. Other clauses of the SPPF that are relevant to particular sites, areas and towns in the Amendment are as follows: Clause 11.05 Melbourne’s hinterland areas Maintain the attractiveness and amenity of hinterland towns. Clause 11.05‐3 Rural productivity Manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production. Clause 12.04‐2 Landscapes Protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments. Clause 17.02‐1 Industrial land development Ensure availability of land for industry. Protect and carefully plan existing industrial areas to, where possible, facilitate further industrial development.
(ii) Municipal Strategic Statement From a local perspective, the following extracts from the MSS at Clause 21.05 Objectives and strategies are directly relevant to the Amendment. 21.05‐1 Natural resources and environment: Context - … There are also a significant number of places of cultural heritage, e.g. Kilmore ‐ Victoria’s oldest inland town. These sites also need to be managed so as to ensure their preservation. Objectives - … - To protect places of cultural heritage and support preservation of those sites threatened by development or neglect.
Page 9 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Strategies - … - Protect the cultural, built and natural environment. - Identify sites with cultural heritage values and ensure supporting information for all sites is contained on Shire’s Heritage Database. Additional measure for implementation - Heritage studies have previously been prepared for a number of areas within the Shire. These studies include the Kilmore Heritage Study 1982, as well as three more recent documents, prepared for the Mitchell Shire; the Mitchell Shire Heritage Assets, 1996 and the Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme Review ‐ Heritage Assessment 1996, and a report on Site 17, 1997. Further work is being undertaken to complete an overall Heritage Study of the Shire which integrates this work and provides the Shire with a complete Heritage Analysis for inclusion in the Planning Scheme. 21.05‐3 SETTLEMENT Town strategies and structure plans Seymour Cultural and Built Heritage - Preserve the built heritage throughout Seymour including the social and cultural heritage associated with the Australian Army, in particular, Site 17 and New Crossing Place. - Create a heritage theme for the important historical relationship with the railway and its service, and provide a central focus for the community as a social and cultural development initiative. Kilmore Township Character - Seek funding to employ Council’s Heritage Adviser to update the controls and guidelines for heritage assets in the town. Such work to include working with owners to assist them to make appropriate decisions that uphold the heritage importance of buildings and other structures. - All developments along the main street to be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to the remainder of the streetscape having regard for the architectural and historical integrity of the area. Tallarook - Provide for new development to be in harmony with the historical character and cultural setting of the town and recognise a historic precinct through the planning scheme. None of the other towns and settlements included in Amendment C56 are specifically mentioned in the MSS. Changes to MSS During the preparation of this report, Amendment C87 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme (which was foreshadowed at the hearing) was gazetted on 5 December 2013. The amendment, known as the Mitchell LPPF Review, changed the structure of the MSS to align with the revised SPPF format.
Page 10 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
In the revised MSS, the sections relating to heritage are as follows: 21.01 MITCHELL SHIRE 21.01‐1 Municipal Profile The environment There are important historic buildings in most towns and the rural areas. Historic precincts are found in a number of towns, particularly in Kilmore along the Northern Highway – the Old Sydney Road. An area known as the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park on the eastern edge of Seymour is a former military training area with strong associations with the Australian Army. This area is potentially a site of national significance. 21.06 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE 21.06‐3 Heritage Mitchell has a number of places of heritage significance including the Kelly family house in Beveridge, the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park in Seymour (Site 17), Aboriginal greenstone axe quarries at Mount William, the pioneer homestead at Reedy Creek, and numerous buildings in Kilmore which is Victoria’s oldest inland town. (The next two paragraphs are concerned with the Mount William Stone Axe Quarry and the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park.) In addition to its intrinsic value, Mitchell’s heritage is of enormous value in community, cultural and economic terms. It gives the Shire’s towns and regions distinctive amenity and character as well as a cultural identity and sense of place. It is also a basis for building tourism and business opportunities. Objective 1 To recognise and protect places of heritage, cultural and social significance. Strategies - Conserve and enhance the heritage places that distinguish each town. - Conserve places that contribute to the further development of tourism. - Support the preservation of heritage places threatened by development or neglect. This is followed by specific objectives and strategies for the Mount William Stone Axe Quarry and the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park. The Panel notes that while some of the more detailed strategies previously included in the MSS has been transferred to the new planning policy, there is very little context remaining for the above very general objectives and strategies. The vast majority of the heritage sites and themes represented in C56 have only a cursory strategic context. A user of the Planning Scheme must now consult the Mitchell Environmental History (Volume 2 of the Mitchell Shire Stage 2 Heritage Study 2006, proposed as a Reference Document under the scheme) and the Citations (proposed as an Incorporated Document) to understand the context and justification for Mitchell’s individual and precinct heritage controls. The overall conclusion reached by the Panel reviewing Amendment C87 is helpful in understanding the apparent sparseness of revised MSS in relation to heritage:
Page 11 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The MSS as proposed under the Amendment is still, by a long way, incomplete. It is a work in progress. Most notably Council needs to embark on further work such as a Rural Areas Strategy and structure plans for its township areas along with a raft of other investigations and have those outcomes included in the MSS before the MSS will be up to date. The Panel agrees with Council that despite that shortcoming this Amendment should proceed because at the very least it sets out a much better MSS structure into which the outcomes of those further investigations can be included at a later date. Importantly Council has identified and check‐listed (and in most cases prioritised) the areas in which it needs to undertake further work. The Panel would like to suggest that as the MSS is a ‘work in progress’, part of that progress would be to include in Clause 21.06‐3 a paragraph setting out the principal historic themes and categories of heritage assets in the Shire to provide much stronger strategic support for the heritage controls in the Planning Scheme. Recommendation The Panel recommends that, in a future amendment, Council modify Clause 21.06‐3 Heritage to include a brief outline of the principal historic themes and categories of heritage assets in the Shire to provide strategic support for the heritage controls in the Planning Scheme.
(iii) Local planning policy
There is no local Heritage Policy in the current Mitchell Planning Scheme. A new Heritage Policy is proposed as part of Amendment C56.
Clause 22‐03‐8 of the current Environment Policy relates to the site near Seymour associated with the Australian Light Horse (Site 17), and includes the following objectives:
- To recognise and to protect the heritage, cultural and social significance associated with Site 17 and its former role as a training facility for the Australian Light Horse. - To maintain the integrity of the land and the associated landscape, retaining the elements essential for interpreting the history of the area. - To provide opportunities for development.
This site is now proposed for heritage protection as part of Amendment C56 as the proposed HO297 (Australian Light Horse Memorial Park).
(iv) Planning Scheme provisions The proposed heritage places in Amendment C56 are located in a variety of urban and rural zones, principally the Residential 1 Zone, Industrial 1 Zone, Business 1 and 4 Zones, Farming Zone and various public use, recreation and conservation zones. Some sites are also affected by environmental, development and flood overlays. The Panel does not consider that the underlying zoning or other overlays impact on the assessment of sites for heritage significance.
Page 12 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
(v) Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Ministerial Directions 11 and 15 There are two Ministerial Directions relevant to Amendment C56: Strategic Assessment of Amendments (No 11) The Planning Scheme Amendment Process (No 15). Amendment C56 has been prepared in accordance with both Ministerial Directions. Practice Note: Applying the Heritage Overlay (2012) This VPP Practice Note directs that places to be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO) include (amongst other things) ‘Places 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 explain: 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. The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment complies with the guidance in the Practice Note. Practice Note: Strategic Assessment Guidelines (2013) Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of its submission to the Panel as well as in the Explanatory Report. The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment complies with the guidance in the Practice Note. Practice Note: Incorporated and Reference Documents The Amendment introduces two new Incorporated Documents to the Mitchell Planning Scheme: Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013 Mitchell Shire Heritage Study Amendment C65 Heritage Citations, 2013. The Panel is satisfied that the proposed documents meet the guidelines in the Practice Note for Incorporated Documents.
(vi) Overall assessment of strategic support for C56 The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant objectives, policies and strategies of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, and is consistent with the guidance provided in the relevant Practice Notes.
Page 13 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
3 Identification of issues
3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties can be summarised as follows: Issues raised by individual submitters were: Heritage value not established Designation of contributory and non‐contributory places Adequacy/age of Citations Failure to implement earlier studies Extent of HO Use of prohibited uses in the schedule Use of internal controls Costs and restrictions of permit requirements Perceived impact on property values Poor condition of building Impact on owners’ rights Inadequacy of proposed controls Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct Removal of HO in part of Sydney Street Kilmore. Additional issues addressed by the Council: Relevance of section 12(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (as amended) Route options for the Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass. Issues raised by VicRoads: Potential impact of proposed road improvements on various sites Re‐alignment of some overlay boundaries to exclude road pavements Exemptions from permit requirements for road maintenance and other works. Issues raised by the Panel: Use of most appropriate VPP tools.
3.2 Assessment of issues in this Report The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been greatly assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of precincts and individual sites. This report deals with all the issues listed above under the following headings: Chapter 4: Strategic and policy issues Proposed MSS changes Proposed new Planning Policy Proposed Incorporated Document – Permit Exemptions Proposed Incorporated Document – Citations Post‐exhibition changes to Amendment C56.
Page 14 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Chapter 5: Non‐heritage issues Use of most appropriate VPP tools Social and economic effects – section 12(2) Adequacy and age of Citations Impact on property values Cost of permits Condition of property Impact on owners’ rights Potential impact of Kilmore ‐ Wallan Bypass options Failure to implement earlier studies. Chapter 6: Assessment of precincts A separate assessment of each heritage precinct and its boundaries, including submissions made in regard to individual properties within the precinct. Precincts are arranged under the following sub‐headings: New precincts Changes to existing precincts Group precinct. The Panel has made recommendations only where its views differ from what was exhibited or proposed at the hearing. Chapter 7: Assessment of individual sites Assessment of submissions made in respect of individual heritage sites.
Page 15 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
4 Strategic and policy changes in C56
4.1 Municipal Strategic Statement The exhibited Amendment proposes to strengthen the heritage components of the MSS. The changes in Clause 21.05 (Natural resources and the environment) can be summarised as: Referring to the integration of the various heritage studies undertaken in the shire since 1982 (including the Thematic Environmental History and the Citations), resulting in a ’more complete heritage analysis’. Addition of new objectives for heritage protection and support for the ‘conservation of those places threatened by development or neglect’. Adding strategies under the heading ‘Rural land’ to ‘identify places of heritage value’ and ‘ensure supporting information for all places is contained on the Shire’s heritage database’. Adding the new Clause 22.08 (Heritage Policy) to the Implementation section. The Panel supports the proposed changes to the MSS.
4.2 Planning policies Clause 22.01 Planning evaluation guidelines The Amendment includes a change to Clause 22.01 which adds the four heritage reports on which Amendment C56 is based under the heading Adopted Studies, Strategies and Other Council Documents at Clause 22.01‐1. Council now proposes to include the document Mitchell Shire Heritage Study Amendment C56 Heritage Citations March 2013 as an Incorporated Document rather than a Reference Document as exhibited. The Panel supports this proposal, which will require the deletion of this document from the list of Reference Documents in Clause 22.01‐1. Recommendation The Panel recommends that Clause 21.01‐1 be modified to delete reference to the Mitchell Shire Heritage Study Amendment C56 Heritage Citations March 2013 from the list of Reference Documents. Clause 22.08 Heritage policy The proposed Clause 22.08 Heritage policy is a new addition to the Mitchell Planning Scheme, and was prepared to give clear guidance to both Council planners and property owners on the specific policies that will guide consideration of planning permit applications. Briefly, detailed policies are included at Clause 22.08‐3 under the following headings: Statements of significance Demolition Alterations and additions New buildings Subdivision Advertising signs
Page 16 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Vehicle accommodation. Clause 22.08‐4 (Application Requirements) sets out as follows: An application should be accompanied by a report prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, which assesses the impact of the application upon the significance of the heritage place. This information may not be required for minor applications as determined by the responsible authority. All applications for the total demolition of a significant or contributory heritage place are to be accompanied by a report from a suitably qualified and experienced structural engineer that outlines the structural condition of the building. Submission 40 questioned the requirement for a ‘suitably qualified heritage consultant’ to be engaged and suggested that Council should bear the costs. Ms Honman’s response to this submission recommended that this requirement be deleted, referring to a recent Panel hearing where a similar clause was appropriately modified. Council supported this recommendation at the hearing. The Panel agrees that the requirement would be onerous for many relatively simple applications, and considers that in most cases a simple report provided by a municipality’s Heritage Adviser would be adequate. This is particularly relevant for heritage places with ‘contributory’ status within a precinct, which comprise the vast majority of heritage places. However, the Panel is reluctant to remove this requirement entirely from the policy. There is a clear need for an independent expert assessment of proposed works to a ‘significant’ heritage place where the changes are controversial or not supported by the Heritage Adviser. The Panel proposes that this clause be redrafted to differentiate between ‘contributory’ and ‘significant’ heritage places. Applications for all heritage places would require a report by the Council’s Heritage Adviser unless the application is deemed ‘minor’ by Council. An applicant would only be required to provide an independent expert report in the case of a ‘significant’ place where the Heritage Adviser does not support the proposed works. The Panel also notes that the relationship between this clause of the policy and the permit exemptions in the proposed incorporated document is not clear. Are the ‘minor applications’ referred to in the policy similar to those exempt from permit requirements in the incorporated document? It would be helpful if the policy either defined ‘minor applications’ or referred directly to the permit exemptions in the policy. The Panel received a late submission from Kilmore Integrity Kept Inc. proposing that a clause be added to the policy requiring developments adjacent to properties protected by the HO to consider the impact on the heritage property. At the hearing Mr Huddle had raised this proposal (which had been used in another municipality) as a means of protecting heritage properties from adjoining development that detracted from their heritage significance. The Panel considers that this mechanism, while having merit in principle, is unlikely to be effective set within a heritage policy that applies only to places within the HO, not neighbouring properties. It would be more effective inserted into the MSS at Clause 21.06‐2 as an additional strategy under Objective 1: To recognise and protect places of heritage, cultural and social significance. The Panel supports this outcome.
Page 17 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Conclusion The Panel concludes that, subject to minor amendments, the exhibited policy is an essential component of the Planning Scheme, and will be of great assistance to both residents and Council. Recommendation The Panel recommends that Clause 22.08‐4 be modified to achieve the following outcomes: Applications in relation to ‘contributory’ places within a heritage precinct would require a report from the Council’s Heritage Adviser. Applications in relation to ‘significant’ places (individual or within a precinct) would also require a report from Council’s Heritage Adviser. In the event that the Heritage Adviser does not support the proposed works, the applicant would be required to submit a report from a suitably qualified heritage consultant in support of the application. The relationship between ‘minor works’ and the permit exemptions in the Incorporated Document is clarified in the policy. The Panel also recommends that Clause 21.06‐3 of the MSS be modified to include an additional strategy for the protection of heritage places by ensuring that adjacent development does not detract from or obscure the heritage significance of a site protected by the HO. The Panel also notes that, in cases where total demolition is approved, Council may require the preparation of a Heritage Archival Report (as set out in the permit issued for 495 Clonbinane Road). It would be helpful if the policy identified this requirement. However, the Panel consider it should only apply to places with ‘significant’ heritage status. Recommendation The Panel recommends that Clause 22.08‐3.2 Demolition be modified to indicate that a Heritage Archival Report will be required for ‘significant’ heritage places if demolition is approved. Council advised the Panel that the exhibited policy was developed after an initial review of other heritage policies in the State, followed by drafting of the new policy to meet local circumstances and requirements. The Panel supports the proposed policy, subject to the modifications recommended above.
4.3 Incorporated Document – Permit Exemptions Amendment C56 includes the Mitchell Sire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013. The plan is intended to apply to places included in a Heritage Overlay as follows: Heritage precincts in the Residential 1 or Township Zone Individual heritage places in the Residential 1 or Township Zone Individual heritage places in rural areas.
Page 18 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
At the hearing, Council proposed to include exemptions relating to works associated with the sewerage pumping station within the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park (HO297) in response to the submission from Goulburn Valley Water. The Incorporated Plan contains the following material: Definitions of ‘Significant’, ‘Contributory’ and ‘Non‐contributory’ heritage places and ‘Significant features’. Details of specific works exempted from the requirement for a planning permit for each of the categories listed above. Maps of the following seven heritage precincts which lie within a Residential or Township Zone, showing Significant, Contributory and Non‐contributory sites: - Broadford Pinniger Street Precinct (HO315) - Kilmore Railway Precinct (HO302) - Kilmore Society Precinct (HO100) - Kilmore Creek Precinct (HO102) - Seymour High Street Precinct (HO305) - Seymour Progress Precinct (HO307) - Tallarook Town Precinct (HO181) - Wandong Precinct (HO309). The Panel strongly supports this Incorporated Document, which should reassure owners of residential properties in a Heritage Overlay that many minor works on their properties, including routine repairs and maintenance, outbuildings etc. can be undertaken in the manner prescribed in the document without the need for a permit. The document will also significantly reduce the administrative burden on Council. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013 be modified as proposed by Council to include specific exemptions for works associated with the sewerage pumping station in the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park.
4.4 Incorporated Document ‐ Citations Content of Citations The Citations for precincts that were redrafted for this Amendment include the following elements: Statement of Significance (in the What? How? Why? format) Conservation policy (including Objectives, General policies and Specific policies for the precinct Decision guidelines. Citations for individual sites generally include the following: History Description Statement of significance.
Page 19 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
In some cases, the thematic context, a history and description of the place or precinct is also included.
A number of the Citations have been transferred directly from the 2006 Huddle Study. These Citations are in a format that was accepted practice at the time but are not consistent with the current Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay (2012). Some submitters queried the status of these Citations. The Panel is satisfied that the Citations from the 2006 Huddle Study are the outcome of rigorous and professional research and assessment consistent with the standards of the time. The fact that their structure is now inconsistent with current practice does not diminish the value of the assessments. This view is consistent with that of the Panel considering Moorabool Amendment C6 Part 2, which was based on a 1995 study: We are satisfied that the methodology adopted in the 1995 is sound, and the changes in criteria and practice since that work was undertaken are not so great as to warrant rejection of the findings. While the Panel considers that all the earlier Citations should eventually be translated into the current format, it recognises that this would require a significant input of Council resources, and does not believe it is necessary prior to implementation of Amendment C56. Incorporation into Planning Scheme The Citations are contained in a document titled Mitchell Shire Heritage Study – Amendment C56 Heritage Citations – March 2013. As exhibited, this document was proposed to be included in the Mitchell Planning Scheme as a Reference Document. Council submitted at the hearing that it was now proposing that it be included as an Incorporated Document rather than a Reference Document. Council stated that the document meets the following two criteria set out in the Planning Practice Note Incorporated and Reference Documents 2013: The document is necessary to determine the extent of a planning control, or whether planning permission is required in a particular case… The document will be used to guide the exercise of discretion by the responsible authority… The Panel accepts Council’s submission on the basis that the Citations identify the significant and non‐significant elements of a heritage site, and this information is essential for assessing firstly whether a permit required and secondly, whether a permit can be issued without affecting the heritage significance of the place. The Panel agrees with Council that the change in the status of this document from a reference document to an incorporated document satisfies the ‘no detriment’ test and does not require further exhibition. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Mitchell Shire Heritage Study – Amendment C56 Heritage Citations – March 2013 be included in the Planning Scheme as an Incorporated Document.
Page 20 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
4.5 Post‐exhibition changes to heritage sites
(i) Changes to heritage sites made by Council resolution Following exhibition of the Amendment and consideration of submissions, Council at its meeting on 26 August 2013 resolved to change the Amendment as follows:
Alter the boundaries of the existing HO104 (Lake Precinct) to include the whole area recommended for the Heritage Overlay in the 2006 Huddle Study and identified as the ‘Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct’. This change is discussed in Section 5.1 of this Report. Delete the two properties at 26 and 27 Hamilton Street Broadford from the Amendment. These properties are not considered in this Report.
(ii) Changes to heritage sites now proposed by Council Council now proposes the following further changes to Amendment C56: Changes recommended in Attachment 1 (Summary of Submissions and Officer Response) of the report to Council considered at the meeting on 23 August 2013. Changes arising from further discussion with submitters and the heritage consultants. Changes to heritage Citations resulting from further information provided by submitters and the heritage consultants. The changes recommended to Council on 26 August in Attachment 1 are described in Council’s submission to the Panel as ‘resolved submissions’ and listed under that heading in the table on page 37 of Council’s submission. Council advised the Panel that the relevant changes have already been made to the Amendment documentation. However, the Panel notes that the changes in respect of 9 of the 12 properties listed have not been made by Council resolution, and do not have the same status as the specific changes made at the Council meeting on 26 August 2013. Council’s resolution in relation to the properties in Attachment 1 at that meeting was to ‘continue mediating with submitters as recommended in Attachment 1 with the attempt to resolve concerns prior to commencement of the Planning Panel’ and to ‘refer all submissions to the Panel.’ For this reason the Panel has treated these changes as ‘proposed’ and they are discussed in relation to the nine relevant properties in Chapters 6 and 7 of this Report. The changes already made to the documentation will need to be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with recommendations made by the Panel. Council also identified a number of technical changes to documentation and mapping that arose from submissions or through Council processes in preparing for the Panel hearing. Recommendations The Panel recommends that all identified mapping and other technical errors be amended prior to approval of Amendment C56.
Page 21 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
5 Non‐heritage issues
5.1 Social and economic issues The Panel’s principal role in assessing a heritage amendment is to address the question of whether or not the properties proposed for protection meet the criteria for heritage significance. There are a number of other issues raised by submitters which are viewed as best considered by Council when a planning permit is sought. The approach which has traditionally been adopted by Panels separates the assessment of the significance of the place from the later consideration of its conservation, adaptation, alteration or demolition. This separation conforms with established heritage conservation principles and mirrors the processes of the Victorian Heritage Act 1985. It also allows long term factors such as enduring heritage significance, and short term considerations such as building condition, personal wishes and circumstances, to be given proper weight at the most appropriate time. This approach was adopted in the context of the provisions of s.12(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’) which provided that the planning authority (and Panels) ‘may’ rather than ‘must’ consider social and economic effects. This is not to say that social and economic issues did not have a role to play when heritage amendments were proposed. Minimising the extent of the overlay on an individual property to allow future development changes unrestricted by heritage considerations, introducing Incorporated Plans to tailor permit requirements, and considering the Council resources available for administering heritage controls, are examples of social and economic matters given Panel attention. Amendments to the Act, however, were gazetted in October 2013. Section 12(2)(c) of the Act now requires that the planning authority ‘must take into account … [an amendment’s] social effects and economic effects’ as well as its environmental effects. The Panel makes the following comments on the impact of this change on Amendment C56: A requirement to consider an effect does not imply that the effect must prevail in any balancing decision. The social and economic effects most likely to be relevant at the Amendment stage are those of a broad community nature rather than of a personal kind. This is consistent with the long‐standing approach taken to such issues in planning decision‐making by both planning Panels and VCAT. Personal economic effects (or the effects for a particular building) will still be considered at the permit stage. It should be noted that s.60 of the Act, which relates to matters to be considered when deciding on planning permit applications, consents and the like, was also changed by the amendments to the Act – making social and economic matters a mandatory consideration at the permit stage. When viewed in the context of integrating polices and net community benefit (as required under Clause 10.04 of the Planning Scheme), the Panel believes there is overwhelming support in the community for the application of the Heritage Overlay. Council itself
Page 22 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 acknowledges the importance of heritage to the identity of the Shire of Mitchell, and the corresponding need to identify and protect heritage places. Council addressed the impact of s.12(2)(c) and quoted from the Panel Report on Yarra Planning Scheme Amendments C157 and C163, (which strongly supported both Council’s and the present Panel’s view concerning the impact of the changes to the Act and how potential economic and social effects should be assessed in the context of a heritage amendment). Council submitted that its re‐assessment of the following two properties in response to submissions was based on the provisions of s.12(2):
145 Wimble Street, Seymour. This property is part of the Mob Siding Precinct (HO306). The land is zoned for industrial use and a subdivision of the land has been approved by Council. In weighing the potential economic effects against heritage objectives, Council resolved the issue by reducing the area of the HO to focus on the significant elements. ‘Woodburn’, 125 McDougalls Road, Kilmore (HO255). This individual property is actively used for commercial agriculture. After weighing the economic and heritage impacts, Council resolved the matter by reducing the area of the HO to focus on the significant elements. The Panel notes that the same approach was also taken by Council in relation to (‘Wyldecourt’) 370 Kilmore‐Lancefield Road, Kilmore (HO254), another commercial farming operation. In the Panel’s view, the outcomes represent an appropriate balance between the protection of significant heritage assets and support for productive enterprises that are of economic benefit to the community.
5.2 Use of most appropriate VPP tools At the hearing, there was discussion by Council, Context, the Panel and submitters about whether the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) would be a more appropriate VPP tool than the HO for the Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct. In its right of reply, Council requested that, if the Panel was inclined to recommend the SLO, Council would like the opportunity to draft a new SLO schedule incorporating the precinct Citation and provide it to the Panel so that it could still be included as part of Amendment C56. Council and the community were anxious to have a planning control in place quickly in view of the forthcoming EES for the Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass, as one of the route options passes through the precinct. On 27 November 2013 the Panel notified the Council that it intended to recommend the SLO as the more appropriate VPP tool for this precinct, and set out a series of changes that would need to be made to the existing SLO schedule and the Citation. The Panel also provided a timetable that included an opportunity for submitters to comment on the revised documents. The Panel’s letter to Council is attached as Appendix B. The Panel undertook to provide the remainder of its Report within the original timelines, and to provide a Supplementary Report on the Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct once it had considered the revised documents and comments made by submitters.
Page 23 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Council forwarded the revised schedule for SLO1 on 3 December 2013 and circulated it to those submitters who were concerned about this precinct. The Panel subsequently received comments from nine submitters that it will consider in reaching conclusions about the Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct. In the course of writing this Report, the Panel has also considered the choice of VPP tools in relation to the Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102 and the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park HO297, both of which are predominantly open spaces and could be considered as appropriate for the SLO. These sites are discussed under their own headings in Sections 6.2(iii) (Kilmore Creek Precinct) and 7(ii) (Australian Light Horse Memorial Park).
5.3 Adequacy and age of Citations A number of the Citations in Amendment C56 are sourced directly from the 2006 Huddle Study. These Citations were prepared prior to the introduction of the structure now used by Heritage Victoria and set out in the current Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay (2012) (i.e. the ‘what, how, why’ format). Some submitters suggested that because these Citations are now seven years old and their structure is inconsistent with current practice, less weight should be given to them. The status of the Citations has been discussed in Section 4.4 of this report.
5.4 Impact on property values This is an issue that was sometimes raised in relation to the application of the Heritage Overlay. There has been no definitive, independent study to ascertain whether the Heritage Overlay has any impact (positive, negative or neutral) on property value. Neither have the submitters provided any evidence to support their assertion that property values would be reduced. In the absence of any substantiating evidence, the Panel cannot place any weight on these submissions.
5.5 Cost of permits While the burden and cost of applying for permits is an issue often raised by submitters, it is not usually expressed in the community impact terms which might be relevant to the Panel’s assessment of the Amendment. The view that permit costs for individuals are not relevant has been adopted in heritage panel reports for many years (e.g. the Panel report on Amendment C58 to the Ballarat Planning Scheme). There are many planning overlays that trigger the need for a permit for a variety of reasons, all of which are consistent with the objectives and policies for planning in Victoria. When viewed at the level of net community benefit as required under Clause 10.01 of the planning scheme, the Panel considers that there is overwhelming support for applying the Heritage Overlay. The Council and many residents acknowledge the importance of heritage in the identity of the Mitchell Shire. This identity is founded on the identification and protection of heritage towns and places.
Page 24 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The Panel also notes that the proposed Clause 22.08 Heritage Policy provides extensive guidance as to what may be permitted under the Heritage Overlay. It covers matters such as subdivision, demolition, alterations and additions, new buildings and garages. Residents therefore can gain a clear idea of how their application will be assessed before preparing their plans. The Panel also notes that the Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan 2013 provides a range of exemptions from permit requirements for minor works at heritage places in the Residential 1 and Rural Zones.
5.6 Condition of property This is another issue sometimes raised by submitters. It is generally expressed in terms of the costs of repair to the building’s owners. There is no obligation to repair arising from inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. In the Panel’s view this issue is not relevant to the assessment of the appropriateness of the Amendment. The time for taking building condition into account is when an application for a permit is made and the details of developments or redevelopments are clear. The Panel notes that under the proposed Heritage Policy, an application for demolition of a significant or contributory heritage place must be accompanied by a report by a qualified and experienced engineer.
5.7 Impact on owners’ rights A few submitters complained that the Heritage Overlay would affect their right to make decisions about their property. The Panel notes that the application of the Heritage Overlay is but one of many components of the long established and accepted practice in Victoria of regulating land use and development by statutory planning schemes. Planning schemes in turn are simply an element of the diverse legislative framework that regulates how land is used, including by home owners. Provided that public notice and relevant issues raised by owners are considered, the scheme requirements can be said to be fairly applied. While individual owners are subject to planning restrictions on the use and development of their property, they are, at the same time, benefited by restrictions on the use and development of land by others.
5.8 Potential impact of Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass options Many submitters who were concerned about the Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Area (HO104) identified the possible location of the proposed Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass through the precinct as a major issue. Council advised the Panel that the State Government announced its commitment to the bypass in 2011. VicRoads has commenced pre‐planning and has released three road alignment options, one of which passes through the precinct. An Environment Effects Statement is currently being prepared and will be placed on public exhibition. The Panel explained to submitters at the hearing that, while it appreciates their concern, it cannot take any of the possible locations of the bypass into account as a relevant factor in assessing the Amendment. The Environment Effects Statement and subsequent independent evaluation process will assess the impact of each option on heritage sites.
Page 25 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
5.9 Failure to implement earlier studies Some submitters were concerned that Council had in the past failed to implement the 2006 Huddle Study and other studies such the Structure Plan prepared for the Kilmore township. The Panel notes that while it has taken some years for this heritage study to reach the amendment stage, the delay is not a matter relevant to the Panel’s assessment of Amendment C56.
Page 26 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
6 Assessment of precincts
This Chapter provides a discussion and assessment of each precinct in Amendment C56, and consideration of any submissions received from property owners in the precinct. The precincts are arranged under the following headings: New precincts Changes to existing precincts Group precinct.
6.1 New precincts
(i) Broadford Commercial Town Centre Precinct HO298 Nature of precinct This precinct covers much of the length of High Street, a broad, tree‐lined road with a wide service road on both sides. It comprises commercial, residential and civic buildings and historic open spaces dating from the late nineteenth to mid‐twentieth century, including three churches (St Matthew’s, St George’s and the Uniting Church). The more substantial contributory places in the precinct include two halls (Gavan Hall and the Salvation Army Hall) and two historic open spaces (former Market Place Reserve and the Historical Reserve). Commercial and residential buildings are nearly all single storey. About half of the sites are assessed as contributory. There are no sites with ‘significant’ status. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: The Broadford Town Centre Precinct is historically significant as it provides tangible evidence of the early beginnings of Broadford and its development into a regional centre by the mid‐twentieth century. It is also significant as a representative example of a rural town centre with a mixture of commercial, residential and civic/community buildings that is typical of rural township development in the late nineteenth century and illustrates key phases in the town’s growth associated with the development of local industries. The incorporation of a ‘market place’ reserve is notable as an illustration of the influence of English ideals upon early township layout in Victoria (Criterion A & D). The Broadford Town Centre Precinct is socially significant for the continuing use of its historic market place as a civic public space in which important events have been memorialised and for its Historic Reserve open air museum which represents the efforts of members of the community to conserve and document buildings and objects of local significance at a time when there was little community or legislative support for conserving these places in situ. The Historical Reserve contains buildings and objects that contribute to an understanding of the history of the town and district, and of the activities that sustained its economy (Criterion G). Issues/submissions No written submissions were received in relation to this precinct, but it was discussed at the hearing.
Page 27 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The precinct boundaries have been reduced from those recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. The main changes are: Deletion of part of the open space and a row of properties facing the Market Place Reserve at the northern end of High Street Addition of properties in Powlett Street on either side of High Street Deletion of properties at the southern end of High Street on the northern side. There are four existing HOs in High Street within the proposed precinct: Historic Reserve comprising a cluster of relocated historic buildings (HO11) Hume and Hovell Monument in the Market Square Reserve (HO13) State School No 1125 (HO15) St Georges Presbyterian Church (HO16. Discussion The Panel is not satisfied that, even with the reduced boundaries, this precinct meets the threshold for heritage significance. On entering Broadford, the impression is of an extremely generous treed road reservation. Many of the buildings fronting the wide service roads on either side are obscured by vegetation. Standing on the footpath on one side of the road, the buildings on the other side of High Street are barely visible in many cases. In other words, the carriageway is by far the most dominant element. The Panel also has concerns that with a relatively small percentage of contributory buildings, their dispersion in small groups along High Street and the lack of any ‘significant’ buildings, the area does not ‘read’ as a heritage precinct, or at best only marginally. A further consideration is whether the HO is justified in terms of outcomes. It should be noted that the High Street carriageway is publicly owned and controlled and is unlikely to change. Furthermore, given the wide variety of building types and eras represented in the precinct (commercial, residential, civic, religious) it could not be said that there is any coherent heritage ‘character’ to guide future development. Other built form overlays such as the Neighbourhood Character Overlay or the Design and Development Overlay could achieve the same physical outcomes. The Panel notes that the Statement of Significance quoted above attributes historical and social significance to the precinct. Under both headings, the incorporation of the Market Place reserve into the town plan from an early stage is listed as the key element, with the Historic Reserve also cited as socially significant. These two sites lie opposite each other at the northern end of the precinct. While the Heritage Overlay is not always the best way to protect social and historic significance, in this case the sites are clearly identified and relevant to the significance. In relation to the precinct as a whole, the Citation states that: It is also significant as a representative example of a rural town centre with a mixture of commercial, residential and civic/community buildings that is typical of rural township development in the late nineteenth century and illustrates key phases in the town’s growth associated with the development of local industries. The Panel does not consider that a precinct that is described as ‘representative’ and ‘typical’ meets the threshold of heritage significance. No aesthetic significance has been attributed
Page 28 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 to the precinct. However, although the precinct as a whole may not meet the threshold, there are elements within the precinct that have some heritage significance. Based on the Citation, the Market Square, Historic Reserve, Salvation Army Hall and the mature trees at 72‐78 High Street should be considered for individual significance. Indeed, the Historic Reserve (although with an incorrect boundary) is already protected under HO11, and the Hume and Hovell Monument is protected as HO13. The Panel believes that HO13 should be extended to include the whole of the Market Square Reserve. A conservation plan for this site should include eventual relocation of the public toilets, which unfortunately intrude into the main vista at the end of High Street. The boundary of HO11 should be corrected to include the buildings in the Reserve. The other existing individual HO sites within the precinct should also be retained (HO15 and HO16). The distinctive Art Deco Commercial Hotel further south in High Street should be assessed for heritage significance. The Panel also concludes that Council should investigate whether the Neighbourhood Character Overlay or the Design and Development Overlay should be introduced in lieu of the HO. The overlay should cover the whole area recommended for the HO in the 2006 Huddle Study, to ensure that any infill development contributes to the character of High Street. Many rural towns have introduced such controls to protect their entrances and main streets. Recommendation The Panel recommends that: The Broadford Commercial Town Centre Precinct HO298 is deleted from Amendment C56. The boundary of the Historic Reserve HO11 is extended to cover the whole of the site including the buildings. The area of HO13 (Hume and Hovell Monument) be extended to include all of the Market Square Reserve. Council assess the Commercial Hotel in High Street for individual heritage significance. Council consider introducing either a Neighbourhood Character Overlay or Design and Development Overlay over the area recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study.
(ii) Broadford Pinniger Street Precinct HO315 Nature of precinct The Pinniger Street Precinct is a small cluster of nine detached, single‐storey, mostly pre 1912 cottages with simple gardens centred on the intersection of Pinniger and Gavin Streets, about 500m west of the centre of Broadford. There are five non‐contributory residences but these are also detached and single‐storey although they are clearly modern. A new dwelling is being constructed at the east corner of Pinniger and Snodgrass Streets. The road reserves are wide and there are no substantial street trees.
Page 29 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: The precinct is historically significant as a representative example of a residential area comprising modest homes that are characteristic of rural townships in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The housing within the precinct provides tangible evidence of the scattered pattern of township formation of Broadford by the late nineteenth century and the infill and growth associated with the expansion of the APM Mill during the inter‐war period (Criteria A & D). Issues/submissions Submission 59 (received and accepted late) was made on behalf of the owner of 24 Pinniger Street by a friend who attended the hearing. The submission claimed that the present house was relocated, that most of it dates from 1950 or later and that it is in poor condition. It stated that the proposed HO315 requires further review and consideration because the contributory buildings are too disparate. Individual heritage overlays may be a better approach. Bruce Trethowan appeared as the advocate of the owner. He submitted that the Statement of Significance was unclear, that if the intent of the Heritage Overlay was to have a representative example of housing from several periods it was too small, that the collection was not pristine, and that the precinct had changed since 2006. He wondered why other buildings weren’t identified and why the precinct boundaries were not wider. He did not refute the pre‐1912 date of construction and made no comment on the intactness and integrity of the surviving fabric at 24 Pinniger Street. Mr Helms, for the Council, submitted evidence about how the Pinniger Street Precinct emerged from the 2012 Context Review as a substitute for the larger serial listing proposed in 2006 Huddle Study. The proposed boundaries are outlined in Appendix B, on page 70 of his Statement of Evidence. He explained further recent research into the property at 24 Pinniger Street. Council provided a copy of the pre‐1912 map which was very useful in understanding the evolution of the proposed precinct. Conclusions Having inspected the property at 24 Pinniger Street again and compared it with other examples surviving from the pre‐1912 map, the Panel concludes that the Pinniger Street Precinct meets the threshold of local significance, concurs that the sites identified as contributory are so and that the boundaries are reasonable. The Panel believes 24 Pinniger Street to be one of the more important surviving examples of the pre‐1912 dwellings, whether or not it was relocated, and that it acts as the keystone of the proposed precinct. The condition of the building is not relevant in determining its significance. The Panel concludes that there should be no change from what was exhibited.
Page 30 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
(iii) Kilmore Railway Precinct HO302 Nature of precinct The Kilmore Railway Precinct comprises fences, trees, and landscape features that are associated with the use and development of this area as the site of the Kilmore Railway Station. Almost all of the former railway buildings and infrastructure have been demolished or removed. The precinct is on the western edge of Kilmore. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Kilmore Railway precinct is historically significant as a place that provides tangible evidence of the development of the railway from Heathcote Junction to Bendigo, which was part of a massive expansion of Victoria's railway system in the 1880s. As much of the infrastructure associated with the railway has been removed the trees and other features within the precinct provide an important reminder of the railway and the presence of the station within Kilmore (Criterion A). The mature trees within the Kilmore Railway precinct are aesthetically significant for their landmark qualities as part of Kilmore's historic cultural landscape that provide a focal point to this otherwise grid‐like subdivision pattern (Criterion E). Kilmore Railway precinct is scientifically significant as a place that is presumed to have strong potential for archaeological research, which may contribute to further understanding about the use and development of this area (Criterion C). Issues/submissions The precinct was exhibited as a large area that had been recommended in the 2012 Context Review, and was a reduction of the area recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. At the hearing, Mr Helms gave evidence that the more intact of the two surviving Victorian Railways departmental residences had now been demolished, affecting the integrity of the precinct. Council proposed to further reduce the area significantly, retaining only the group of trees, remnant post and rail fence and the remaining platform formation. The reduced area is shown hatched in black on the map on page 43 of Mr Helms’ Statement of Evidence. There were no other submissions or issues raised relating to this precinct. The integrity and intactness of this site have been seriously compromised. On a comparative basis, little survives to indicate the original function and importance of the Kilmore Station complex. The only surviving elements are the exotic trees, remnants of a post and rail fence, and a compromised platform ‘formation’. The site has almost completely lost any meaningful ‘railway’ context, and although some sense of it may be gained while the remainder of the exhibited site is vacant, it is likely that development will occur in future, thus completely obscuring the railway origins of the precinct. Conclusions The Panel has inspected the exhibited precinct and the reduced precinct now proposed, and does not consider that either proposal has the level of integrity or functional context expected for a heritage precinct. The Panel concludes that the Kilmore Railway Precinct
Page 31 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
HO302 does not meet the threshold of local heritage significance and should be deleted from the Amendment. The Panel also concludes that, if protection of the remnants of the station area is still an objective for Council and the community, it may be appropriate to apply the SLO in lieu of the HO. Recommendations The Panel recommends that: The Kilmore Railway Precinct HO302 is deleted from Amendment C56. Council consider introducing the Significant Landscape Overlay over the reduced area of the former station environs proposed at the hearing.
(iv) Moranding Rural Settlement Precinct HO303 Nature of precinct Moranding Rural Settlement comprises a small group of buildings situated along the Forbes‐ Moranding Road, Willomavin. The places that contribute to the significance of the precinct are: the former Common School; the bluestone outbuilding at the farm Ardmona; and the ruins, outbuildings and underground tank of the Harvest Home Hotel. The precinct is in relatively open, hilly country about 8kms north‐west of Kilmore. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Moranding Rural Settlement precinct is historically significant as a place associated with the development of Moranding as a farming area from 1838, and briefly with gold mining in the 1850s. This road was used as one of the tracks from Kilmore to the McIvor goldfields, and the substantial bluestone Harvest Home Hotel, built in 1859 illustrates the importance that this resting place had for travellers, while the former Common School and the bluestone outbuilding at Ardmona provide evidence of the settlement that developed here in the nineteenth century. It is a representative example of the isolated rural communities established in the nineteenth that often vanished by the twentieth century (Criteria A & D). Moranding Rural Settlement precinct is scientifically significant as an early settlement site with ruined buildings and other sites of archaeological potential that may provide further evidence of the settlement of this area (Criterion C). Issues/submissions No submissions were received in relation to this precinct. The exhibited precinct is smaller than that recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. Mr Helms gave evidence that the reduced area would be adequate to identify, protect and manage what was significant. The Panel agrees. Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Moranding Rural Settlement Precinct as exhibited meets the threshold of local heritage significance.
Page 32 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
(v) Emu Flat Rural Precinct HO299 Nature of precinct The Emu Flat Rural Precinct comprises two remnant buildings, the Uniting (former Presbyterian) Church and the ruins of the former Emu Flat School No 1232, and various mature trees. The isolated setting of the hand‐hewn granite stone church and the small timber school within a mixture of a mature pine and gum trees, and large granite outcrops and pastures is integral to the significance of the place. Emu Flat is about 25kms north‐west of Kilmore. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Emu Flat Rural Precinct is historically significant as a place associated with the closer settlement of farming land in the Emu Flat area from the 1860s onwards in the wake of the pastoral area. The isolated buildings provide tangible evidence of the establishment and development of Emu Flat as a distinct farming community and provide a rare surviving reminder of the many small communities that have now vanished. The precinct has social significance for the continued use of the church for over 130 years (Criteria A & G). Emu Flat Rural Precinct is aesthetically significant as a most evocative part of the cultural landscape in this area, and has landmark qualities. The isolated setting of the church and school in rural setting is now rare in Mitchell Shire (Criterion E). The church is architecturally significant as a representative example of a small non‐ conformist chapel, which has hand made chattels of an appropriate scale and design for this building (Criterion D). The church is scientifically significant for the vernacular building traditions evident in the construction of the church, using locally collected and hewn granite blocks and a timber shingle roof. The precinct as a whole is presumed to have a strong potential for archaeological research, which may provide further information about the early settlement of this area (Criterion C). Issues/submissions The existing buildings are already identified in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay by two stars as HO40 and HO41. The exhibited precinct includes the whole of the lots on which they stand. The exhibited area is significantly reduced from that recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. Mr Helms gave evidence that the reduced area is adequate to identify, protect and manage what is significant. The Panel agrees. The individual listings HO40 and HO41 will be deleted as part of C56. Submission 10 sought to correct minor details about the history of the church and stressed its importance to the local community. Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Emu Flat Rural Precinct HO299 as exhibited meets the threshold of local heritage significance. The Panel noted the care of the church and was impressed by the landscape setting.
Page 33 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Citation for the Emu Flat Rural Precinct HO299 be amended as proposed in Submission 10.
(vi) Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 Nature of precinct The Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 is a residential area comprising houses that date from the late nineteenth century to the inter‐war period and the Uniting Church and its hall. It has a 'garden suburb' setting with detached houses with wide setbacks and side driveways, along with low fences and footpaths with nature strips. There are remnant brick and stone gutters, unmade road verges and mature street trees (Platanus sp.) in High Street. Views into and out of the precinct are important. The precinct is on the northern side of the town. The proposed precinct is smaller than that proposed in the 2006 Huddle Study, and excludes non‐residential sites and non‐contributory buildings on the periphery of the precinct. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Seymour High Street precinct is historically significant as a place that is associated with the development of the 'new' town of Seymour after the opening of the railway in 1872 and after the creation of the first suburban allotments for residences on high ground after the 1870 floods. It demonstrates the significant growth of the town from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century. The Uniting church within the precinct provides further evidence of community formation and growth in Seymour by the early twentieth century (Criterion A). Seymour High Street precinct is architecturally significant as a representative example of a residential area comprising housing from the late nineteenth to mid‐twentieth centuries. It has aesthetic and design qualities associated with the residential development of that era including picturesque skylines created by the pitched rooflines and chimneys, accented by a backdrop of sky and trees, and gardens visible over low wire fences. The siting of the housing illustrates the emergence of garden city influences by the inter‐war period. The streetscape of High Street is notable for the mature street trees and surviving early road layout (Criteria D & E). Issues/submissions The 2006 Huddle Study proposed a large precinct which included the Catholic Church complex (St Mary’s Convent and the Church of the Immaculate Conception) and the Cemetery Reserve to the east. The Cemetery Reserve is already identified as HO153. These sites were not included in the exhibited precinct. Mr Helms gave evidence that these sites and some peripheral areas of housing and other development to the north, south and west were excluded from the precinct as a result of the 2012 Context Review. He argued that the Catholic Church complex was better identified and protected as two individual sites (HO330 and HO331 as exhibited) and that the Cemetery Reserve should retain its separate listing as HO153.
Page 34 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The building at 3 Callen Street, a polychromatic brick house dating from the later nineteenth century, was inadvertently omitted from the 2012 Context Review and consequently the exhibited Amendment. Three submissions were received relating to this precinct, each of which was addressed by Mr Helms in his evidence. Submission 4 concerned 3 Collas Street and argued that the house should not be identified as contributory because it was built in the 1940s. The owners want to demolish the house and rebuild. Generally they supported heritage planning controls. Mr Helms gave evidence that a house was shown on the site in 1917 and some original features remain although the chimneys appear to date from the 1940s. Building condition and impact on the development potential are not relevant to heritage assessment, and have been discussed in Chapters 5.6 and 5.7 of this report. Mr Helms supported the retention of the contributory status as exhibited. Submission 13 concerned 26 Tristan Street. The owners appeared at the hearing and argued that the house should not be identified as contributory because it is much altered, poorly constructed and is in poor condition. The owners want to demolish the house and rebuild citing medical issues. Building condition and impact on the development potential are not relevant to heritage assessment, and have been discussed in Chapters 5.6 and 5.7 of this report. Mr Helms gave evidence supporting the retention of the contributory status as exhibited. Submission 14 concerned 21 Butler Street and argued that the house should not be identified as contributory because much of the house is not from the relative period, is much altered and extended and is in poor condition. It was also argued that the property owners would be disadvantaged by the listing. Building condition and impact on the development potential are permit issues for later assessment, and have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of this report. Mr Helms gave evidence that, despite the alterations, the house remains identifiable as an interwar dwelling and is contributory to the precinct. Conclusions The Panel has inspected the Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 and concludes that it meets the threshold of local heritage significance, but should be modified as follows: The status of the site at 7 Butler Street should be changed to non‐contributory due to demolition of the dwelling. Number 8 President Street should be deleted from the precinct as it has been demolished and lies on the boundary of the precinct. Numbers 24 and 26 Tristan Street should be deleted from the precinct on the grounds that the former is a non‐contributory villa unit development and the latter is a timber house with low integrity and lies on the boundary of the precinct. In the Panel’s view, it will strengthen the boundary of the precinct to begin it at the row of four timber houses with high integrity from 16 to 22 Tristan Street. This conclusion is based on the above planning grounds rather than on the submission made at the hearing.
Page 35 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The Panel agrees that the sites at 21 Butler Street and 3 Collas Street should retain their contributory status as exhibited. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 is adopted subject to the following modifications: Deletion of 8 President Street and 26 and 24 Tristan Street Changing the status of 7 Butler Street to non‐contributory. The Panel also recommends that the house at 3 Callen Street be considered for inclusion in the precinct in a future amendment.
(vii) Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306 Nature of precinct The Seymour Mob Siding Precinct developed as an Army facility, particularly for mobilising servicemen, from c.1920 to c.1960. It comprises: The former Ordinance buildings and caretakers residence at 19‐25 Highlands Road. The group of three stores buildings, the former RAEME building, and the former Tel el Kabir Barracks and associated facilities including the cricket oval and pavilion, on the east side of Delatite Road, north of Wimble Road. The row of Sugar Gums (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) adjacent to Worrough Road and the mature Oak (Quercus sp.) adjacent to the stores buildings. The remnant features associated with the railway including the track formation, the double brick and concrete culvert, signalling mast at the north end of Dropmore Street, remnant track infrastructure, and platform formations adjacent to the stores buildings. Other buildings on the sites are not significant. The land is in the Industrial 1 Zone, which the Panel took into account when considering the potential social and economic effects of the proposed precinct (see Section 5.1). Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: The Mob Siding precinct is historically significant as the first defence stores facility established by the Commonwealth Government as a response to the First World War and as a place that played a critical role in the war effort during the Second World War. It is a tangible reminder of the critical, but often ignored, problems of logistic support for a citizen army, which receives its mobilisation orders. Its location indicates the pivotal strategic importance of the Seymour area to the national defence system. The former RAEME building is historically significant as place associated with the American occupation and control of various Australian military facilities during World War 2. The Mob Siding precinct is historically significant as a representative example of a purpose‐built military stores complex that expresses its specific function as a transfer and distribution point between road and rail transport through the design and layout of the buildings, roads and remnant rail infrastructure (Criterion D).
Page 36 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The stores and ordnance buildings are of architectural significance as representative examples of the buildings built by the Australian Army that illustrate the techniques and materials employed to enable quick and economical construction. The significance of these buildings, once relatively common, is enhanced as so many comparable examples have been demolished. The design of the magazines that incorporate specialist features such as unenclosed eaves to encourage any accidental explosion to remove the roof rather than breach the walls is also technically significant (Criteria D & F). The Mob Siding complex is socially as one of a number of major defence facilities that played an important role in the historic development of Seymour particularly during World War Two and the immediate post‐war period. Besides its role as a defence facility, the mess hall at the barracks known as the 'Moby' was an integral part of the social life of Seymour for over two decades (Criterion G). Issues/submissions The 2006 Huddle Study proposed a large precinct including the proposed Seymour Railway Precinct and the proposed Mob Siding Precinct. The connection between the two parts has since been lost, and the 2012 Context Review recommended that two separate precincts be created. Context also recommended that the Mob Siding Precinct HO306 be extended further towards the north to include other Army buildings and facilities as well as open space used for recreation. The revised extents, it was submitted, were appropriate to identify, protect and manage what is significant in each precinct. Submission 44 was received from Buzlor Pty Ltd, the company which owns 145 Wimble Street, the part of HO306 which includes the former ordinance buildings and some other smaller structures, an oak tree and other plantings, mostly eucalypts. The initial submission sought exclusion of the property from the precinct. The land is in an Industrial 1 Zone and a permit for a 22‐lot subdivision was issued in 2008. The permit has not been acted on but an extension of time has been sought. Ms Anita Brady of Lovell Chen appeared at the hearing as the owner’s expert witness. The main thrust of her evidence, which acknowledged the significance of the precinct, was that some of the land of 145 Wimble Street could be excised without compromising the precinct. Discussions between Ms Brady, the Council and Mr Helms prior to the hearing established an agreement that the extent could be reduced on the southern boundary. The Panel noted that the approved subdivision, a copy of which was provided by Council, was sensitive towards the existing structures and plantings and includes an appropriate landscaping plan. All parties agreed to minor corrections and additions to the Citation suggested by Mr Helms and Ms Brady. Conclusion The Panel has inspected the precinct as now proposed. The Panel supports the resolution of the different positions of Council, its consultants and the owner of 145 Wimble Street to now excise much of that land from HO306 as shown in Figure 20 of Ms Brady’s Statement of Evidence and agreed by Council and Mr Helms at the hearing. The Panel concludes that the Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306, as modified since exhibition, meets the threshold of local heritage significance.
Page 37 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Recommendation The Panel recommends that: The Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306 be reduced in area to exclude part of 145 Wimble Street as shown in Figure 20 of Ms Brady’s Statement of Evidence and agreed by Council and Mr Helms at the hearing. The precinct Citation is amended in accordance with the changes agreed at the hearing.
(viii) Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 Nature of precinct The Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 is a residential area that comprises housing from the late to mid‐twentieth centuries. The area has houses that date from the period of the three main subdivisions, two churches (St Andrew's Presbyterian Church and Christ Church, Church of England) and their accompanying halls. The two churches are proposed to have individual heritage listings (HO323 and HO324). The precinct is bordered on the south by Goulburn Park. The single‐storey scale of the area is remarkably consistent and there is an absence of intrusive elements. The precinct is located on the south side of the main railway line on high ground which slopes to the south‐east. The earliest house in the area, the former Goulburn Park House at 16 The Avenue dominates the western side of the precinct and is proposed for separate listing as HO325. The main changes to the 2006 Huddle Study recommendations as a result of the 2012 Context Review are the exclusion of Goulburn Park from the precinct, and an extension to the south‐east to include part of Stewart Street. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: The Seymour Progress Precinct is historically significant as a place that provides tangible evidence of the significant growth of Seymour to the south of the railway line in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The subdivision and development of the precinct has associations with locally important families such as the Guilds (Criteria A & G) The Seymour Progress Precinct is architecturally significant as a representative example of a residential area comprising housing from the late nineteenth to mid‐ twentieth centuries. It has aesthetic and design qualities associated with the residential development of that era including picturesque skylines created by the pitched rooflines and chimneys, accented by a backdrop of sky and trees, and gardens visible over low wire fences. The siting of the housing illustrates the emergence of garden city influences by the inter‐war period (Criteria D & E). Issues/submissions Six submissions were received in relation to this precinct. Each submission was addressed by Mr Helms in his evidence.
Page 38 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Submission 22 concerned 24 Anzac Avenue and argued that it should be classed as non‐ contributory because it is in poor condition and the owner intends to demolish it. The timber house is simple, symmetrical, with a plain verandah, hipped roof and a pair of red brick chimneys. It appears intact and retains a good degree of integrity, and dates from the early twentieth century. Building condition and impact on the development potential are permit matters for later assessment and they have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of this report. Mr Helms’ evidence supported retention of contributory status. The Panel has inspected the property and also supports its contributory status. Submission 25 concerned 3 Progress Street and was generally supportive of Amendment C56 but argued that the house was not built until the 1970s and should be listed as non‐ contributory. Mr Helms agreed that the house had been incorrectly shown as contributory in the Citation map, but stated that the site should be included in the proposed precinct to manage future development. One of the purposes of the HO is to ensure that future development is compatible with the heritage values of a precinct, and retaining the land within the HO allows for this. The Panel has inspected the site and supports its non‐contributory status. Submission 28 concerned 13 Progress Street and argued that the house, a Californian bungalow, lacked integrity, was not intact, had little historical significance and should be listed as non‐contributory. Mr Helms agreed that the house had been incorrectly shown as contributory in the Citation map, but that the land should be included in the proposed precinct like 3 Progress Street. The Panel has inspected the site and supports its non‐contributory status. Submission 48 concerned 12 Goulburn Street and argued that residential buildings should not be identified, the house has no architectural importance, the HO is not an efficient management tool and that the house is in poor condition. Ms Honman inspected the house and confirmed that it was contributory. Mr Helms noted that the house was highly intact and, while not of individual architectural or historical significance, that it was contributory. The Panel has inspected the site and supports its contributory status. Submission 57 concerned 3 The Avenue and argued that the house was built in the 1960s and should be listed as non‐contributory. Furthermore, it argued that HO307 should be abandoned as it does not have appropriate heritage values. Mr Helms agreed that the house had been incorrectly shown as contributory in the Citation map, and proposed that because the site is located at the edge of the precinct, it should be deleted from HO307. The Panel has inspected the site and agrees that it should be deleted from the precinct. Submission 60, which was received late (17 December 2013) but accepted by the Panel, concerned 7 Guild Street. As well as a general objection to the imposition of controls over private property, the submission argued about poor process and conflicting advice given to the submitter, the existing condition of the property, the need to alter the porch to provide disabled access, and paint controls. The Panel considers the property to be correctly identified as a contributory building, and notes that repairs do not require a permit where like is replaced for like, and that paint
Page 39 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 controls are not proposed for the precinct. Alterations to the porch would require a permit as they may impact on the heritage significance of the precinct, although there is no requirement for a permit for domestic disabled access. The consultation process for C56 involved official notice to all property owners, provision of an information brochure, Amendment documentation and an explanatory letter. Residents were offered opportunities to participate in community meetings (five of which were held in Seymour) or raise concerns and issues with Council officers privately. The exhibition period was over 11 weeks. The Panel considers that the process was thorough and allowed residents ample opportunity for consultation. Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 (supported by the individual sites HO323, HO324 and HO325) meets the threshold of local heritage significance. The Panel agrees that the sites at 3 Progress Street and 13 Progress Street should have their status changed to non‐contributory, and that 3 The Avenue should be deleted from the precinct. The Panel noted that the halls associated with the two churches on Anzac Avenue are not included in their individual HOs, but have contributory status within the precinct. This no doubt reflects their construction at a later period than the churches they serve, but they are both good examples of their kind and should in future be considered for incorporation with their churches as part of a complex. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications: Deletion of 3 The Avenue from the precinct. Amendment of the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Document and the Citation maps to designate 3 and 13 Progress Street as non‐contributory. The Panel also recommends that the halls associated with St Andrew's Presbyterian Church and Christ Church, Church of England should be investigated further with a view to incorporating them into HO323 and HO324.
(ix) Seymour Railway Precinct HO308 The Seymour Railway Station and some of its associated buildings and infrastructure are registered on the Victorian Heritage Register and identified in the Planning Scheme as HO150. The Seymour Railway Precinct HO308 incorporates these three buildings and includes other buildings, trees, infrastructure and other elements also associated with the establishment and development of the railway line through Seymour since the late nineteenth century. The precinct comprises: Pre‐World War II buildings within the railway reserve (other than the station building, signal and communications block, assorted levers, platforms and signals, toilet block, goods shed, pedestrian subway, turntable and including the goods sheds, engine sheds and other storage sheds).
Page 40 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Railway staff housing including the house at 7 Anzac Avenue, and the adjacent group of early to mid‐twentieth century weatherboard houses in Dowling Avenue and Goulburn Street facing the Bowling Club. The water tower, standpipe and former signal box and Mob Siding sign at the Railway Heritage Centre. The former Victorian Railways Institute Hall. The objects and features in the Spirit of Progress Park and the J W Elliott Reserve including the steam locomotive, the centenary tree, ceremonial plaques celebrating these places, and mature trees including Canary Island Palms (Phoenix canariensis), English Oaks (Quercus robur) and English Elms (Ulmus procera). The Railway Bowling Club. The views to and from the railway station complex. Other buildings and elements on the sites are not significant. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Seymour Railway Precinct is historically significant as a place that demonstrates the regional importance of Seymour as a railway town. The imposing station building with its large refreshment room testifies to its past importance as a staging point on the Melbourne to Wodonga line and as the junction of the north east and north central lines while the complex of associated infrastructure within the station reserve and the railway staff houses and other related buildings surrounding it reflects the importance of the railway to the social and economic life of the town. The locomotive turntable, which once serviced a twenty‐bay roundhouse, is of particular significance as evidence of Seymour's significance as the principal repair depot for these lines as well as its role in supplying ready‐fired locomotives for the next stage of the journey to Melbourne or Sydney (Criterion A). The station building is aesthetically significant as a finely designed two storey polychrome brick Victorian station building that incorporates the station master's residence. The landmark setting of the station is complemented by the classically striped interwar design of the Victorian Railway Institute building and the adjoining parkland (Criterion E). Seymour Railway precinct is socially significant as a place that has played and continues to play a central role in the lives of many local people. The collection of railway structures at the Railway Heritage Centre and the existence of the centre itself is an expression of how the town's railway history lives on in the enthusiasm of a number of its citizens. The railway buildings and infrastructure are also an important visual reminder of the central place that the railway holds in Seymour's labour history. The objects and features in the Spirit of Progress Park and the J W Elliott Reserve are testament to both the official recognition of the role of the railway in the history of Seymour and the enthusiasm of the community to participate in celebrating that relationship (Criterion G). The Victorian Railways Institute and the Bowling Club are both historically significant as an illustration of the practice of the railways to provide a place for learning, dancing, billiards, tennis, bowls and other social activities near the place of work for railway employees, their families and visiting soldiers in the town (Criterion A).
Page 41 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Issues/submissions The 2006 Huddle Study proposed a large precinct around the VHR station and sites, which also included tracks, sidings and other elements associated with the main station, including the army spur line to the east and its infrastructure. The connection between the two parts has since been lost. As a result of the 2012 Context Review, the area has been separated into two precincts: the Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306 and the Seymour Railway Precinct HO308. The railway precinct is to include the roadway along the front of the station, which is currently part of the Seymour Commercial Precinct HO157. No submissions were received related to this precinct. Conclusion The Panel supports the separation of HO306 from HO308. It concludes that the Seymour Railway Precinct HO308 adds an appropriate curtilage around HO150, and meets the threshold of local heritage significance.
(x) Wandong Precinct HO309 Nature of precinct Wandong is a small, dispersed, organic railway town on the main line between Melbourne and Sydney just north of the important Heathcote Junction. There are several cottages from mixed periods, four houses built with terracotta lumber (a rare building material produced locally) a mechanics institute and two churches. St Michael's Catholic Church is also built of terracotta lumber. Some industrial archaeology elements survive. It lies 10km south‐east of Kilmore. The precinct as exhibited is fragmented, consisting of four separate small areas within the township and two individual sites. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Wandong precinct is historically significant as a reminder of the heyday of the township during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when it flourished through the timber, clay and brick industries. The community and residential buildings within the precinct are testimony to the early development of Wandong and have important associations with the development of the timber industry by Robert Affleck Robertson who founded the township and developed the timber, clay and brick industries. Five of the buildings in the precinct are of terracotta lumber construction and are important evidence of the use of this unusual construction material and of Robertson's transfer of terracotta lumber manufacturing from Brunswick to Wandong in 1889. The group of houses in the north of the precinct is also historically significant as evidence of how the early development was in proximity to the railway station (Criterion A & H). Wandong Township is historically and socially significant as the centre of the Wandong district. The hall and churches have strong associations with the social activities of the community over a long period and are recognized and highly valued for religious, commemorative and recreational reasons (Criterion G).
Page 42 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Wandong Township has aesthetic significance for the Wandong Hall and the two churches, which are important focal points and local landmarks within the town. Whilst modest buildings, the aesthetic qualities of the places are enhanced by the elevated siting of the Hall on a prominent corner, and the setting of, and visual relationship between the two churches within spacious treed grounds (Criterion E). The buildings constructed of 'Terracotta Lumber' are technically significant as rare examples of this building material, which demonstrates an innovative use of sawdust, normally a by‐product of sawmill operations (Criteria B & F). Issues/submissions Nothing in Wandong is currently protected under a Heritage Overlay. The 2006 Huddle Study recommended a larger, contiguous area. The 2012 Context Review recommended that a reduced area focusing on groups of significant buildings would be adequate to identify, protect and manage what is significant. Two individual Heritage Overlays are proposed in Amendment C56 to complement Wandong Town Precinct HO309. St Michael’s Catholic Church is proposed to be protected under HO293 and the duplex houses at 770 Wandong Road under HO294. Submission 27 was made by the Wandong History Group. It supported the township being protected under HO309 and individual sites under HO293 and HO294, but sought a larger extent and more sites. The submission listed and described a wide range of more than 80 sites in Wandong and the surrounding area for possible inclusion. These centred on the timber and brick industries and their associations with railway transport. Ms Lynne Dore from the Group spoke impressively at the hearing about the terracotta lumber industry, particularly about Clonbinane Park about 6.5kms to the north‐east of Wandong, presently protected under HO30 but proposed for demolition. Some of the surviving terracotta lumber structures may have the potential to be of state significance. Mr Helms gave evidence that the reduced area ‘still contains most of significant places listed in the submission’ and notes that three further sites have been recommended for further assessment (10/10a and 21 Dry Creek Crescent and 32 Wandong Avenue). Mr Helms recommended that ‘the other sites nominated by the submission should also be reviewed in consultation with the submitter to determine which ones may be of potential significance and may be assessed in future’. Submission 53 by VicRoads notes that two of the options for the Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass would have a minor impact on the site of the duplex houses at 770 Wandong Road (HO 294). It offers what seems to be an appropriate conservation solution. Conclusion The Panel has inspected the precinct as exhibited, and concludes that, for the time being, the extent of the HO would be adequate, especially with St Michael’s and 770 Wandong Road proposed to be individually identified. The Panel was impressed by the inventory of sites prepared by the Wandong History Group and agrees with Mr Helms that these should form the basis of further research and, possibly, a subsequent extension of HO309 or a series of individual listings.
Page 43 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The Panel concludes that the Wandong Precinct HO309 (supported by HO293 and HO294) meets the threshold of local heritage significance. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Wandong area, particularly the sites identified in the submission by the Wandong History Group, should be the subject of further investigation, particularly in relation to industrial heritage significance.
6.2 Changes to existing precincts
(i) Kilmore Town Centre Precinct HO99 Nature of existing precinct The existing precinct comprises the core of Kilmore’s historic commercial area, and extends along Sydney Street between Union Street and Bourke Street on the east side, and Union Street and Foote Street on the west side. There are ten individually listed sites within the existing precinct (HO99). The earliest buildings date from the 1850s and reflect Kilmore’s history as perhaps the first inland settlement in Victoria. Proposed changes The 2006 Huddle Study recommended that the precinct be extended northwards on both sides of the street to Mitchell Street, and that Hudson Park at the southern end, which has a long frontage to Sydney Street and is currently part of the existing Kilmore Creek Precinct (HO102), be incorporated into the Town Centre Precinct. The exhibited changes reflect the outcomes of 2012 Context Review. The resulting precinct is larger than the existing precinct but smaller than that recommended by Lorraine Huddle. The proposed changes to the existing precinct are: Deletion of the existing HO99 south of Bourke Street on the east side of Sydney Street Leaving Hudson Park as part of the existing Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102 Extending the precinct north of Union Street on the east side to include HO95 (Hudson’s Warehouse) Extending the precinct north of Union Street on the west side to include three properties and vacant land to the rear adjacent to the Kilmore Creek. Statement of Significance The proposed Citation includes the following under the heading ‘Why is it significant’: Kilmore Town Centre precinct is historically significant for its associations with important phases in the early development of Kilmore and demonstrates the importance of commerce and civic ideas to Kilmore’s original town centre. The service economy that was dominated by the hotels testifies to the importance of Sydney Street as a supply point for travellers between Melbourne and northern and north‐ eastern Victoria, and New South Wales. The needs of nineteenth century travellers and the development of Kilmore can be seen in the proximity of the centre to the creek. This illustrates the important link between the water as a source for stock,
Page 44 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
food, supplies, services and entertainment for the men and women travellers stopping at Kilmore to camp and rest (Criteria A & D). Kilmore Town Centre precinct is architecturally significant as a representative example of a predominantly nineteenth‐century town centre. It has aesthetic qualities for picturesque and historic streetscape skyline that is visually connected along the relatively narrow, and slightly angled, Sydney Street (Criterion D & F). Kilmore Town Centre precinct is scientifically significant as a place where early settlement occurred and is presumed to have strong potential for archaeological research (Criterion C). Kilmore Town Centre precinct is socially significant as a place that is recognised by the community as having public value for its associations with numerous community events, held since the 1850s in various buildings, especially in the hotels and Town Hall, and for the continuous commercial activity in the shops and offices that date from the nineteenth century (Criterion G) Submissions Submission 21 from Kilmore Integrity Kept Inc. argued that the area between Bourke Street and Foote Street on the east side of Sydney Road should be retained in the HO. Two sites in this area were nominated as having heritage value – 5 Sydney Street (a bluestone building formerly the ‘Kilmore Free Press’ and 9 Sydney Street, a prominent 1930s house). The submission argued that these sites warrant heritage protection, and that any future infill buildings (including buildings on a large vacant site adjacent to the former Free Press office) should be respectful of the heritage character. The submission stated that ‘buildings and facades totally unsympathetic to Kilmore’s unique heritage street should not disrupt the continuity of these heritage areas leading to the heritage areas further north. Kilmore Integrity Kept Inc. was represented at the hearing and expanded on the written submission, including the need to assess the cottage at the rear of the former Free Press office. Submission 32 from the Kilmore Historical Society addressed the same area south of Bourke Street, and argued strongly for the need to protect the former Free Press office at 5 Sydney Street and the substantial 1930s house (‘Miss Taylor’s House’) at 9 Sydney Street. Submission 39 raised similar issues, and the submitter appeared at the hearing. The prominent location of the vacant corner site at 3 Sydney Street was raised, and the need for some control over the form of any new building on the site. The submitter made a cogent argument for the importance of the historic approach to Kilmore from the south. Mr Helms gave evidence supporting Context’s recommendation to delete the area between Bourke Street and Foote Street on the west side of Sydney Street from HO99. He stated that ‘there is no continuity of streetscape between this area and HO101 north of Foote Street due to the vacant sites on the west side of Sydney Street and parkland on the east side’. He also stated that the Free Press office and rear cottage ‘are very altered, but may be of individual significance due to their reputed early construction date’, and that the house at 9 Sydney Street ‘does not fit within the period of significance for the precinct, but is of potential individual significance because of its historical connection’. In response to a question, he agreed that the vacant corner site at 3 Sydney Street is ‘an important gateway site’.
Page 45 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Issues The Panel is concerned that, with its patchwork of existing individual and precinct Heritage Overlays, complicated by the differing outcomes of the recent reviews by Lorraine Huddle and Context, Sydney Street has been viewed over time as the sum of its parts rather than the need for an overriding rationale and strategy for this important town entrance and thoroughfare being recognised in the exhibited Amendment. There are currently 3 heritage precincts covering Sydney Street: Sydney Street Precinct (HO99) between Foote Street and Union Street Powlett Street North Precinct (HO101) between Piper and Foote Streets Part of Kilmore Creek and Hudson Park Precinct (HO102) between Foote Street and Bourke Street (west side) There are also 16 individually listed sites with frontages to Sydney Street within these three precincts. The existing precincts also abut the Kilmore Creek Precinct to the east. The creek runs parallel to Sydney Street, and although the two areas are linked by historical association and usage, they are quite different in character. The creek is by and large a natural environment that has been has been lightly ‘improved’ with a walking track and some exotic tree planting. Sydney Street is an urban commercial and civic thoroughfare. Hudson Park, which has a long frontage to Sydney Street, is a developed urban park with bowling green and clubhouse, a prominent war memorial, picnic area, children’s playground, skateboard facility, public toilets and other structures. The Panel also notes that, travelling north along the Northern Highway, the sense of entering an historic town centre starts as you come down the hill from Piper Street to the intersection with Foote Street, flanked by the former Post Office, Court House and Police Barracks on the right and the former hotel on the left, and with a glimpse of the taller commercial buildings to the north around the slight bend in Sydney Street. Entering Kilmore from the north, the sense of entering a town centre starts at Clarke Street but, despite the two historic buildings between Mitchell and Union Streets, the historic nature of the town does not become readily apparent until you move south of Union Street. The ad hoc nature of existing development in the area between Clarke and Union Streets shows that some form of planning control is necessary so that over time this area can be transformed into a more coherent and attractive streetscape. However, the Panel does not consider that this part of Sydney Street meets the criteria for heritage significance. The Panel notes that Hudsons Warehouse, a significant heritage building, is already protected under an individual HO. Conclusions The Panel concludes that the historic areas of Sydney Street from Union Street to Piper Street should be seen as a single entity combining all the historic commercial, civic and public uses in the town centre. The use of a single HO over his area would not only protect the contributory historic buildings but ensure that any infill development does not detract from the heritage significance of this central thoroughfare. In particular, future development of the prominent vacant site at the corner of Sydney and Foote Streets will be
Page 46 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 critical to the character of the precinct, and appropriate planning controls need to be in place to ensure a sensitive outcome. The Panel agrees with the recommendation in the 2006 Huddle Study that Hudson Park should be seen as part of the Sydney Street urban streetscape, rather than part of the creek environs. The Panel agrees with submitters that buildings at the properties at 5 and 9 Sydney Street should be assessed for individual heritage significance, and should retain their current level of protection within HO99. Overall, the Panel considers that the existing HO99 should be extended to include the existing HO101 and Hudson Park as a single, urban precinct. The boundary of Hudson Park proposed in the 2006 Huddle Study is appropriate. The Citation would need to be amended to reflect these changes. The Panel also concludes that the area of Sydney Street between Clarke and Union Streets should be seriously considered for the application of a Design and Development Overlay as an important measure to improve the streetscape of this important northern entry to Kilmore. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the heritage controls for the Kilmore Town Centre be modified as follows: The area of the existing precinct between Bourke Street and Foote Street to be retained within HO99. The existing HO99 to be combined with the existing HO101 to form a single precinct. Hudson Park to be transferred from HO102 to become part of HO99, using the boundary proposed in the 2006 Huddle Study. The Citation for the HO99 Kilmore Town Centre is amended to reflect the changes. The Panel also recommends that: Council consider applying a Design and Development Overlay over Sydney Street between Clarke Street and Union Street by way of a future amendment. The properties at 5 and 9 Sydney Street are assessed for individual heritage significance in a future heritage study.
(ii) Society Street Precinct (Kilmore) HO100 Nature of existing precinct This is a small residential precinct adjoining the proposed northern extension of the existing Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102. Dating from the 1850s, the precinct contains a mix of timber cottages, houses and some quite substantial residential properties, and many mature trees. The Statement of Significance attributes historic and aesthetic significance to the precinct.
Page 47 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Submissions No submissions were received in relation to this precinct. Issues Mr Helms of Context explained that the 2006 Huddle Study recommended that the precinct boundary be redrawn to include the western portion of the precinct facing Victoria Parade in HO102. Context recommended retaining the existing boundaries, and no proposed change to the existing precinct was exhibited. Conclusions The area facing Victoria Parade is solely residential, and although it overlooks the Kilmore Creek Precinct, it does not share its natural landscape values or character. The Panel agrees that the existing boundaries should be retained as exhibited.
(iii) Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102 Nature of existing precinct The existing Kilmore Creek Precinct comprises the linear parkland along Kilmore Creek bounded by Bourke, Sydney and Foote Streets and Victoria Parade, and a further area to the south bounded by Foote Street, Ryans Road, White Street and an undefined boundary immediately north of the Indoor Recreation Centre. The precinct includes Hudson Park, a walking track along the creek and mature exotic plantings as well as remnant native vegetation along the natural creek environs. Hudson Park is a developed urban park with a range of community facilities and mature exotic trees. Proposed changes Amendment C56 proposes to extend the precinct to the north as far as Union Street. There is a gap between the precinct boundary and the boundary of HO99 Kilmore Town Precinct to the west, which contains an unmade vehicle access on the west side of the creek between Bourke and Union Streets. It is also proposed to include eight residential properties scattered along the east side of Victoria Parade between Gipps and Foote Streets as part of the precinct. Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Kilmore Creek precinct is historically significant as the oldest part of Kilmore and the strong visual connection between the built and landscape elements illustrates the importance of the Creek in the early development of the town as a camping area and watering hole for many travellers along the Sydney Road. The exotic trees were planted to assist in improving the beauty and amenity of the town and are expressive of the importance in the nineteenth and early twentieth century of creating the appearance of a European townscape (Criterion A). Kilmore Creek precinct is aesthetically significant as an important cultural landscape that is an integral part of the historic character of Kilmore. The landscape of large exotic trees is a landmark element that forms a focal point from many parts of the precinct and from outside the precinct (Criterion E).
Page 48 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Kilmore Creek precinct is scientifically significant as it is presumed to have strong archaeological research potential, which may provide further information about the early settlement of Kilmore (Criterion C). Submissions Submission 21 from Kilmore Integrity Kept Inc. expressed concern about the status of the six heritage cottages along Victoria Parade between Union and Gipps Streets, and the exclusion of the additional area to the south recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. Submission 50 also sought heritage protection for the cottages at the northern end of Victoria Parade. At the hearing Mr Helms of Context gave evidence that the cottages will remain protected as part of HO100 (Society Precinct). He also stated that the area south of the existing precinct to Rutledge Street ‘does not contain any significant trees or features that would warrant the application of the HO.’ Issues Having inspected the precinct and the two adjoining precincts on several occasions, the Panel is concerned that there is a blurring between what are urban areas and natural creek environs. In Section 6.2(i) of this Report, the Panel concludes in relation to HO99 Kilmore Town Centre Precinct that Hudson Park is a developed urban park and different in character from the Kilmore Creek environs, and should be part of the town precinct. The Panel also agrees that the houses facing Victoria Parade between Union and Gipps Streets should remain within the residential Kilmore Society Precinct rather than transferring to the Kilmore Creek Street Precinct. It is debatable whether the eight scattered residential properties on the east side of Victoria Parade (two of which are non‐contributory) are appropriately included in the Kilmore Creek Precinct. The Panel does not consider that the argument for their inclusion can be sustained given that the properties further north have been excluded and retained within a residential precinct. There may be an opportunity to include them either as part of the Society Precinct or as individual properties (subject to further assessment), and the Panel would support their protection through either of these solutions. What now remains in the Kilmore Creek Precinct is simply the creek and its environs. The question that then arises is whether, given the absence of any heritage fabric or structures within the precinct, the HO is the most appropriate planning tool for recognising and protecting this historic landscape. This issue was not discussed in depth at the hearing. However, as the land is publicly owned and notice is not necessarily required, there is still an opportunity to reconsider the matter in the context of Amendment C56. In considering the nature of the precinct and the significant elements identified in the Citation (i.e. historical and cultural aspects, plantings, views, and archaeological potential) the Panel considers that the SLO would be a more appropriate VPP tool for this precinct. The SLO schedule can be adapted to provide any appropriate permit requirements, and the Citation can be included as part of the schedule. It is important that the SLO should not be seen as providing a ‘lesser’ form of protection than the HO – but simply a better targeted form of protection. The VPPs provide a wide range of
Page 49 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 tools tailored to suit particular land uses and values. It may be helpful to compare the principal purposes, permit requirements and decision guidelines of the SLO and the HO. Significant Landscape Overlay The purposes of the SLO include: To identify significant landscapes. To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes. The schedule for the area to be protected must contain: A statement of the nature and key elements of the landscape. The landscape character objective to be achieved. A permit is required to construct a building and carry out works, remove, destroy or lop any vegetation specified in the schedule, with some exemptions such as for road safety or fire protection. The schedule can also specify that other works such as construction of a fence require a permit. The SLO decision guidelines require that, before deciding on an application, Council must consider, inter alia: The statement of the nature and key elements of the landscape and the landscape character objective contained in a schedule to this overlay. The conservation and enhancement of the landscape values of the area. The need to remove, destroy or lop vegetation to create defendable space to reduce the risk of bushfire to life and property. The impact of the proposed buildings and works on the landscape due to height, bulk, colour, general appearance or the need to remove vegetation. The extent to which the buildings and works are designed to enhance or promote the landscape character objectives of the area. The impact of buildings and works on significant views. Heritage Overlay The purposes of the HO include: To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places. To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. Permits are required for subdivision, demolition, construction of a building, carrying out works or alterations that change the appearance of a building; remove, destroy or lop a tree identified as significant, construct or display a sign etc. The HO decision guidelines require that, before deciding on an application, Council must consider, inter alia: The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place. Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy. Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
Page 50 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place. Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed sign will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the lopping or development will adversely affect the health, appearance or significance of the tree. It is clear from the above that the primary target of the HO is tangible built heritage assets such as buildings, monuments, precincts and historic infrastructure. The demolition controls in the HO are critical to its effectiveness. Although under the HO, individually identified significant trees can be protected, the vast majority of heritage properties do not have tree controls. On the other hand, the primary target of the SLO is clearly landscapes. Demolition controls are unnecessary if there are no significant structures or buildings. Both the SLO and HO require a Citation or Statement of Significance, ensuring that what is valued about a landscape or a place has been identified and forms an integral part of the Planning Scheme controls. For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the SLO is the more appropriate and indeed the most effective tool to protect natural and cultural values of the Kilmore Creek Precinct. The Panel has also considered whether the revised boundaries of the precinct achieve the best outcome. In principle, the Panel believes that where possible, adjoining precincts should have contiguous boundaries. In the case of Kilmore Creek Precinct, the Panel agrees with the submitter who suggested that the western boundary between Foote and Union Streets should extend to the rear boundary of the properties in Sydney Street, which are included in the Kilmore Town Centre Precinct. As exhibited, there is a small gap containing an unmade service road between the two precincts. The Panel has also considered submissions stating that the extension of the southern boundary recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study should be adopted on the basis that, although there are no exotic plantings in this area, it is clearly part of a continuous creek environment, comprising the creek itself, exotic and native vegetation, and walking tracks. It was also drawn to the Panel’s attention that this area is contiguous with the south‐western end of Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct, and that there would be value in linking the two precincts. Council argued that the presence of the Indoor Recreation Centre as the only built structure in the creek environs was a relevant factor in adopting the exhibited boundaries. However, the Panel notes that the Indoor Recreation Centre is located in White Street on the boundary of the proposed extension, and as such does not intrude significantly into the area.
Page 51 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Alternatively, the facility and its grounds could be excluded from the precinct. In line with the principle set out earlier, the Panel also considers that it would be appropriate to have a contiguous boundary between the creek and outdoor recreation precincts. Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Kilmore Creek Precinct should comprise only the creek environs, and that the most appropriate and effective form of protection for the precinct is the SLO. The boundaries of the precinct should be modified to exclude any residential components, be extended to the west between Union and Foote Street to be contiguous with the eastern boundary of the Kilmore Town Centre Precinct, and be extended to the south as recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. The outcome of these changes is a continuous stretch of a significant, natural creek environment with continuous pathways linking the town at the northern end to both the outdoor and indoor recreation facilities at the southern end. The Panel also concludes that, because the land is in public ownership, these changes could be made without the need for further notice. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the boundaries of the Kilmore Creek Precinct be modified as follows: Deletion of the residential properties on the west side of Victoria Parade. Extension of the western boundary between Union and Foote Street to be contiguous with the Kilmore Town Centre Precinct. Extension of the southern boundary to include the area recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. Deletion of Hudson Park (which becomes part of HO99 Kilmore Town Centre Precinct) using the boundary recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. The Panel recommends that the entire Kilmore Creek Precinct (including the relevant part of the existing HO102) be protected with a Significant Landscape Overlay in lieu of the exhibited Heritage Overlay. The Panel also recommends that the Citation be amended to reflect the above changes and be included in the schedule to the SLO for the Kilmore Creek Precinct.
(iv) Old Town Centre Historic Precinct (Seymour) HO156 Nature of existing precinct The area of the Old Town Precinct is centred on the intersection of Emily Street, High Street and the Goulburn River, an important crossing place. The first town survey was done as early as 1843. After a major flood and the opening of the railway line in the 1870s, the centre of the town shifted eastward around what is now the commercial centre. There are still a number of historic places in the Old Town area including commercial premises, hotels, public institutions (schools, halls, banks, police station, Mechanics Institute etc.), residences and historic sites.
Page 52 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Statement of Significance The Citation includes the following under the heading ‘Why is it significant’: The Seymour Old Town Precinct is historically significant as a place that demonstrates the establishment of Seymour’s original centre at the New Crossing Place, and its importance as Seymour’s town centre prior to the coming of the railway and the establishment of an alternative commercial centre next to the railway station on higher ground less liable to flooding. The area is also significant for its association with early European interaction with the Taungurung nation and is one of the earliest and most important crossing places along the route from Sydney to Melbourne. The hotels testify to the importance of the old Seymour centre as a service point for travellers between Melbourne and northern and north‐eastern Victoria, and New South Wales. The proximity of the centre to the river and riparian river red gum woodland is not only important to understanding the reason for its existence but also to its demise as the retail centre for the town which was partly due to its flood prone location (Criterion A). The Seymour Old Town precinct including that area north of the river is of archaeological significance as it covers part of the early occupation and may be may contain archaeological remains of the Seymour Hotel and other structures dating back to before 1855 (Criterion C). Proposed changes Amendment C56 proposes the following changes to the existing precinct: Addition of sites on the boundary of the precinct in Manners Street, Hanna Street, Emily Street and High Street Deletion of recently redeveloped sites in Emily Street and Elizabeth Street on the boundary of the precinct. Issues/submissions No submissions were received on relation to this precinct. The Panel has inspected the precinct, and although the contributory buildings are somewhat dispersed and intruded upon by typical modern highway uses, it can still be read as an historic area. The proposed additions are appropriate and contribute to the significance of the precinct. The deletions are also appropriate as these areas no longer make any contribution to the understanding of the historic town. However, the Panel was concerned as to why a portion of Kings Park is included in both the existing and proposed precinct. The area consists of an arbitrary line drawn through the park and, apart from the premises of the Seymour and District Historical Society on the north‐west corner of the park, there do not appear to be any historic structures within the park. It does not appear to have been claimed that the park had any uses associated with the time of settlement of the Old Town. Neither does the park relate to any of the sites opposite, the majority of which are non‐contributory. The Panel notes that the 2006 Huddle Study recommended deletion of Kings Park from the precinct, with the exception of the historic building on the corner.
Page 53 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Seymour Old Town Precinct as exhibited meets the criteria for local heritage significance, with the exception of the area of Kings Park at the south‐eastern end of the precinct. However, the historic building at the north‐west corner of the park should be retained within HO156. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Seymour Old Town Precinct HO156 be modified by deleting the Kings Park area but retaining the premises of the Seymour and District Historical Society in the north‐west corner, as recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study.
(v) Seymour Commercial Precinct HO157 Nature of existing precinct Seymour Commercial Precinct HO157 lies at the centre of Seymour opposite the historic railway station. It comprises a small group of commercial buildings at 22 – 42 Station Street dating from the late‐nineteenth to mid‐twentieth centuries along the north side the street, and includes the Railway Club Hotel (HO148) and the Terminus Hotel (HO149) which are individually identified. The precinct also includes a larger area to the south comprising the footpaths and roadway, and part of the railway alignment west of the station. Proposed changes to the precinct Amendment C56 proposes the following changes to the precinct: Deletion of the road and railway area south of the commercial properties, but retaining the footpath on the northern side. Extension of the precinct to the west to include 44‐74 Station Street. Extension of the precinct to the east to include 12‐20 Station Street. Extension to the north to include three properties on the west side of Henry Street, and the gardens at rear of 22 and 26 Station Street. The proposed precinct is slightly smaller than that proposed in the 2006 Huddle Study, and excludes non‐commercial and non‐contributory buildings at the eastern end, and a car park at the rear of buildings at the western end. Statement of Significance The revised Citation states why the proposed HO157 is significant: Seymour Commercial Precinct is historically significant as tangible evidence of the establishment of a new commercial centre in Seymour after the survey of the adjacent railway was confirmed in 1869 and the continuing development of Seymour into an important commercial centre by the mid‐twentieth century. The strong connection between the commercial centre and railway is clearly demonstrated in the names of the two hotels, the 'Terminus' and 'Railway', by the direct visual link between the hotels and the railway station and by the one‐sided nature of the centre which allows users to be continually aware of the presence of the railway.(Criterion A).
Page 54 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Issues/submissions No submissions were received in relation to this precinct. Council explained that the footpath on the northern side was retained within the precinct because there are a still a number of posted verandahs in the street that contribute to its significance. The road and railway land is to be transferred to the Seymour Railway Precinct HO308 to provide a tool for managing the historic railway streetscape. There was some discussion about the RSL building at 2 Station Street, which had been included as part of the precinct in 2006 Huddle Study. It was agreed that while the building should be assessed for individual significance, it was not appropriate to include it as part of a purely commercial precinct. Conclusions The Panel has inspected the precinct and concludes that the Seymour Commercial Precinct HO157 (supported by HO148 and HO149) meets the threshold of local significance. It supports the extensions to the existing precinct and the transfer of the roadway and railway land to HO308 as appropriate outcomes. It concludes that the RSL Building should be should be assessed for individual significance in a future heritage study. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the RSL Sub‐Branch building at 2 Station Street, Seymour, should be investigated for future individual listing.
(vi) Tallarook Town Precinct HO181 Nature of existing precinct Tallarook is a small, dispersed organic railway town on the Hume Highway 30kms north‐east of Kilmore and 10kms south of Seymour. A spur line formerly branched east towards Mansfield. The railway station, associated structures and works, and railway workers’ housing survive. Two buildings, the Railway Hotel and the former Howe's Hotel, dominate the streetscape. Civic buildings add to the sense of community. Tallarook Cemetery is at the southern end of the town. Some industrial archaeology elements also survive. Mature exotic and native trees within gardens enhance the landscape throughout the town. A relatively small part of Tallarook is covered by the existing precinct and includes a group of buildings between Main Road and the railway line, and part of the railway land. Proposed changes The exhibited Amendment proposes a significant enlargement of HO181. There is a major extension to the west, taking in a number of adjoining properties with frontages to Main Street and Dabyminga Creek. The other major extension is to the south, taking in properties between Main Street and the railway line and including the Cemetery Reserve. There is a small extension to the north to take in five properties facing Railway Place. Five individual Heritage Overlays are proposed in Amendment C56 to complement Tallarook Town Precinct HO181:
Page 55 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Tallarook to Mansfield Rail Reserve (HO275) Tallarook Mechanics Institute (HO251) The former Howe’s Hotel, now the Junction Hotel (HO268) St Joseph’s Catholic Church (HO237) St Stephen’s Anglican Church (HO328). Statement of Significance The exhibited Citation states why the precinct is significant: Tallarook Township is historically significant as a place that provides a reminder of the heyday of Tallarook during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The hotels and blacksmith's shop, located near the station and main intersection, testify to the importance of the centre as a service point for train and road travellers between Melbourne and northern and north eastern Victoria (Criterion A). Tallarook Township is historically and socially significant as the centre of the Tallarook district. The hotels, school, cemetery, hall and churches have strong associations with the social activities of the community (Criterion G). Tallarook Township is historically significant as a representative example of a rural township with a scattered and organic layout that illustrates the erratic commercial, community and residential development that is typical of rural towns in the nineteenth century (Criterion D). Tallarook Township is aesthetically significant for its distinctive nineteenth and early twentieth century picturesque character, which is integrally related to the surrounding farmland, native trees, creek and Tallarook Ranges in the distance (Criterion E). Tallarook Township is scientifically significant as a place that has potential for archaeological deposits that may provide further information about the early settlement of this area (Criterion C). Issues/submissions Submission 53 from VicRoads notes that it remains exempt from permit requirements for standard road maintenance and management activities. It requested that the proposed Tallarook to Mansfield Rail Reserve HO275 closely reflects the physical extent of the asset. The rail reserve extends north‐east from the Tallarook township parallel to the Upper Goulburn Road to Trawool and then south‐east to the border with the Murrindindi Shire. The surviving fabric includes embankments and cuttings, station platforms, stone and brick culverts, bridges and archaeological remains. The reserve has been established as a rail trail. There were no other submissions received in relation to this precinct. Conclusions The Panel’s concurs that the Tallarook Town Precinct HO181 as exhibited (supported by HO251, HO237, HO268, HO275 and HO328) meets the threshold for local heritage significance.
Page 56 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
6.3 Group precinct
(i) Broadford Pre 1912 Group HO258 Nature of precinct The Broadford Pre 1912 Group Precinct as exhibited is a serial listing of ten houses which appear on a real estate agent’s map prepared in 1912. The group is diverse and separated within an area generally north‐east of the Sunday Creek, which separates the town (A stronger and more coherent cluster of these houses forms the basis of the Pinniger Street Precinct HO315 to the west of Sunday Creek). There is anecdotal evidence that some of the houses may have been relocated in the past. One of the houses (27 Hamilton Street) was deleted by Council resolution prior to the hearing. Statement of Significance The Citation states why the precinct is significant: The houses are historically significant as tangible evidence of an early phase in the growth of Broadford by the early twentieth century, and particularly in the eastern section of the town, which was associated with the opening of the railway and the establishment and development of key industries, particularly the Paper Mill. As a group, they illustrate the extent of development within Broadford township at that time and the scattered pattern of the houses is typical of the ad‐hoc development of country towns (Criterion A). The house at 208 High Street is historically significant for its associations with the establishment of the Broadford Paper Mill and for its long term use as a residence by senior employees of the company (Criterion H). Architecturally, the houses are representative of the modest housing erected in Broadford prior to World War I (Criterion D) Issues/submissions The Broadford Pre 1912 Group Precinct HO258 is a serial listing, a relatively new concept in heritage planning. Group, thematic and serial listings are mentioned in the VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay (revised 2012). In his evidence, Mr Helms of Context Pty Ltd explained how serial listings came to be accepted and how the Broadford Pre‐1912 Group in particular had emerged as a potential serial listing from the 2006 Huddle Study and the 2012 Context Review. Mr Helms also explained how the number of places in the group had been substantially reduced with a cluster of them being included in the Pinniger Street Precinct HO315. Submission 51 concerned 206 and 208 High Street, the former being a modern house built in 1988 and the latter being a residence built in 1891 as a residence for senior employees of the Broadford Paper Mill. There has been some confusion due to the shared title. Council agrees that the house at 206 High Street is not significant. This should be made clear in the Citation. The submission does not refute the significance of 208 High Street.
Page 57 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Conclusion It is clear that housing for all ranks of mill employees is a major historic theme, at least at a local level of significance. The Panel considers that a serial listing was appropriate in this case and was impressed by the rigour of the review process. The Panel inspected all of the places proposed for inclusion in the group. The Panel concludes that the Broadford Pre 1912 Group Precinct HO258 meets the threshold of local heritage significance. Recommendations The Panel recommends that the Citation for the Broadford Pre‐1912 Group Precinct (HO 258) be amended to clarify that the property at 206 High Street is not included in the precinct.
Page 58 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7 Assessment of individual sites
This Chapter of the report comprises the Panel’s assessment of individual sites that were the subject of submissions.
7.1 Tyaak Cemetery, Broadford – Strath Creek Road, Tyaak HO288 Nature of proposed heritage place This is a small rural cemetery of approximately 100 gravesites dating from 1869. Submissions Submission 5 from the Cemetery Trust was concerned that the HO would inhibit them from carrying out their duties. Council submitted that the HO provides the following specific exemption for normal cemetery activities: No permit is required under this overlay: - For interments, burials and erection of monuments, re‐use of graves, burial of cremated remains and exhumation of remains in accordance with the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003. Discussion The submission did not dispute the heritage significance of the site, which is well described in the Citation. Council has held discussions with the submitters to explain the standard exemptions, which the Panel considers address the submitter’s concerns. Conclusions The Panel concludes that this site meets the threshold for heritage significance and should be included in the HO as exhibited.
7.2 Australian Light Horse Memorial Park, cnr Goulburn Valley Highway and Telegraph Road, Seymour HO297 Nature of proposed heritage place This is a large area, now of mostly regenerated bushland, on both sides of the Goulburn Highway south‐east of Seymour which was used for military purposes from 1916 until the late 20th century. It contains remnants works, some archaeological sites and modern memorials, as well as modern entrance gates. The sewerage system operated by Goulburn Valley Water is not mentioned as significant in the Citation. Submissions Submission 7 from the Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation was concerned that the HO would limit its use of the land for, and inhibit it from carrying out its duties maintaining, the sewer pump station. Goulburn Water sought clarification about permit exemptions for HO297 available through the HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan 2013.
Page 59 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Council confirmed that the exhibited HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan does not apply to the place but stated that, based on Submission 7 and further comments from Goulburn Valley Water, Council recommended that it should. Council included a letter from Goulburn Valley Water dated 15 October 2013 as Attachment L stating that it did not object to the amended Incorporated Plan. Discussion The submission did not dispute the heritage significance of the site, which is well described in the Citation. The modern sewer pump station is not part of that significance. The current use of the land for sewage treatment is not affected by the proposed HO. Routine maintenance of the sewerage system would not require a permit. Council has recommended inserting a new clause in the Incorporated Plan to exempt ongoing maintenance and management which the Panel considers addresses the submitter’s concerns. Conclusions The Panel concludes that HO297 Australian Light Horse Memorial Park meets the threshold for local heritage significance and should be included in the HO as exhibited. The Incorporated Plan should be amended to provide for planning permit exemptions as agreed by both parties. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Incorporated Plan be modified to include permit exemptions for works by Goulburn Valley Water associated with the sewerage infrastructure on the site of the Australian Light Horse Memorial Pak HO297.
7.3 Coronation Hotel domed water tank, 17 Mollison Street, Pyalong HO322 Nature of proposed heritage place The rendered brick tank, located towards the south‐east corner of the site, a small block, is all that remains of the 1903 Coronation Hotel complex. A mid‐20th century house close to the tank replaced the former hotel and store. The house and other buildings are not significant according to the Citation. Submissions Submission 9 from the owners of the property sought to have the extent of the HO reduced to an area of 1.5m around the tank. Following discussions with the owners, Council submitted that the HO should be reduced to an area of 1.0m around the tank. Discussion The owners’ submission did not dispute the heritage significance of the tank. During the hearing the Panel raised the difficulty of defining the underground extent of the tank and mapping an appropriate area. It was generally agreed that further development on the land away from the tank would not be inappropriate and that the permit process would not be onerous. The Panel believes that the whole of the title of small properties should be
Page 60 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 included in the HO because this affords the clearest definition of the area. However, the Citation should include a clear statement of what is, and is not, significant. Conclusion The Panel concludes that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and should be included in the HO as exhibited with no reduction in area. The Citation should identify the tank and its dome as the only significant heritage fabric on the site. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Citation for HO322 Coronation Hotel domed water tank be modified to clarify that the tank and dome are the only significant heritage fabric on the site.
7.4 Castle Glen, 305 Union Lane, Bylands HO246 Nature of proposed heritage place Castle Glen, an abandoned farm complex, includes an unusual brick and stone cottage and timber outbuilding with nearby exotic trees. It is located at Bylands, a settlement halfway between Kilmore and Wallan. Submissions Submission 17 from the Kilmore Historical Society sought to correct errors in the history section of the Citation. Council submitted that the Citation should be corrected but that the specific controls and extent of area exhibited for HO246 not be varied. Discussion Whether the property was established by one early family or another, the complex clearly is of local significance. Corrections to citations are an important benefit derived from the exhibition and hearing process. The proposed controls over external paint colours, trees, and fences and outbuildings are reasonable in this case. The Panel queries the need for permitting prohibited uses but, since this is not in contention, accepts the proposal. Conclusions The Panel concludes that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and should be included in the HO as exhibited with amendments to the Citation in line with Submission 17. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Citation for HO246 Castle Glen (Bylands) be updated to include the additional material provided in Submission 17.
Page 61 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7.5 Woodburn Homestead Complex, 125 McDougalls Road, Kilmore HO255 Nature of proposed heritage place Woodburn is a farming complex which dates from the earliest period of European settlement in the shire and continues to the present time having evolved through several major periods of changing use and development. It is located approximately 4kms west of Kilmore. Notwithstanding much change, the property reflects a long and steady occupation by one family for over a century. Important stone buildings survive from the 1850s, including the oldest surviving homestead with its distinctive Georgian front door and unusual service yard. It has been altered and extended, probably late in the nineteenth century. Stone stables survive to the south‐west of this homestead. Soon after the purchase of the property by Thomas Payne MLC in 1906, a single‐storey bungalow with associated outbuildings was built as a new homestead. Other buildings were constructed during the Interwar period such as the substantial manager’s residence, close to the earlier homestead, and a very large stable and garage well to the north of the new homestead. About 1930, the 1906 bungalow was demolished (but not its outbuildings) and replaced with a two‐storey homestead. This was altered and extended in the 1960s. The setting of the various houses has evolved as well. The present driveway with its avenue of oaks dates from the Interwar period and the nineteenth century gates are said to have been relocated from a property in South Yarra at that time. The 1906 landscaping, which must have included a now mature and magnificent Oak tree to the west of the bungalow, has a later layer from the 1960s attributed to Edna Walling. There is a large, irregularly shaped dam to the east of the drive, with an island planted with exotics and substantial background plantings of conifers beyond the dam. More mixed conifers in a double row form a large wind break along the northern boundary. Exotic and native trees are planted in groups in the northern paddock. The land is zoned Farming Zone which the Panel took into account when considering the social and economic effects of the proposed amendment (refer to Section 5.1). Submissions Council proposed to include an area of approximately 60ha in the rectangular polygon exhibited as HO255. The polygon represents 23% of the 640 acres of the original pre‐ emptive right for Woodburn (formerly called Pontesford or Pontisford) and an even smaller proportion of the entire farm. The exhibited Citation was written as part of the 2006 Huddle Study. Ms Huddle did not inspect the property. As a result of mediation and a site inspection by Louise Honman of Context Pty Ltd, Council has since amended the proposed polygon to a smaller, irregular area which includes most of the buildings in the complex, the garden immediately around the house, the drive and gates, the dam and parts of the surrounding paddocks. It does not include several wind breaks and perimeter plantings along McDougall’s Road. Ms Honman prepared a draft Statement of Significance which was distributed before the hearing. Under cross‐examination, Ms Honman indicated that the new Statement of Significance, provided as Appendix D of her submission and which is in the standard format of ‘What’, ‘How’ and ‘Why’, was based on fresh research (including the NALA Trove search engine), her site visit and text provided to Council by the owner’s heritage consultant.
Page 62 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Submission 23 from the owner of Woodburn initially objected to the proposed HO255 on two grounds: that it was an arbitrary imposition of authority and that the assessment had not been undertaken by a qualified heritage expert. The owner was represented at the hearing by Ms Teresa Bisucci of Best Hooper Solicitors who submitted a statement from the owner’s son cataloguing the changes to the farm since 1906, describing the day‐to‐day management of the farm and expressing concern about the practical impact the imposition of the HO would have on farming operations. One major concern was the management of farm fences. None had been identified as significant and, through Ms Honman, Council indicated that it was happy for fences to be exempt from the permit process if they were not specifically identified as significant (The stone walls built by Edna Waling are likely to be the only significant fencing). Similarly, the management of trees was also raised as a concern (It is likely that there are many significant trees, such as the specimen plantings in gardens and paddocks and as rows, such as the perimeter and windbreak plantings, and avenues, such as the drives). It was also argued that the dam had no aesthetic role and that, for a place to have aesthetic value, it must be visible from the public domain. There was also an implied argument in the owner’s son’s statement that the imposition of the HO would have an economic impact on farming operations and on the broader community. This was acknowledged in Council’s general submission in Section 4.2, including the citing of previous PPV reports. Council’s submission addressed recent legislative changes including those to Section 12(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However, as argued at page 30, the statement does not substantiate or quantify the impact. If the extent of the HO is reduced, which Council and Ms Honman agree is not inappropriate in heritage terms, the potential conflict with any existing economic opportunities would be reduced. Ms Bisucci called Peter Barrett as an expert witness. In his evidence, Mr Barrett provided his own research and concurred generally with the local significance of Woodburn but emphasised the 1850s stage of its development and limited the post 1906 stages to having heritage interest only and, effectively, attributing none to the 1960s changes. He supported a reduced area but smaller than that proposed by Council (as suggested by Ms Honman) and much smaller than the area exhibited. This position is contrary to Ms Bisucci’s statement, paragraph 27 page 5, that the Council has failed to discharge its legal burden of ‘establishing a sound basis upon which a property both land and buildings is to be considered of such significance as to warrant heritage protection’. Ms Bisucci also made general comments about the need for rigour in the assessment of places, stating that ‘the Panel cannot be satisfied that the necessary rigour has been demonstrated to justify the imposition of a heritage overlay’ (paragraph 46, page 9). She suggested that much more research was required to establish the significance of the buildings, gardens and broader landscape. Ms Bisucci concluded by submitting that either the Panel should reject the proposed HO255 for its lack of rigour or that the Panel should recommend a new substantially reduced polygon and that exemptions should be allowed in the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013.
Page 63 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Discussion Before the hearing, the Panel inspected the property from the road. During the hearing, with the owner’s permission, the Panel inspected Woodburn arriving via the drive and avenue of oaks, then walking around the manager’s house, the earliest surviving homestead, various outbuildings and their service yards, the stone stables, the main 1930 house and its 1906 outbuildings, the brick stables and the garden immediately around the main house. The Panel also had the benefit of aerial photographs and an extract from Pastoral Homes of Australia, the Pastoral Review (1929) tabled at the hearing by Mr Barrett. The proposed extent of HO255 as exhibited includes much of Lot 1 TP862671, an area of approximately 60ha. The Panel notes that the revised Statement of Significance includes the homestead complex, its immediate surroundings, various outbuildings, and the entrance gates and drive. Council, through Ms Honman, now proposes to reduce the extent substantially to an area of perhaps 25ha in the north‐west corner of Lot 1 TP862671 as shown shaded yellow in Figure 13, page 18 of her evidence. The same area is outlined in orange on an aerial photograph tendered with the owner’s son’s statement. It includes the drive, the dam and some perimeter and windbreak plantings but it does not include the northern paddock with their paddocks, or the boundary and windbreak plantings along McDougall’s Road. The Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013 allows specific exemptions from the permit provisions of the HO for development and works on individual heritage places in rural areas (Section 3.3). The Incorporated Plan is designed to ensure that normal farming activities can continue for elements, such as fences, not identified as significant. The Panel agrees with the Plan and its application at Woodburn HO255. It believes that these exemptions address most of Mr Payne’s concerns. The Panel agrees that Woodburn warrants more detailed research including a comparative analysis. This could include consideration of whether the place has the potential to be of State significance. Conclusions The Panel considers Woodburn to be a fine and typical example of a large homestead in an extensive garden setting surrounded by its associated farming infrastructure. It is picturesquely planned in a tradition of country estates which stretches back to at least the late eighteenth century. Features include the approach along a curving drive and the dam which has a primary function as a water supply, but which also has aesthetic value as glimpsed both from the drive and from the house through woods against a backdrop of exotic plantings. The complex demonstrates a sequence of development with many layers of history from the 1840s through to the 1960s. While individual elements may not stand out as exceptional, the complex is significant as a whole and should be understood as such. The Panel does not think that the imposition of heritage planning controls over a part of the farm would cause an unreasonable practical or economic burden to the owner, especially if exemptions for routine works are allowed. The Panel agrees that Woodburn as a complex meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included in the HO but with the reduced extent proposed
Page 64 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 in Ms Honman’s evidence. The Citation has been amended in draft form to include the substantial new information which emerged as a result of the exhibition and hearing processes, and should be reviewed prior to adoption of the Amendment. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the exhibited area for HO255 Woodburn Homestead Complex, 125 McDougalls Road, Kilmore is reduced to the area shaded yellow in Figure 13, page 18 of Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The Panel also recommends that that draft Citation be amended to identify all the significant residential and working buildings on the site, the entrance gates, the drive and the dam; to identify all the significant plantings (following an expert horticultural assessment) and other elements in the gardens and beyond, and to identify any non‐ significant buildings, structures, fences, works and plants.
7.6 Mt Fraser Homestead, 100 Minton Street, Beveridge HO2 Nature of proposed heritage place Mt Fraser Homestead is a stone cottage with twentieth century additions, a timber outbuilding and nearby cypress trees. It is located on the north side of Beveridge. The site already has heritage protection in the Planning Scheme but the current extent is much larger and is based on the title area rather than the curtilage of the house. Submissions Submission 24 from the Growth Area Authority supported the proposed substantial reduction in the extent of the existing HO2. Submission 53 from VicRoads highlighted the proposed upgrading of Minton Street (Beveridge Road) from a local road to an arterial road as part of the 2009 Urban Growth Boundary review which may impact on the southern boundary of the property. Council submitted that the extent of area exhibited for HO2 should be further reduced. Discussion The proposed upgrading of Minton Street may impact on the southern side of the property but the Panel does not believe that this would compromise the significance of the place. The existing extent of HO2 includes the whole of Lot 1 PS639580, an area of approximately 52ha. The Panel notes that the Statement of Significance is limited to the homestead complex and its immediate surroundings. It is proposed to reduce the extent substantially to include only the homestead complex and the drive, an area of less than 4ha in the south‐ east corner of Lot 1 PS639580. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site already meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that the exhibited reduction of the area affected by HO2 is appropriate.
Page 65 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7.7 Oakfield, 75 Stewart Street, Beveridge HO234 Nature of proposed heritage place Oakfield is a timber farmhouse set in a generous early twentieth century garden, with a service yard and outbuildings at the rear reached by a service drive on the north side. The house is conservative and combines some details which look back to the Victorian era and others which are contemporary to the late Edwardian period. Some details, such as the tripartite front windows and the leadlight glazing are of special interest. The plantings, especially the palms (Phoenix canariensis) are notable. Several mature cypress trees outside the garden form a windbreak on the south side. Oakfield is located on the east side of Beveridge in an area already identified for close residential subdivision and development. Submissions Submission 53 from VicRoads highlighted the proposed upgrading of Stewart Street from a local road to an arterial road as part of the 2009 Urban Growth Boundary review and this may impact on the western side of the property. Submission 56 from the owner supported the proposed inclusion of the property in the HO but with a reduction in its extent (approx. 1.3 ha in the exhibited map) to better balance the maximum urban development possible against the historical setting of Oakfield. The submission also sought amendments to the Citation in the form of corrections and clarifications. Ms Honman submitted that the extent of area exhibited for HO234 could be reduced but not as much as proposed by the owner. A reduced extent (coloured yellow) was included as Figure 16 in Ms Honman’s evidence. Council was also content to amend the Citation. Discussion The Panel notes the upgrading of Stewart Street foreshadowed by VicRoads as a likely consequence of Melbourne’s outward growth but this does not affect the significance of the place. Stewart Street has a wide reservation and any widening is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the property. The owner was represented at the hearing by Mr Panos Nickas of Best Hooper Solicitors who called Bryce Raworth as an expert witness. Mr Raworth concurred with the local significance of Oakfield. He supported a reduced area but one which was slightly larger than that proposed by the owner in Submission 56 but smaller than that proposed by Council (as suggested by Ms Louise Honman of Context Pty Ltd following mediation) and much smaller than the area exhibited. The various areas are shown in Figure 11 in Mr Raworth’s Statement of Evidence. After the hearing, with the owner’s permission, the Panel inspected the site for a second time walking around the farmhouse, the drives and the service yard. It was noted that the properties opposite at 15 and 17 Stewart Street had similar frontages to the Honman proposal (about 60m) with one having a similar depth and the other being rather deeper. The owner’s original submission included all of the front garden, and some of the side gardens and some of the back garden. Mr Raworth’s proposal included more but not all of
Page 66 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 the side garden to the north. Ms Honman’s proposal included all of the gardens, the service drive, the service yard and an area to the south which included the cypress windbreak. The Panel prefers Ms Honman’s proposal because it includes all that is significant about Oakfield and because it strikes the right balance between the identification of Oakfield’s curtilage as part of its former context as a working farm, and its conservation in the expectation of subdivision and development. The difference in area between the owner’s original submission and that proposed by the Council is inconsequential when compared with the approx. 1.3 sq km of the potential subdivision area. It might be argued that even the exhibited extent was not excessive. The site inspection confirmed that there are four Canary Island Palms (Phoenix canariensis) which dominate the front and north garden. Other trees, large shrubs and succulents are likely to date from the establishment of the garden. The cypresses in the windbreak and some of the eucalypts also probably dates from this period. For example, the pittosporum and pomegranate either side of the front gate are traditional plantings for their selection and location. There are traditional fruit trees at the rear which are probably younger. None of these plantings is rare nor is the plan unusual but they are characteristic of the Edwardian period. The Panel accepts Mr Raworth’s suggestion that the significant plants should be identified across the whole of the garden and the Citation amended accordingly. The site inspection also confirmed that the large machinery shed and a small prefabricated metal shed are not significant outbuildings. The other outbuildings and infrastructure, while possibly not the same age as the farmhouse, are still contributory. The Panel noted that the fences, both picket and post‐and‐rail, were relatively new but traditional in style, complementing the character of the place and helping to define its setting. The farmhouse is described incorrectly as Italianate. Although it has some interesting details, it does not appear to the Panel to demonstrate a high degree of technical and creative accomplishment. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included in the HO as exhibited although with a reduced extent as proposed by Ms Honman in her Statement of Evidence. The site should also be inspected by a horticultural expert to identify all significant plantings on the site. The Citation should be updated and amended to include a list of significant plantings and to identify the machinery and metal sheds as not significant. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the exhibited area for HO234 Oakfield, 75 Stewart Street Beveridge, be reduced to the area shaded yellow in Figure 16 in Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The Panel also recommends that that Citation be amended to identify all the significant plants on the site following an expert assessment, and to identify the machinery and metal sheds as not significant.
Page 67 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7.8 Christ Church Anglican Church, rectory and trees, 3 – 11 Union Street, Church Street, Kilmore HO97 Nature of proposed heritage place The complex of Christ Church, its rectory, the iron framed bell‐tower and their setting on a hill to the north‐west of Kilmore, including the Italian Cypresses and other trees, demonstrate the importance of religion in the town and of the Anglican Church in particular. They were identified as early as 1982 for their heritage significance and are already included with tree controls as HO97 (and incorrectly as HO96) in the Planning Scheme. It is now proposed to introduce internal controls under HO97 as well as amend the Citation and Statement of Significance. Submissions Submission 29 from the Anglican Church of Australia, Diocese of Wangaratta, while acknowledging the significance of the two buildings, requested that the tree and internal controls be removed. The Diocese argued that the trees were not old, were not part of the landscaping and, if kept, would compromise the construction of new toilets. The Diocese argued that the interior of the church was not significant enough to warrant controls, was not fit for purpose and was uncomfortable, and required a complete rethink as to its internal configuration. The Diocese did not appear at the hearing. Ms Honman on behalf of the Council submitted that because the tree controls are already in place (and no change had been exhibited in Amendment C56) no change could be made. Ms Honman had inspected the interior of the church, and noted ‘the very fine roof trusses and windows but [the interior] is otherwise quite plainly decorated’. Council also noted the general exemption which allows churches to be altered internally without a permit for genuine liturgical purposes. Council is happy for the Citation to be amended to specify the significant elements of the interior and the significant trees. Submission 21 from Kilmore Integrity Kept Inc. also supported internal controls and the deletion of the redundant HO96. Discussion The Christ Church Anglican Church, rectory, bell‐tower and trees are clearly significant at a local level. The church at least can be compared with the earliest surviving Anglican churches at Eastern Hill, Geelong, Portland and Port Fairy, all of which are on the State Heritage Register. Although the Diocese claimed that the Italian Cypresses are only 40‐50 years old, this is unlikely. Also age is not the only criterion for assessing significance in any case. Management issues, such as the possible construction of toilets or the reconfiguration of the interior of the church for different purposes, are appropriately taken into account when deciding on permits under the overlay. The construction details, fittings and decoration of church interiors can be very important for demonstrating the values of the denomination, including a deliberately austere aesthetic. Churches, cinemas and Masonic halls are the building types most likely to attract internal controls under the HO of a planning scheme. Council correctly points out the special exemptions which are available for liturgical changes, a privilege not afforded to any other building type. There is no heritage planning
Page 68 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013 control over moveable furniture, objects and other non‐fixtures. All parties supported the deletion of HO96 from the Planning Scheme. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site already meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included in the HO with internal controls as exhibited. The significant elements of the interior and the significant trees should be specified in the Citation. The Panel agrees with the deletion of HO96. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Citation for Christ Church Anglican Church, rectory and trees HO97 (Kilmore ) be amended to identify the significant trees on the site and the significant elements of the interior.
7.9 Wyldecourt farm complex, 370 Lancefield Road, Kilmore HO254 Nature of proposed heritage place Wyldecourt Farm Complex comprises a farmhouse, outbuildings, infrastructure and sheep yards dating from different periods but probably commencing in the 1850s. It is located in the south‐east corner of the farm approximately 4kms to the west of Kilmore. Submissions Submission 30 from the owners made detailed comments opposing the application of the Heritage Overlay and the owners appeared in person at the hearing and tabled further written and photographic evidence. The submitters requested that Wyldecourt be excluded from Amendment C56. They argued that the extent of the proposed HO254 is excessive; the farmhouse is much altered; the relocated timber sheds are later than the farmhouse; most of the infrastructure (particularly the hay shed, shearing sheds, shelters and yards for sheep) is new; and most of the land is a working farm ‘subject to change and cultivation’. Other arguments were led such as the ‘increased red tape and expense’; the failure of listing to benefit the public, the intrusion on private property rights; the increased potential for neglect; and the lack of public access and visibility. Arguments about private economic effects are not relevant to consideration of the Amendment. This is discussed in Chapter 5 of this Report. The owners were also anxious about the need for permits; specifically the recladding of the timber sheds with second‐hand corrugated iron rather than weatherboard. Louise Honman of Context Pty Ltd visited Wyldecourt as part of the consultation process following formal exhibition of Amendment C56 and this informed her evidence that the overall assessment of heritage significance at a local level was correct, that the extent of HO254 could be reduced but that most of the farming infrastructure, including the modern structures and fences, was not significant. Ms Honman also recommended that the area of the overlay could be reduced. It was agreed by Council that the Citation could be amended to specify clearly the significant and non‐significant features on the site. Ms Honman also provided an updated Citation in her Statement of Evidence.
Page 69 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Discussion A better understanding of the relative significance of Wyldecourt has emerged as a result of exhibition of the Amendment and the subsequent process of consultation and inspection. There seems little doubt that it is one of the early farm complexes in the Kilmore district and that it has continued to evolve and change. The alterations to the farmhouse, the possibility that the verandah is new, and the relocation of the timber sheds to the site to be used as outbuildings, are not sufficient factors to dismiss its local heritage significance. A reduced extent (coloured yellow) and a revised Citation were included as Figure 6 and Appendix C respectively of Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included in the HO although with a reduced extent as proposed by Ms Honman. The Citation should be corrected and amended to include a list of the significant elements and to exclude the open sided sheds, sheep yards, the fences, modern pump, and other non‐ significant elements. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the exhibited area for HO254 Wyldecourt farm complex, Kilmore be reduced to the area shaded yellow in Figure 6 of Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The Panel also recommends that that Citation be amended to identify the significant elements on the site, and to exclude elements that are not significant.
7.10 Broadford Paper Mill 209 High Street and 21 Last Street, Broadford HO265 Nature of proposed heritage place The Broadford Paper Mill, a complex of industrial buildings dating from different periods, probably commencing in the early 1860s when the site was used as a flour mill but mostly post WW2 after its conversion to a paper mill in 1890, and later to a pressed board mill in the 1950s. The site suffered a disastrous fire in 1911. Early stone ruins, possibly the base of a water wheel, survive on the creek bank. The central brick building, a conventional astylar structure, importantly now with no chimney, appears to date from the Interwar period. Most of the present industrial buildings represent the boom period of the 1950s and ‘60s. Extensive landscaping and recreational facilities also survive in one corner of the site. The proposed HO265 covers a small area in the middle of the present complex to include what is described as the ‘Brick Boiler House’. The (second) former manager’s house and its remnant garden and drive exist on separate titles forming a hammer‐head block. HO265 also covers the original drive (now on a site known as 21 Last Street) including the former tennis pavilion and several significant trees, especially the Bunya Pines (Araucaria bidwillii) and Chinese Weeping or Funeral Cypresses (Chamaecyparis funebris) at the front gate. Both properties are immediately north‐east of Broadford with the mill located directly on Sunday Creek.
Page 70 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Submissions Submission 36 was received from the owner of the Broadford Paper Mill site at 209 High Street and Submission 33 from the owners of the site of the former Mill manager’s house (now 21 Last Street). Mr Neil Burgin, Director, appeared at the hearing representing National Paper Industries Pty Ltd and Kipson Pty Ltd as owners of the Mill complex, and tabled further illustrative documentation. The thrust of the submission was that the Citation was incorrect, specifically concerning the date and function of the so‐called boiler house. Mr Burgin showed the Panel Through the Mill, 1990, a published history of the complex by Andrew Rule, including photographs from the 1920s, and a historic aerial photograph which showed the Mill in later years. He also explained the more recent history of the site. He argued that the red brick buildings were built after WW2 and that they housed engines, had a substation and were later used for storage. He stated that the 1926 boiler house was demolished to enable the construction of the engine house (Another reference suggests that the electrical generators were driven by steam with surplus electricity taken up by the town). The owners of 21 Last Street were represented at the hearing by Ms Laura Carter of Still & Co, lawyers. Her submission claimed that the proposed HO265 would encumber the site; potentially inhibit subdivision and development; fails to properly identify the trees and the management difficulties they create; fails to recognise their Indigenous heritage value; and the Heritage Overlay is not necessary for their long term protection. Ms Carter tabled photographs of scratches suffered by one of the owners when gardening under the trees. No mention was made about the tennis pavilion in her submission. Ms Honman submitted in her evidence that there should be no change in the extent for either property from what was exhibited for HO265, which proposes a strictly limited area immediately around the Engine House and an area which includes just the drive, tennis pavilion and trees of the former manager’s house. She provided an updated Citation in her statement of evidence as Appendix B. Discussion It is clear that this industrial complex has changed greatly over the years. The paper mill superseding the flour mill reflects the advance from water power to steam power, as well as other historic industrial themes, in the later nineteenth century. The 1911 fire appears to have triggered the rebuilding of the complex. Post World War 2 prosperity brought more development including the rebuilding of the manager’s house on‐site and the building of more workers’ housing in the town. The central brick building, a utilitarian astylar structure with no chimney, appears to the Panel to date from the Interwar period rather than from after WW2 but it may be later. What is certain is that the building supplied power for the complex whether by steam or electricity. The post‐1911 period clearly was the heyday of the complex and, it might be argued, deserves further research for its significance to the town. There are references in the Citation to workers’ housing within the town both before and after WW2. Similarly, the Panel was surprised that the tennis courts associated with the tennis pavilion and the nearby rows of mature Monterey or Radiata Pines (Pinus radiata) were not listed in the Citation.
Page 71 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Whatever their age, the brick buildings are the focus of the complex and its most substantial structures, and can be said to represent the mid‐twentieth century development of the heritage place. Further research, including an internal inspection of the buildings to check the building materials and detailing, should lead to a better understanding of their date of construction and function(s) over time. In the meantime, the Panel believes that the brick buildings, at least, should be included in the proposed HO265 as exhibited to represent the Mill complex’s significance to Broadford and Mitchell Shire, with the current extent of HO265 providing the minimum planning tool for managing the site, for the time being. Ms Carter‘s submission covered issues about future management and development of the site, which are not relevant to determining significance. She argued that the Bunya Bunya Pines are dangerous (in terms of causing scratches and injuries), which may or may not be true, but which is also not relevant. She cited case law dealing with resolving disputes between neighbours rather than the identification of heritage assets. Other planning law cases she cited dealt with post‐identification issues, i.e. management in a permit context, and those cases seemed to the Panel to establish the need for proper identification before well‐informed management decisions can be made. The Indigenous heritage value of the Bunya Bunya Pine species is interesting and important but the necessary evidence was not led. Conclusions The Panel agrees that both these sites meet the threshold for local heritage significance and that they should be included in HO265 as exhibited. The Citation could be amended to include the caution that the brick building may not date from the early twentieth century and that its function has changed over time. The Panel strongly recommends further research across all periods into the whole of the Broadford Mill complex including the manager’s house and garden and any workers’ housing within the town. The 1970s may represent a later major phase in the sequence of development of the site and could be part of further research into the whole of the site and its relationship with the town. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Citation for HO265 Broadford Paper Mill, 209 High Street and 21 Last Street, Broadford be amended as proposed in Appendix B of Ms Honman’s submission and that the brick structure be called the ‘power house’. The Panel also recommends further research into the history and development of the mill and its environs over time, and its economic and social importance to the town.
Page 72 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7.11 Houses, 78‐82 Powlett Street, Kilmore HO248 and HO249 Nature of proposed heritage place Two vernacular cottages, not identical, exist on one allotment at 78‐80 Powlett Street (HO248), set close to the street frontage with small rear gardens. A substantial open space exists to the south at 82 Powlett Street (HO249) on a separate title. Submissions Submission 40 from the owners of the two cottages does not claim that the cottages have no significance but oppose the inclusion of the land to their rear (two‐thirds of the block) and all of the vacant land at 82 Powlett Street in the Heritage Overlay. They claim that the proposed extent may complicate future development and affect the value of the land. The owners want compensation for their financial loss and expressed concern about having to pay for a professional report on proposed works. Council now proposes to identify both cottages under the one HO248 and to abandon HO249 on the vacant lot. The owners did not appear at the hearing but confirmed their continuing concerns following mediation in an email to Council dated 5 October 2013, submitted by Council as Attachment K during the hearing. Discussion It is standard practice for the whole of a small, i.e. suburban scale block to be included an Heritage Overlay, which is a tool for identification as well as protection. The Incorporated Document provides exemptions from a range of permit requirements for individual heritage places in the Residential 1 Zone. The proposed requirement in the Heritage Policy for an expert report has been discussed in Section 4.2 of this Report. The Panel concluded that in most cases a simple report provided by the Shire’s Heritage Adviser should suffice. Non‐heritage issues which are community based, such as loss of property value are not relevant to the assessment of the Amendment and have been discussed in Section 5.4 of this Report. Conclusions The Panel agrees that the site at 78‐80 Powlett Street Kilmore meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included as HO248 as exhibited. The site at 82 Powlett Street (HO249) should be deleted from the Amendment. Recommendation The Panel recommends that HO249 82 Powlett Street, Kilmore be deleted from Amendment C56.
Page 73 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
7.12 Smiths Bridge, Heathcote East Boynton Road, Tooboorac HO270 Nature of proposed heritage place Smiths Bridge is an early twentieth century example, rare in the shire, of a standard timber design with notable longitudinal running boards. The bridge straddles the border with the City of Greater Bendigo and responsibility for its repair and maintenance is shared by the two municipalities. Submissions Submission 46 from the City of Greater Bendigo stated that Smiths Bridge was much altered, had been recommended for replacement, had no guard rails and was not rare. Based on a review by Context in 2013 which confirmed its significance, the Council submitted that there should be no change to the proposed HO270 as exhibited. Discussion Ms Honman inspected the bridge on behalf of the Council. She considered that it was substantially intact but stated that the new concrete piers were not significant. It is claimed in the Citation that this bridge is a rare example only in the Mitchell Shire. However, Ms Honman suggested in her evidence that this claim may need to be tested through a review of Shire assets. The Citation has already been amended on the Hermes database and a copy is included in the Appendix A at page 95 of the Mitchell Heritage Study Review Final (amended) 26 September 2013. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included as HO248 as exhibited.
7.13 House and Oak Tree, 16B George Street, Kilmore HO252 Nature of proposed heritage place The stone house, of an early but still uncertain date, is located on an elevated site on the eastern side of Kilmore. It has a distinctively high hipped roof. There is a very large oak tree on the northern side of the house. While the house has been altered it retains a reasonable degree of integrity. Submissions The owner’s arguments in Submission 47 were limited to the effect of listing on the use and development of the property and its real estate value. The submission also commented on the changes to the fabric, suggesting that it has such a low integrity that it now has no significance. Ms Honman acknowledged that there was still doubt about the exact age of the house and that there had been alterations and additions, but that it must be an early house and that it retained sufficient integrity to be significant. No party disputed the significance of the Oak tree or the extent of the proposed HO252.
Page 74 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Discussion The Panel inspected the site and agrees that it represents an early phase in the history of Kilmore, and that it retains sufficient integrity to be significant. The Panel was impressed by the size and apparent age of the Oak tree. It is standard for the whole of a small, i.e. suburban block to be included in the extent of an HO, which is a tool for identification as well as protection. Non‐heritage issues such as loss of property value are not relevant to the assessment of heritage value and have been discussed in Chapter 5 of this Report. Conclusions The Panel agrees that this site meets the threshold for local heritage significance and that it should be included as HO252 as exhibited including the use of tree controls to protect the Oak tree.
7.14 Clonbinane Park, 495 Clonbinane Road, Clonbinane HO30 Nature of proposed heritage place Clonbinane Park is a late nineteenth century Italianate villa located in hilly country overlooking Sunday Creek 14kms south‐east of Kilmore. The pastoral run, which was taken up by Michael Heffernan, dates from 1843. It was held by the McKenzie family for about 18 years and again later when Malcolm Kenneth McKenzie built the house. The architect is said to have been Andrew McKay. Interestingly, the house was constructed using hollow terracotta blocks, a type of fire proof brick manufactured nearby at Wandong, for the internal skin of the cavity brick walls. Clonbinane Park was destroyed by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires although substantial sections of the walls and tower survive. Issues/submissions Amendment C56 proposes to delete HO30 which covers Clonbinane Park. Submission 27 from the Wandong History Group proposed that ‘HO30 should remain as not all of the building fabric has been destroyed’. Ms Lynne Dore spoke to the submission at the hearing. She expanded on the information available about Clonbinane, including that it was made from terracotta lumber, probably its last and most extensive use in the Shire as a building material. The owners of the property did not make a submission. Council wrote to the owners and advised them of the submission seeking retention of HO30 (Attachment N in Council’s submission) but they did not respond or make a submission to the Panel. However, the owner applied for a permit to demolish all built structures. Council issued a demolition permit subject to special conditions (PLP252/13 dated 11 November 2013, Attachment O to the Council’s Submission). The conditions include the requirement for submission and approval of a Demolition Plan and preparation of a comprehensive Heritage Archival Report and photographic survey before demolition commences. It is unclear whether the permit application was referred to Council’s heritage adviser.
Page 75 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
The 2013 Context Heritage Study Review recommended that HO30 should remain in the Mitchell Planning Scheme. Ms Honman in her evidence at the hearing suggested that the site could be placed on the Heritage Inventory. Discussion Clonbinane Park is identified in the existing Planning Scheme as a heritage place by a star, rather than a polygon, which is incorrectly located although the intention is clear. The Heritage Schedule includes external paint and tree controls. No party has disputed the local significance of the place. While there may be some doubt about the exact date of construction and who the architect may have been, evidence which emerged during the hearing, especially about the rare use of terracotta lumber blocks in its construction, confirms the significance of Clonbinane Park. The Panel was provided with recent photographs of the house and it is now clear that the building was not completely destroyed by the 2009 bushfire. No evidence emerged about the condition of the landscaping around the house. Substantial ruins survive, comprising significant fabric in its setting that still tells us much about the place. The permit to demolish is valid and its conditions go some way to mitigate the inevitable loss which demolition would bring. However, there is no certainty that demolition will occur and the Panel is mindful of the long tradition of maintaining ruins in the history of building conservation. Research can continue into the significance of Clonbinane. Conclusions Notwithstanding the damage caused in the 2009 bushfires, the Panel concludes that this site still meets the threshold for local heritage significance and believes that it should be retained as HO30, as recommended in the 2013 Context Review. The Panel does not believe that deleting HO30 as part of Amendment C56 and including the site in the Heritage Inventory would provide adequate interim protection while the extant remnants of the building stand. The Citation should be updated to recognise the considerable damage to the building, and to include the additional information about history of the property and the building itself gleaned in the course of the Amendment process. In relation to the existing demolition permit, the Panel considers that: should demolition occur (meeting the conditions under the planning permit), the retention of HO30 could be reconsidered and the site listed on the Heritage Inventory. should demolition not occur within the life of the permit, HO30 will continue to provide protection for this significant heritage place. Recommendation The Panel recommends that HO30 Clonbinane Park, 495 Clonbinane Road, be retained in the Planning Scheme. The Panel recommends that the Citation should be amended to: recognise the considerable damage to the building in the 2009 fires note the use of terracotta blocks in the construction of the house
Page 76 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
include the additional information about history of the property gleaned in the course of the Amendment process.
7.15 Various places, Submission 53, VicRoads Nature of heritage places VicRoads has commented on fifteen places throughout the Shire. For some of these Heritage Overlays are located within the road reserve and for others the overlays are immediately adjacent. Some are individually identified places while others are precincts. The places are listed below, including places that are discussed elsewhere in this report: Mt Fraser Homestead Complex, Minton Street, Beveridge HO002 (see Section 7.6) Remnant Chimney, Lithgow Street, Beveridge HO322 House and Palm Trees, 75 Stewart Street, Beveridge HO234 (see Section 7.8) Broadford Commercial Town Centre Precinct, Broadford HO298 (see Section 6.1) Bluestone Culverts, Broadford Road and High Street, Broadford HO239 Kilmore Town Centre Precinct, Kilmore HO99 (see Section 6.2) Carlsberg Farm Complex, 15 Costellos Road, Kilmore HO283 Beuhne Monument Cairn and Avenue of Gums, Kilmore HO243 Bluestone Road Bridge, Northern Highway, south of Kilmore HO256 Memorial Cairn, Anzac Avenue, Seymour HO287 (see Section 6.1) Hume and Hovell Monument, Anzac Avenue, Seymour HO273 Tallarook Town Precinct, Northern Highway, Tallarook HO181 (see Section 6.2) Tallarook to Mansfield Rail Reserve, Tallarook HO275 (see Section 6.2) Former School No 2700, 8314 Goulburn Valley Highway, Trawool HO284 House and Garden, 770 Wandong Road, Wandong HO294 Issues Submission 53 acknowledges the significance of all places identified for protection under the Heritage Overlay; and VicRoads’ exemption from permit requirements for standard road maintenance and management activities. It also mentions the need for precise definitions of the extent of heritage controls, including the need for certain reductions to the heritage area and, the need for more precision about what elements are significant. The potential impact on several places by the various route options for the proposed Kilmore‐Wallan Bypass are also addressed. Non‐heritage issues are discussed in Chapter 5 of this Report.
Page 77 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
Discussion It is clear to the Panel that VicRoads and the Shire have collaborated well over Amendment C56. Almost all of the issues raised are minor and matters of management rather than identification. In some cases VicRoads has anticipated mitigation to minimise the impact of necessary works. It is disappointing that the potential impact of the Quinns Road Option for the Kilmore – Wallan Bypass on the proposed Heritage Overlay for the Kilmore Outdoor Recreation Precinct was not addressed in the VicRoads’ submission. However, the potential impact of any of the options is not a matter which can be taken into account when determining the heritage significance of a place which is the primary issue. More detailed comments are made in the discussion of two individually identified places and five precincts in Chapters 6 and 7. Conclusions Many of the matters raised in the VicRoads’ submission have been resolved or are future works which are management issues rather than factors which determine significance. None of the matters raised is substantial or challenges the Amendment.
7.16 Catholic Church, Submission 54 Submission 54 from Gerard Holwell Pty Ltd on behalf of the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Archdiocese of Melbourne requested that the Schedule to the HO be modified to provide for prohibited uses to be permitted for the following church properties: Our Lady Help of Christians, 2 McKenzie Street, Broadford HO282 Church of the Immaculate Conception, Crawford Street, Seymour HO330 St Joseph’s, 66 Main Street, Tallarook HO327 St Mary’s Convent, 90 High Street, Seymour HO331. The submission stated that due to a number of factors, some churches will become no longer required as places of worship. It proposed that the flexibility afforded by allowing prohibited uses is a ‘reasonable and practical way for the long term management of these buildings’. Mr Helms gave evidence that it is not appropriate to apply the prohibited uses clause as the buildings are all still in use. The VPP Practice Note states that the provision: … might be used for a redundant church, warehouse or other large building complex where it is considered that the normally available range of permissible uses is insufficient to provide for the future conservation of the building. The Panel agrees that the appropriate time for considering prohibited uses is when a building becomes redundant and consideration needs to be given to factors such as the uses permissible in the zone and the proposed uses. Conclusion The Panel concludes that the prohibited uses provision should not be applied to the above properties.
Page 78 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Conclusions The Panel commends the Mitchell Shire Council for undertaking the significant work and commitment that underlies a heritage amendment on this scale. The existing heritage controls are a patchwork of heritage places, many of which originated prior to the Shire’s amalgamation. While sites have been added to the HO in the meantime in response to specific circumstances, a comprehensive assessment of the Shire’s many heritage assets was clearly necessary. The 2006 Huddle Study was extremely comprehensive and one of its most important legacies is the Mitchell Environmental History, which provides the context for all future decisions about heritage significance and the management and conservation of heritage places. The 2012 Context Review added significant value in reviewing and updating the earlier study and preparing the documentation for translation into a Planning Scheme amendment. The complexity of this task should not be underestimated. The Panel also acknowledges the energy and knowledge clearly demonstrated by so many Mitchell residents in the course of this Panel process. Their commitment to the Shire’s heritage and valuable contributions to the Panel’s understanding of the key issues has been much appreciated. Amendment C56 provided the opportunity to bring these strands together, and the Panel’s task was to consider in detail the matters presented to it. In most cases it was a relatively straightforward matter for the Panel to assess particular precincts or sites. However, the Panel was concerned that, in the wider context, in some precincts the ‘big picture’ was somewhat obscured by a concentration on individual sites. In those cases the Panel took particular care to address all heritage issues presented to it, and recommended either a restructuring of adjoining precincts to better reflect their fundamental nature and purpose, or the substitution of a different VPP tool which better reflects the nature of the precinct and the particular qualities that need to be protected. The Panel has also recommended that, in a future amendment, the MSS be strengthened by including the principal themes of the Mitchell Thematic Environment History to provide a sound strategic basis for the heritage controls in the scheme. Inevitably, there is more work to do. Several times at the hearing it was confirmed by the planning and heritage professionals and, in often valuable detail, by the local historical societies and their individual members, that more research is required. Just two settlements need to be mentioned to make the point: Wandong and Broadford, for their significant industrial histories and all that flowed from them to their local communities in terms of employment, innovation and social structures, and the consequent impact on their social, historical, built and archaeological significance. Individual places, such as Woodburn at Kilmore need further research, not to confirm their local significance, which is already clear, but to understand better the details of their tangible and intangible heritage. The Panel commends the commitment to continue researching the heritage of the Shire.
Page 79 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
8.2 Recommendations For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme should be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications: No Recommendation Page 1 Clause 21.01‐1 to be modified to delete reference to the Mitchell Shire Heritage Study 16 Amendment C56 Heritage Citations March 2013 from the list of reference documents. 2 Clause 22.08‐4 to be modified to achieve the following outcomes: 18 • Applications in relation to ‘contributory’ places within a heritage precinct would require a report from the Council’s Heritage Adviser. • Applications in relation to ‘significant’ places (individual or within a precinct) would also require a report from Council’s Heritage Adviser. In the event that the Heritage Adviser does not support the proposed works, the applicant would be required to submit a report from a suitably qualified heritage consultant in support of the application. • The relationship between ‘minor works’ and the permit exemptions in the Incorporated Document is clarified in the policy. 3 Clause 21.06‐3 of the MSS to be modified to include an additional strategy for the 18 protection of heritage places by ensuring that adjacent development does not detract from or obscure the heritage significance of a site protected by an HO. 4 Clause 22.08‐3.2 Demolition to be modified to indicate that a Heritage Archival 18 Report will be required for ‘significant’ heritage places if demolition is approved. 5 The Mitchell Shire HO Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan, 2013 to be modified as 19 proposed by Council to include specific exemptions for works associated with the sewerage pumping station in the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park HO297. 6 The Mitchell Shire Heritage Study – Amendment C56 Heritage Citations – March 2013 20 to be included in the Planning Scheme as an Incorporated Document. 7 All identified mapping and other technical errors to be amended prior to approval of 21 Amendment C56. 8 The Broadford Commercial Town Centre Precinct HO298 to be deleted from 29 Amendment C56. The boundary of the Historic Reserve HO11 to be extended to cover the whole of the site including the buildings. The area of HO13 (Hume and Hovell Monument) to be extended to include all of the Market Square Reserve. The Commercial Hotel in High Street to be assessed for individual heritage significance. Council to consider introducing either a Neighbourhood Character Overlay or Design and Development Overlay over the area recommended for the Heritage Overlay in the 2006 Huddle Study.
Page 80 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
9 The Kilmore Railway Precinct HO302 to be deleted from Amendment C56. 32 Council to consider introducing the Significant Landscape Overlay over the reduced area of the former station environs as proposed at the hearing. 10 The Citation for the Emu Flat Rural Precinct HO299 to be amended as proposed in 34 Submission 10. 11 The Seymour High Street Precinct HO305 to be modified by: 36 • Deletion of 8 President Street and 26 and 24 Tristan Street • Changing the status of 7 Butler Street to non‐contributory. The property at 3 Callen Street to be considered for inclusion in the precinct in a future amendment. 12 The exhibited Seymour Mob Siding Precinct HO306 to be reduced in area to exclude 38 part of 145 Wimble Street as shown in Figure 20 of Ms Brady’s Statement of Evidence and agreed by Council and Mr Helms at the hearing. The precinct Citation to be amended in accordance with the changes agreed at the hearing. 13 The Seymour Progress Precinct HO307 to be modified by: 40 • Deletion of 3 The Avenue from the precinct. • Amendment of the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Document and the Citation maps to designate 3 and 13 Progress Street as non‐contributory. The halls associated with St Andrew's Presbyterian Church and Christ Church, Church of England to be investigated further with a view to incorporating them into HO323 and HO324 respectively. 14 The Wandong area, particularly the sites identified in the submission by the Wandong 44 History Group, should be the subject of further investigation, particularly in relation to industrial heritage significance. 15 The Kilmore Town Centre Precinct HO99 to be modified as follows: 47 • The area of the existing precinct between Bourke Street and Foote Street to be retained within HO99. • The existing HO99 to be combined with the existing HO101 to form a single precinct. • Hudson Park to be transferred from HO102 to become part of HO99, using the boundary proposed in the 2006 Huddle Study. • The Citation for the HO99 Kilmore Town Centre to be amended to reflect the changes. Council to consider applying a Design and Development Overlay over Sydney Street between Clarke Street and Union Street by way of a future amendment. The properties at 5 and 9 Sydney Street to be assessed for individual heritage significance in a future heritage study.
Page 81 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
16 The Kilmore Creek Precinct HO102 to be modified as follows: 52 • Deletion of the residential properties on the west side of Victoria Parade. • Extension of the western boundary between Union and Foote Street to be contiguous with the Kilmore Town Centre Precinct. • Extension of the southern boundary to include the area recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. • Deletion of Hudson Park (which becomes part of HO99 Kilmore Town Centre Precinct) using the boundary recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. The revised Kilmore Creek Precinct (including the relevant part of the existing HO102) be protected with a Significant Landscape Overlay in lieu of the exhibited Heritage Overlay. The Citation to be amended to reflect the above changes and be included in the Schedule to the SLO for the Kilmore Creek Precinct. 17 The Seymour Old Town Precinct HO156 to be modified by deleting the Kings Park area 54 but retaining the premises of the Seymour and District Historical Society in the north‐ west corner, as recommended in the 2006 Huddle Study. 18 The RSL Sub‐Branch building at 2 Station Street, Seymour, to be investigated for 55 future individual listing. 19 The Citation for the Broadford Pre‐1912 Group Precinct (HO 258) to be amended to 58 clarify that the property at 206 High Street is not included in the precinct. 20 The Incorporated Plan to be modified to include permit exemptions for works by 60 Goulburn Valley Water associated with the sewerage infrastructure on the site of the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park HO297. 21 The Citation for HO322 Coronation Hotel domed water tank to be modified to clarify 61 that the tank and dome are the only significant heritage fabric on the site. 22 The Citation for HO246 Castle Glen (Bylands) to be updated to include the additional 61 material provided in Submission 17. 23 The exhibited area for HO255 Woodburn Homestead Complex, 125 McDougalls Road 65 Kilmore, to be reduced to the area shaded yellow in Figure 13, page 18 of Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The draft Citation to be amended to identify all the significant residential and working buildings on the site, the entrance gates, the drive and the dam; to identify all the significant plantings (following an expert horticultural assessment) and other elements in the gardens and beyond; and to identify any non‐significant buildings, structures, fences, works and plants. 24 The exhibited area for HO234 Oakfield, 75 Stewart Street, Beveridge, to be reduced to 67 the area shaded yellow in Figure 16 in Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The Citation to be amended to identify all the significant plants on the site following an expert assessment, and to identify the machinery and metal sheds as not significant. 25 The Citation for Christ Church Anglican Church, rectory and trees HO97 (Kilmore) be 69 amended to identify the significant trees on the site and the significant elements of the interior.
Page 82 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Panel Report 31 December 2013
26 The exhibited area for HO254 Wyldecourt farm complex, Kilmore to be reduced to 70 the area shaded yellow in Figure 6 of Ms Honman’s Statement of Evidence. The Citation to be amended to identify the significant elements on the site, and to exclude elements that are not significant. 27 The Citation for HO265 Broadford Paper Mill, 209 High Street and 21 Last Street, 72 Broadford to be amended as proposed in Appendix B of Ms Honman’s submission and that the brick structure to be called the ‘power house’. Further research to be undertaken into the history and development of the mill and its environs over time, and its economic and social importance to the town. 28 82 Powlett Street, Kilmore HO249 to be deleted from Amendment C56. 73 29 Clonbinane Park, 495 Clonbinane Road, Clonbinane (HO30) to be retained in the 76 Planning Scheme. The Citation to be amended to: • recognise the considerable damage to the building in the 2009 fires • note the use of terracotta blocks in the construction of the house • include the additional information about history of the property gleaned in the course of the Amendment process.
Page 83 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 31 December 2013
Appendix A List of Submitters No Submitter 1 Laura Bradley Goulburn Murray Water 2 Trevor Byers Department of Environment and Primary Industries 3 Clare Kiely EPA Victoria 4 Lindsay & Georgina Lowerson 5 Beverley Bullen Tyaak Cemetery Trust 6 Margaret Law 7 Paul Kerrins Goulburn Valley Water 8 Peter Prevos Coliban Water 9 Richard and Cheryl Gray 10 June Torcasio 11 Darrin Dohrman Country Fire Authority 12 Guy Tierney Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority 13 Ron Howard 14 Justin Wooding and Mavis Chew 15 Luisa McMillan Merri Creek Management Committee 16 C & L Blackley 17 Grahame Thom 18 Ross and Jenny Smith 19 Lawrie Boyd Save Monument Hill Community Group 20 Norm Stimson 21 Anne Radden Rose Kilmore Integrity Kept 22 Damian Clarke 23 Douglas Payne c/o Best Hooper Solicitors 24 Bonnie Colman Growth Area Authority 25 Stephen Ellis 26 John & Dianne Le Quiniat 27 Di Vidal Wandong History Group 28 Rebecca Board 29 Timothy Williams The Anglican Church of Australia‐ Wangaratta Diocese 30 Ronald & Catherine Kerr
Page 84 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 31 December 2013
31 Jane Ezard and Fiona Stevens 32 Barbara Wilson Kilmore Historical Society 33 Mark and Tanya Osborne c/o Still & Co Lawyers 34 Lesley Dalziel 35 Raymond Cowell Kilmore Cricket & Recreation Reserve Inc. 36 Neil Burgin National Paper Industries Pty Ltd & Kipson Pty Ltd 37 Don Wilson Seymour & District Historical Society 38 Brian Mawhinney 39 Jim Lowden 40 Dr. Ian Bell and Sarah Bell 41 Lawrie and Lynette Boyd 42 Denise Worthington 43 Vyvienne Whitehurst 44 M P Brennan Buzlor Pty Ltd 45 Margaret Fleischmann 46 Brett Martini City of Greater Bendigo 47 Maxine Brain and John Ryan 48 Pam Lee 49 Anne Goble 50 Wilma Hammond Kilmore Mechanics Institute 51 Heather & Peter Warren 52 Gayle Morgan 53 Len Hall VicRoads 54 Gerard Holwell Gerard Holwell Pty Ltd‐ Town Planning Consultancy 55 Sue Frisch 56 Matthew Hogg (Verve Projects P/L) Nubuild Beveridge Pty Ltd 57 Ian Hare 58 Shaun Morgan North Central Catchment Management Authority 59 Paul Fleming (for Leo Folvig) 60 Kim and Rick Ambrose
Page 85 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 31 December 2013
Appendix B Panel request to Council
Page 86 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 31 December 2013
Ms Amy Reynolds Senior Strategic Planner Mitchell Shire Council 113 High Street Broadford 3658 26 November 2013
Dear Ms Reynolds RE: MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C56 KILMORE OUTDOOR RECREATION PRECINCT The Panel has considered all the options for protection of this historic area in Kilmore, and has come to the conclusion that the most effective VPP tool for providing that protection is the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO). In line with the discussions on this point at the end of the hearing, the Panel requests Council to prepare amendments to the exhibited documents as follows:
1. Schedule 1 to the SLO Extend the area of SLO1 to cover the whole of area recommended for the Heritage Overlay in Ms Huddle’s 2006 report. Amend Clause 1.0 of the Schedule to reflect the enlarged area and all its significant elements, including its landscape character and views, its foundation, its historic importance to Kilmore and its community, its continuous use as a recreation reserve with a range of activities and infrastructure over time, its remnant heritage fabric and the Hume and Hovell Monument. Amend Clause 2.0 of the Schedule to include heritage objectives and strengthen other objectives as appropriate. Review Clause 3.0 to ensure the permit requirements are still appropriate. Amend Clause 4.0 to reflect the heritage values of the area. Incorporate an updated Citation (including a Statement of Significance) that covers the expanded SLO1 area (see 2a‐e below for further details on the Citation). Amend the name of the precinct to ‘Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Precinct’.
2. Citation for Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Precinct Create an integrated Citation and Statement of Significance covering the precinct as whole, as well as its constituent elements, including the reservoir and monument. Include identification of all remnant heritage fabric within the precinct.
Page 87 of 88 Amendment C56 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 31 December 2013
Include reference to the history, use and significance of the walking tracks on Monument Hill. Include reference to the overlapping nature of the uses as a feature of the precinct. Include the permeability of the whole precinct as a significant element. The Panel also considers that it would be appropriate to circulate the amended Schedule (incorporating the revised Citation) to interested parties to provide them with an opportunity to comment on the proposed contents. To achieve this, the Panel proposes the following timeframe:
1. 4 December 2013: Council finalises and circulates the amended Schedule to the Panel and to all parties who made submissions concerning the area to be included in SLO1. 2. 18 December 2013: Closing date for comments to Council on the contents of the amended SLO1 Schedule. 3. 23 December 2013: Closing date for Council submission to Panel responding to comments on the amended SLO1. 4. 10 January 2013: Panel Supplementary Report on SLO1 is completed.
The Panel proposes to issue its Report on Amendment C56 covering all heritage sites and precincts in the Amendment except the proposed Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Area (SLO1). The report will be delivered in accordance with the original timetable (i.e. within 6 weeks of the last day of the hearing). The Panel would appreciate your confirmation of the proposed timetable. Yours sincerely
Margaret Pitt Panel Chair
Page 88 of 88