DOCSLIB.ORG

8 Chaucer Crescent, Canterbury

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Boroondara Amendment C266 Heritage Overlay HO 700 Griffin Estate & Environs Precinct Subject site: 8 Chaucer Crescent Canterbury Expert Heritage Report Prepared for Max Findlay By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] April 2018 8 Chaucer Crescent, Canterbury 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been asked by Max Findlay, the owner of the above property, to prepare a statement of expert evidence which addresses the heritage merits relating to the proposed grading of the above s as “Contributory” and its inclusion in a Heritage Overlay i.e. HO 700, Griffin Estate & Environs as a consequence of Amendment C266. Otherwise there is no objection to the application of the Heritage Overlay as proposed. 2. Amendment C264, gazetted on 8 February 2018, introduced interim Heritage Overlays to all affected properties in Canterbury, identified in the adopted Canterbury Heritage Gap Assessment and as recommended in Amendment C266. Amendment C264 has an expiry date of 30 November 2018. Amendment C266 seeks to introduce permanent Heritage Overlays as identified in the Canterbury Heritage Gap Study. 3. I understand that part of the proposed precinct i.e. Chaucer Crescent, was identified in the Draft Canterbury Heritage Gap Study and that a response to the preliminary consultation, Council recommended the “the merging of the Griffin Estate and Chaucer Crescent Precincts to create an expanded precinct known as the Griffin Estate & Environs Residential Precinct;” (Maddocks. Submission. P. 4.) 1.2 Reference Materials 4. I have read: Planning Panels Victoria. Guide to Expert Evidence. Victoria. Department of Environment. Land, Water and Planning. Applying the Heritage Overlay. Planning Practice Note 1. January, 2018. Context Pty Ltd. City of Boroondara. Municipal-wide Gap Study. Vol. 1 Canterbury. Expanded report, 25 May, 2017. Maddocks. Submission on behalf of the Planning Authority Amendment C266 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme Council’s submission: Part A. 5 April, 2015. 5. I have perused: City of Boroondara. Amendment C266 - Canterbury Heritage Gap Assessment https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/planning-building/planning-scheme-and- amendments/current-planning-scheme-amendments/amendment-c266-canterbury- heritage-gap-assessment (Accessed on 10 April, 2018 and other dates) 6. I have undertaken an inspection of the precinct on two occasions. 1.3 Qualifications and Expertise 7. I am a director of Anthemion Consultancies and am also an architectural historian, an interior designer and a heritage consultant. I am a graduate architect member of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, was a Deputy Chair of the Institute’s (Victorian Chapter) Heritage Committee and a member of the AIA Awards Jury in the Conservation Section for the years 2000-01. I was at Lovell Chen, architects and heritage consultants for approximately 18 years and most of that time as an associate director. Within that practice and presently my responsibilities include the co-ordination and preparation of conservation management plans, heritage assessments, preparation of expert evidence, development of site interpretation and the restoration of historic interiors. 8. I am also a Past President of Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), previously the Secretary, of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Risk Anthemion Consultancies 1 8 Chaucer Crescent, PPV Statement of Evidence Canterbury Preparedness (ICORP) and presently the Treasurer; past Secretary-General of the ICOMOS Scientific Council; inaugural convenor of Blue Shield Australia and past member of the Board, and past Board member of Blue Shield (The Hague) and current Board member (Secretary) of AusHeritage. I am also a member of the Local Government Advisory Committee which is a committee of the Victorian Heritage Council. I have been a heritage adviser in Monash and Bayside and am presently a member of the Yarra Heritage Panel. In the past I have been a long-standing councillor of the National Trust of Australia (Vic.). 9. I have provided expert witness statements on similar matters on numerous occasions at Heritage Victoria, VCAT, the Building Appeals Board, independent panels and other similar forums on behalf of councils, objectors and developers. My Curriculum vitæ is appended. 1.3 Summary of Opinions 10. My primary focus has been on No. 8 Chaucer Crescent and its context and contribution to the precinct. 11. Overall the precinct citation is generally satisfactory in regard to the Victorian and Edwardian buildings but in my opinion it fails to identify adequately or substantiate the reasons as to why the inter-and post-War dwellings make a contribution to the historical and aesthetic significance of the precinct. 12. No. 8 Chaucer Crescent, it is located in part of the street where there is a diminished heritage presence compared with further to the east e.g. from the abutting ROW. It is visually and spatially separated from any Contributory building. 13. The precinct citation correctly notes that “The precinct is particularly rich in Edwardian-era architecture, built between 1903 and 1915”. By way of comparison, in relation to inter-War dwellings the only indication of their significance is outlined in the statement “The precinct was completed during the interwar years, when the remaining pockets in the precinct were developed”. However, there is nothing in the citation which indicates why buildings from the inter-and post-War eras are significant or sets out how they contribute other than filling in the precinct which is overwhelmingly of a different era. 14. While No. 8 Chaucer Crescent is quite visible and distinctively different from all of the dwellings in the precinct it is not a unique example of this type of dwelling. 15. After examining the precinct citation and undertaking a survey on two occasion I am unable to find any justification for the grading of Contributory for No. 8 Chaucer Crescent not can I find any supported reason as to exactly what its contribution to the precinct is beyond the fact that it exists and filled in the precinct. 2.0 My Response to the Proposed Grading of Contributory 2.1 Gradings and Definitions 16. I have considered the merits, or otherwise, of the proposed grading against several criteria which are discussed below. The relevant definitions to consider are: Contributory-‘Contributory’ heritage places contribute to the cultural heritage significance of a precinct. Contributory heritage places are not considered to be individually important places of State, municipal or local cultural heritage significance in their own right, however when combined with other ‘significant’ and/or ‘contributory’ heritage places, they play an integral role in demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of a precinct. Non-contributory-‘Non-contributory’ places are those within a heritage precinct that have no identifiable cultural heritage significance. They are included within a Heritage Overlay because any development of the Anthemion Consultancies 2 8 Chaucer Crescent, PPV Statement of Evidence Canterbury place may impact on the cultural heritage significance of the precinct or adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places 2.2 Contribution of the inter-War Dwellings to the Cultural Heritage Significance of the Griffin Estate & Environs Precinct. Figure 1 Precinct gradings map included in the citation for the Griffin Estate & Environs precinct. 17. The precinct citation draws a distinction between Chaucer Crescent west of Marlowe Street and Chaucer Crescent west of Marlowe Street. In Chaucer Crescent, west of Marlowe Street there are 18 Contributory properties and 10 Non-contributory properties according to the precinct gradings map. 18. The following data highlights the salient points contained within the citation for the Griffin Estate and Environs insofar as Chaucer Crescent is concerned: Address Architectural Date of Other comments comments construction No. 1 Chaucer Building site Under construction Crescent No. 2 Chaucer Edwardian timber 1910 and 1915 Crescent Contributory No. 3/3AChaucer Single storey brick c. 1950s? Crescent with garage Anthemion Consultancies 3 8 Chaucer Crescent, PPV Statement of Evidence Canterbury No. 4 Chaucer Edwardian timber 1905-06 Another relatively Crescent early house is the wooden villa built by Contributory builder L R Griffin No. 5 Chaucer full transition to the 1918-19 (p. 54) Crescent California Bungalow style, with a cross- Contributory gabled roof featuring a wide and flat front gable, and an almost complete absence of applied ornament. Instead, visual interest relies on a variety of cladding materials (p. 62) No. 6 Chaucer Villa Units c. 1970s Crescent Not contributory No. 7 Chaucer Double-strorey brick c. 1970s Crescent dwelling Not contributory No. 8 Chaucer 1933 (p. 54) “Later development Crescent includes 8 Chaucer Crescent, built in Contributory 1933” “The Georgian Revival house of 1934 at 8 Chaucer Crescent. Note the herringbone brick pattern of the front fence”. (p. 62) “Another common house type of the late 1920s and early 1930s is Georgian Revival, with a dominant hipped roof, symmetrical façade and simple classical details. A fine example is seen at 8 Chaucer Crescent, with has Ionic columns supporting the central porch, and also retains an original low brick Anthemion Consultancies 4 8 Chaucer Crescent, PPV Statement of Evidence Canterbury front fence with a herringbone
Recommended publications
  • PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Expert Heritage Evidence

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Expert Heritage Evidence

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C365 Heritage Overlay HO1205 Subject Site: “Chart House”, No. 372 - 378 Little Bourke Street Melbourne Expert Heritage Evidence Prepared for Berjaya Developments Pty Ltd By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] December 2019 “Chart House” No. 372 - 378 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been instructed by Best Hooper, on behalf of Berjaya Developments Pty Ltd, to prepare expert heritage evidence which addresses the heritage aspects of the proposal to grade the site as “Contibutory”, as a consequence of the Guildford and Hardware Laneways Heritage Study prepared by Lovell Chen in May 2017, as a consequence of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C365. 2. The previous Property Schedule included in the Guildford & Hardware Laneways Precinct Citation graded the building as Contributory. In effect it graded the east wall abutting Niagara Lane but not the façade addressing Little Bourke Street which Lovell Chen had indicated was not of any significance. Subsequently the Amendment C271 Panel recommended that “Chart House” be included within HO1205 with a Non-contributory grading. When HO1205 came into effect on 12 August 2019, No. 372 – 378 Little Bourke Street was included within HO1205 but with a Contributory, rather than with a Non- contributory grading and on an interim basis as a consequence of Amendment C355melb. This change in grading appears to have been influenced by correspondence from Melbourne Heritage Action which put forward new information about “Chart House”. It is now proposed, as a consequence of Amendment C365melb, to include No.
  • Robyn Riddett Director

    Robyn Riddett Director

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Greater Bendigo Amendment C234 Heritage Overlay HO 915 Subject site: 40 Harley Street Strathdale Nanga Gnulle Expert Heritage Report Prepared for Jing Ying Pty Ltd (Submitter 12) By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] May 2018 Nanga Gnulle, 40 Harley Street, Strathdale 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been asked by Paul Bowe of Terraco on behalf of Jing Ying Pty Ltd (Submitter 12), the owner of the above property, to prepare a statement of expert evidence which addresses the heritage aspects relating to the proposed inclusion of part of the broader place in a Heritage Overlay. The inclusion of the Alistair Knox house in the Heritage Overlay is not opposed and therefore this evidence is in respect of the proposed heritage curtilage. 2. Amendment C234, proposes to include in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (HO915) the dwelling and a surrounding curtilage at 40 Harley Street, Strathdale. “Nanga Gnulle”, mud brick and reclaimed materials house. External paint controls are proposed and the place would be subject to an Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2 i.e. Greater Bendigo Heritage Incorporated Plan – Permit Exemptions, August 2015. 3. The Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C234 Explanatory Report states, inter alia, The main dwelling, constructed of mud brick and reclaimed materials is considered of heritage significance for its association with architect Alistair Knox, and use of recycled materials which provide a unique architectural style. The overlay is proposed to be applied to the dwelling and a 5 metre curtilage around it (approximately 650m2).
  • 9 Dunn Street, Richmond

    9 Dunn Street, Richmond

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C161port Heritage Overlay HO5 Subject Site: Nos. 5 and 9 Havelock Street St Kilda Expert Heritage Evidence Prepared for Meydan By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] January, 2021 Nos. 5 and 9 Havelock Street, St Kilda 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been instructed by Rigby Cooke, on behalf of Meydan, to prepare expert heritage evidence which addresses the proposed change to the grading of No. 5 Havelock Street, St Kilda as a consequence of Amendment C161port and the existing grading of No. 9 Havelock Street, St Kilda. In response to the Amendment, Meydan submitted, inter alia, that both places should be removed from the Heritage Overlay i.e. HO5 the St Kilda Hill Precinct, St Kilda. In “Section 3 – Submissions raising objections and requesting changes – submissions all proposed to be included in C161port – Part 2” of Council’s Summary of Submissions and Recommended Responses (pp. 70 – 71) Council’s response to Meydan is viz.: Strategic importance of site Noted. Council officers have previously engaged in conversations with Meydan Group about the potential to redevelop the Cosmopolitan Hotel at this site within the existing planning controls and have provided without prejudice comments on noncompliant proposals. In line with previous advice provided to the Meydan Group, a review of the planning controls and potential contribution of this site to the St Kilda Activity Centre (noting the site is located at the edge of the Acland Street retail strip and is within the General Residential Zone) is outside the scope of this amendment and would be more appropriately explored as part of the development of the St Kilda Activity Centre structure plan.
  • Collingwood Town Hall Tours Sunday 13 July 2014

    Collingwood Town Hall Tours Sunday 13 July 2014

    Collingwood Historical Society Collingwood Town Hall Tours Sunday 13 July 2014 Figure 1: Rudd, Work in progress c1886, Yarra Libraries Collingwood Town Hall Tours Sunday 13 July 2014 Four tours were conducted at the Collingwood Town Hall Community Open Day on Sunday 13 July 2014 by Anne Holmes, Frances Ilyine and Karen Cummings of the Collingwood Historical Society for the City of Yarra. Stop 1: Introduction, Singleton Stained Glass & Significant People Introduction Let‟s think back to the 1880s: the phrase “Marvellous Melbourne” was coined to describe the city also known as the Metropolis of the Southern Hemisphere. The 1880s was a boom period with land speculation rife and the sounds of building to be heard everywhere. Collingwood might have been a working class and largely industrial suburb, but it was a significant contributor to Victoria‟s economy. It was one of the earliest municipalities, having been established in 1855, and by 1876 its annual income had reached a level high enough for it to merit proclamation as a city. So Collingwood too was participating in the boom, and it was fitting that the foundation stone of its lavish status symbol was laid right in the middle of the decade, in July 1885. This was not achieved without several years of argument about funding and location, and whether such a structure should be built at all. Council finally held a referendum to approve taking out a loan of £40,000, but only £12,000 of this loan would be needed for the town hall, despite its grandeur. This was because a significant portion would be paid for by the Victorian government who would operate a Post and Telegraph Office, and a police station and courthouse within the building.

  • City of Yarra Heritage Review Thematic History

    CITY OF YARRA HERITAGE REVIEW THEMATIC HISTORY VOLUME 1 Allom Lovell & Associates Conservation Architects 35 Little Bourke Street Melbourne 3000 July 1998 City ofYarra Heritage Review: Thematic History TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Figures iii Consultants vii Acknowledgements viii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Present Location and Boundaries 1 1.2 Former Boundaries 1 1.3 Extent and Sources 1 1.4 Geology 5 1.5 Australian Heritage Commission: Historic Themes 5 2.0 The Suburban Extension of Melbourne 9 2.1 Settlement, Land Sales and Subdivision 9 2.2 A Street Layout Emerges 14 2.3 The Effect of the 1849-50 Melbourne Building Act 16 2.4 Clement Hodgkinson's 1853 Plan of Collingwood and East Melbourne 17 2.5 Clement Hodgkinson's 1857 (1855) Plan of Richmond 19 3.0 Mansions, Villas and Sustenance Housing: the Division between Rich and Poor 23 3.1 A Home to Call One's Own 23 3.2 Lodging People: Hotels and Boarding Houses 29 3.3 Slums and the Development of Public Housing 30 4.0 Developing Local Economies 35 4.1 Primary Industry 35 4.2 Secondary Industry 35 4.3 Retail: Warehouses and Large Scale Purveyors 46 4.4 Smaller Retailers: Strip Shopping 48 4.5 Financing the Suburbs 52 5.0 Local Council and Council Services 53 5.1 The Establishment of Municipal Boundaries 53 5.2 Civic Buildings 53 5.3 Local Policing and Defence 58 5.4 Crime and Punishment 59 5.5 Private and Public Transportation 60 5.6 Water and Sewerage 67 5.7 Gas and Electricity 71 5.8 Hospitals 73 5.9 Education 75 5.10 Libraries and Mechanics Institutes 81 Allom Lovell & Associates
  • Agenda of Council Meeting

    Agenda of Council Meeting

    Council Meeting Agenda – 30 March 2021 Agenda Council Meeting 7.00pm, Tuesday 30 March 2021 MS Teams Agenda Page 1 Council Meeting Agenda – 30 March 2021 Council Meetings Council Meetings are public forums where Councillors come together to meet as a Council and make decisions about important, strategic and other matters. The Mayor presides over all Council Meetings, and they are conducted in accordance with the City of Yarra Governance Rules 2020 and the Council Meetings Operations Policy. Council meetings are decision-making forums and only Councillors have a formal role. However, Council is committed to transparent governance and to ensuring that any person whose rights will be directly affected by a decision of Council is entitled to communicate their views and have their interests considered before the decision is made. There are two ways you can participate in the meeting. Public Question Time Yarra City Council welcomes questions from members of the community. Ideally, questions should be submitted to Council in writing by midday on the day of the meeting via the form available on our website. Submitting your question in advance helps us to provide a more comprehensive answer. Questions that have been submitted in advance will be answered first. Public question time is an opportunity to ask questions about issues for which you have not been able to gain a satisfactory response on a matter. As such, public question time is not: • a time to make statements or engage in debate with Councillors; • a forum to be used in relation to planning application matters which are required to be submitted and considered as part of the formal planning submission; • a forum for initially raising operational matters, which should be directed to the administration in the first instance.
  • Landmarks & Views Assessment

    Landmarks & Views Assessment

    LANDMARKS & VIEWS ASSESSMENT October 2019 CITY OF YARRA | REVIEW & DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF YARRA LANDMARKS POLICY Clock Tower of Dimmey’s, Swan Street 2 ETHOS URBAN CITY OF YARRA | REVIEW & DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF YARRA LANDMARKS POLICY 1 Clock Tower of Dimmey’s, Swan Street 140-160 Swan Street, Cremorne Description The Dimmey’s building is a double storey Romanesque style commercial building, constructed between 1907 and 1918. The main feature of the Dimmey’s building is the four level Clock Tower which is set centrally along the building’s street facade. At the top of the Tower is a dome, supported on decorative arches above the clock faces, that is surmounted by a large copper globe. The Clock Tower employs the federation free classical architectural style using contrasting materials with classical symmetrical detailing. A recent development involved the refurbishment and reinstatement of the building’s external heritage fabric and, inside this, the construction of two parking basements, supermarket and office spaces. This development also comprised of an elliptical, glass-clad 8 storey apartment tower, above the commercial floors. Setting The Dimmey’s building is located on the south side of Swan Street within the Activity Centre, which comprises an eclectic mix of predominantly Victorian or Edwardian era heritage buildings, as well as more recent buildings. Swan Street is a major metropolitan shopping strip, and a busy car and pedestrian thoroughfare with a tram line. Surrounding buildings are predominantly 2-3 storey commercial buildings. Topography is generally flat in this locality with a slight incline down towards the west.
  • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

    I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

    I City of Yarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincl.s APPENDIX A Historical Maps I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I || Allom Lovell & Associates A I I I I City ofYarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The City of Fitzroy. Reproduced from Fitzory History Society. Fitzroy I Melbourne's First Suburb. I Allom Lovell & Associates A3 I City ojYarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precinct."; II II IU_'4 esssss^1-*^ —II II 1| 1 Melbourne, Richmond, Fitzroy and Collingwood. Allotments as sold by the Crown in the 1830s. Reproduced from B Barrett. The Inner Suburbs. Allom Lovell <& Associates I I City o/Yami Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precinct* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map showing Carlton North, August 1877. I Allom Lovell & Associates ,45 I I City ofYarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Plan showing the streets and buildings in existence in East Collingwood on January 1st 1858. Surveyed by Clement Hodgkinson. I I A6 Allom Lovell & Associates I I I I Yarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map A5 Planned layout of North Fitzroy, 1855, indicating the contrast with the street pattern which had already developed in South Fitzroy. Reproduced from I Fitzroy: Melbourne's First Suburb.
  • 372-378 Little Bourke Street – Robyn Riddett

    372-378 Little Bourke Street – Robyn Riddett

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C271 Heritage Overlay HO1205 Subject Site: No. 372 - 378 Little Bourke Street including No. 15 – 17 Niagara Lane Melbourne Expert Heritage Evidence Prepared for Berjaya Developments Pty Ltd By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] July 2018 No. 372 - 378 Little Bourke Street including No. 15 – 17 Niagara Lane, Melbourne 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been asked by Doig Architecture, on behalf of Berjaya Developments Pty Ltd, to prepare expert heritage evidence which addresses the heritage aspects of the proposal to include the site in a Heritage Overlay, as a consequence of the Guildford and Hardware Laneways Heritage Study prepared by Lovell Chen in May 2017, as a consequence of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C271. 2. The Property Schedule included in the Guildford & Hardware Laneways Precinct Citation grades the existing building as Contributory. 3. The background to the client’s objection to the inclusion of No. 372 – 378 Little Bourke Street in a Heritage Overlay is a development proposal for the site which was well-advanced before any exhibition of Amendment C271 and an assessment of the reasons provided in the Guildford & Hardware Laneways Precinct Citation to substantiate significance and inclusion in a Heritage Overlay. In the development proposal No. 372 – 378 Little Bourke Street is proposed to be demolished whereas the façade of No. 15 – 17 Niagara Lane is proposed to be retained and new built form constructed behind and which will rise above at a setback.
  • C214-Expert-Evidence-9-The-Avenue

    C214-Expert-Evidence-9-The-Avenue

    PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA Mornington Peninsula Shire Amendment C214 Heritage Overlay HO 421 The Avenue McCrae Precinct Subject site: 9 The Avenue McCrae Expert Heritage Report Prepared for Mr Nigel Tudor By Robyn Riddett Director Anthemion Consultancies POB18183 Collins Street East Melbourne 8003 Tel. +61 3 9495 6389 Email: [email protected] September 2018 No. 9 The Avenue, McCrae 1.0 Introduction 1. I have been instructed by Planning and Property Partners by letter dated 10 September, 2018, on behalf of Mr. Nigel Tudor, the owner of the above property, to prepare a statement of expert evidence which addresses the heritage merits relating to the proposed grading of the above property as “Contributory” and its inclusion in a Heritage Overlay i.e. HO 421, The Avenue McCrae Precinct as a consequence of Amendment C214. 2. I prepared a letter to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, dated 28 June, 2018 the contents of which form the body of this Statement. The letter drew attention to various aspects of the proposed precinct citation and in particular queries the basis for inclusion of No. 9 The Avenue, McCrae in the proposed precinct. This letter was considered by Council and the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee Meeting, Monday, 6 August 2018 record the following on pp. 12 – 14, viz.: One recommendation of the heritage consultant has been presented to Council officers within a week of the closing date for submissions – being the recommended removal of ‘The Avenue Precinct’ (41 properties within The Avenue, McCrae) from the amendment. Upon review of additional information received in submissions and in consideration of the extent of development change in the street (including the number of planning permit approvals and demolition approvals under the Building Act), the heritage consultant provided the following assessment and recommendation (6 July 2018): The Avenue Precinct was defined on the basis that of the 41 properties included within the boundary extent, that 21 were considered to be Contributory to the precinct.