MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C31
PANEL REPORT
August 2004 MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C31
PANEL REPORT
ELIZABETH JACKA, CHAIR
BOYCE PIZZEY, MEMBER
JULIA LAMBORN, MEMBER
August 2004 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY...... 1
2. THE PANEL PROCESS ...... 3 2.1 THE PANEL ...... 3 2.2 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS ...... 3 2.3 SUBMISSIONS ...... 5
3. WHAT IS PROPOSED?...... 7 3.1 THE AMENDMENT...... 7 3.1.1 HERITAGE AREAS ...... 9 3.1.2 INDIVIDUAL SITES ...... 11 3.1.3 CHANGES TO EXISTING SCHEDULE...... 12 3.1.4 CHANGES TO THE MSS...... 12 3.1.5 CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY ...... 13
4. ISSUES...... 14 4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 14 4.1.1 THE COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION ...... 14 4.1.2 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SITES...... 18 4.1.3 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS AND OTHER INDIVIDUAL SITES ...... 18 4.1.4 SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OVERLAY...... 19 4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL ...... 20
5. STRATEGIC CONTEXT ...... 21 5.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 21 5.2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 ...... 21 5.3 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY - MELBOURNE 2030 ...... 22 5.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF) ...... 23 5.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)...... 24 5.6 MARIBYRNONG HOUSING STRATEGY 2000...... 27 5.7 MARIBYRNONG HERITAGE REVIEW 2002 ...... 27 5.8 THE HERITAGE PLAN 2002 ...... 27 5.9 OTHER DOCUMENTS ...... 28 5.9.1 VICTORIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY 2000-2005 ...... 28 5.9.2 DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE PLANNING APPLICATIONS 2000 ...... 29 5.9.3 PLANNING PRACTICE NOTE ON APPLYING THE HERITAGE OVERLAY ...... 29 5.9.4 BURRA CHARTER...... 30 5.9.5 DRAFT YARRAVILLE RIVERFRONT PORT AND INDUSTRIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN...... 30
6. USE OF AHC CRITERIA AT THE LOCAL LEVEL...... 32
7. THE NEED FOR COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES ...... 36
8. THE NEED TO BALANCE HERITAGE OBJECTIVES AGAINST OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING OBJECTIVES ...... 38
9. MSS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY...... 42 9.1 MSS ...... 42 9.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY...... 46 9.2.1 GENERAL CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY...... 46 9.2.2 SUB-POLICIES RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS...... 51
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page ii
10. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY...... 54 10.1 CONTAMINATED SITES, AND UNSAFE AND REDUNDANT BUILDINGS ...... 55 10.2 ‘CONSERVATION BY USE’...... 55 10.3 EVOLVING INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS TO FUTURE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE...... 56 10.4 DRAFT INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY ...... 56
11. USE OF INCORPORATED PLANS...... 57 11.1 INCORPORATED PLANS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS...... 57 11.2 INCORPORATED PLANS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SITES...... 59
12. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE...... 63 12.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUITY OF USE TO THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOME SITES ...... 63 12.2 EVOLVING INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS TO FUTURE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE...... 64 12.3 THE NEED FOR CERTAINTY...... 64 12.4 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTAMINATED SITES, AND UNSAFE AND REDUNDANT BUILDINGS ...... 65
13. YARRAVILLE INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT...... 66
14. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 68 14.1 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS...... 68 14.1.1 HO2, BALLARAT/GEELONG ROAD RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 10) ...... 68 14.1.2 HO4 FOOTSCRAY RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSIONS 19 AND 23)...... 72 14.1.3 HO5 MUNITION WORKER’S HOUSING HERITAGE AREA, BRAYBROOK (SUBMISSIONS 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 56, 57, 58) ...... 74 14.1.4 HO8 QUEENSVILLE ESTATE HERITAGE AREA, KINGSVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 5, 6, 37, 42, 43) ...... 76 14.1.5 HO9 SEDDON RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL HERITAGE AREA, SEDDON/YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 3, 14, 24, 25, 27. 44. 50, 53)...... 78 14.1.6 HO12 WAR SERVICE HOMES HERITAGE AREA, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 18) ...... 80 14.1.7 HO15 YARRAVILLE RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 32 AND 26)...... 81 14.2 SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO INDUSTRIAL SITES...... 83 14.2.1 HO90, KINNEARS ROPEWORKS, BALLARAT ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 2) ...... 83 14.2.2 HO118, PEERLESS HOLDINGS, 19-21 EVANS STREET, BRAYBROOK (SUBMISSION 8)...... 84 14.2.3 HO125, BRADMILL, 341-351 FRANCIS STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 9)...... 84 14.2.4 THE SAW-TOOTH ROOF/RED BRICK FACTORY IN THE SOUTH-EAST SECTION OF THE SITE HO128, GRAHAM CAMPBELL FERUM, 260 GEELONG ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 11) ...... 87 14.2.5 HO129, HOPKINS ODLUM, 268 GEELONG ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 12) ...... 88 14.2.6 HO131, FORMER AMMUNITION FACTORY, 1 GORDON STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 13)...... 89 14.2.7 HO130, TERMINAL STATION, 308 HYDE STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 15) ...... 90 14.2.8 HO162, OLEX CABLES, 207 SUNSHINE ROAD, TOTTENHAM (SUBMISSION 33) ...... 92 14.2.9 HO168, RYCO, WHITEHALL STREET AND MORELAND STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 38)...... 93 14.2.10HO179, HO180, HO181, 221 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 39) 94 14.2.11HO183, CSR, 265 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 40)...... 100
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page iii
14.2.12HO184, ORICA AUSTRALIA, 295 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 41)...... 103 14.2.13HO134, FORMER RALPH MCKAY FACTORY, 44-56 HAMPSTEAD ROAD, MAIDSTONE (SUBMISSION 55) ...... 106 14.3 SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO OTHER INDIVIDUAL SITES ...... 106 14.3.1 HO3, HO11 AND PART HO88, STREET TREE AVENUES (SUBMISSION 1) ...... 106 14.3.2 HO99 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, 8-9 BELVEDERE CLOSE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 4)...... 108 14.3.3 HO116, FOOTSCRAY FIRE STATION, 69-71 DROOP STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 7)...... 109 14.3.4 HO165, 40-42 THE ESPLANADE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 34) ...... 110 14.3.5 HO166, 76 THE ESPLANADE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 35) ...... 112 14.3.6 HO98, PEPPERCORN TREES IN THE RAILWAY RESERVE AT SEDDON (SUBMISSION 50)...... 114
15. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ...... 116 15.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?...... 116 15.2 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION...... 116 15.3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT ...... 117 15.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 118 15.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 118 15.5.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT...... 118 15.5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 119 15.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES...... 119 15.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES...... 120 15.8 OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT ...... 120 15.9 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY ...... 120
16. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS...... 121 16.1 CONCLUSIONS...... 121 16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 121
APPENDICES
A. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
B. BALLARAT C58 INCORPORATED PLAN
C. DRAFT INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY
D. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 1
1. SUMMARY
Amendment C31 to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme proposes to extend a number of heritage areas in the Footscray/Yarraville/Seddon/Kingsville areas and to introduce a new heritage area over a Munitions Workers Housing estate in Braybrook. The Amendment also proposes to include in the Heritage Overlay 60 new individual sites, 23 trees or groups of trees and 20 archaeological sites. Twenty-seven of the individual sites are industrial sites, including a number of very large industrial complexes.
In addition to changes to the Heritage Overlay maps and schedule, the Amendment proposes to include a section relating to Cultural Heritage in the MSS, to introduce a Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11, and to incorporate an Historical Archaeological Management Plan in the Planning Scheme. The proposed Cultural Heritage Policy comprises a General Cultural Heritage Policy that is to apply to all heritage places covered by the overlay, and specific sub- clauses relating to each of the 14 heritage areas.
Amendment C31 has been prepared from recommendations contained in the Historic Places Study and the Archaeological Management Plan that formed part of the Maribyrnong Heritage Review. The Maribyrnong Heritage Review provided a detailed assessment of the heritage places in the City of Maribyrnong. Citations have been prepared for each of the recommended heritage places, and the citations include a description of the place; its condition, integrity, context and threats; a history of the place; a statement of cultural significance (with reference to AHC criteria); comparative examples and recommendations.
Apart from issues associated with heritage areas and sites referred to in submissions, the main issues arising from consideration of submissions are: The criteria that should be used for assessment of local heritage value. The Panel has concluded that Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 indicates that the appropriate and overriding criterion is the ‘interest’ or ‘special cultural value’ to the municipality. The tendency of heritage assessments to consider individual buildings on a site, and not to give adequate consideration to the overall historic interest of the site. The need for policy guidance in relation to the matters that should be considered to provide a balanced decision ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’, including balancing competing strategic objectives contained in the MSS. The need for industrial heritage policies to address the complex range of issues on industrial sites. The use of incorporated plans to provide permit exemptions for minor development and for alterations to or demolition of non-contributory buildings. The benefits of applying the Heritage Overlay to the whole of large industrial sites rather than parts of the site and of providing permit exemptions in relation to non-contributory buildings by way of an incorporated plan. The rich industrial history of the Yarraville riverside industrial area and the need to create an industrial heritage precinct that recognises the area’s importance to the historic and cultural development of the City of Maribyrnong and the western suburbs.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 2
These issues are discussed in detail in Sections 6 to 13.
The Panel recommends adoption of part 1 of the Amendment that includes the changes to planning scheme maps and Heritage Overlay schedule, and incorporation of the Historical Archaeological Management Plan, with a number of modifications in relation to the maps and schedule and the introduction of some incorporated plans.
The Panel also recommends that a modified version of part 2 of the amendment be adopted with minor modifications to the proposed MSS insertions and substitution of the exhibited Cultural Heritage Policy with a temporary simplified version.
The Panel further recommends that a new Cultural Heritage Policy be prepared for inclusion in a later amendment; that an Industrial Heritage Policy should be prepared; and that incorporated plans should be developed for a number of industrial sites in consultation with the owners of the land.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 3
2. THE PANEL PROCESS
2.1 THE PANEL
This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 21 April 2004 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of Amendment C31 (parts 1 and 2) to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. This amendment seeks to apply a Heritage Overlay to individual sites and areas in the City of Maribyrnong, to amend the MSS by inserting sections relating to cultural heritage, to insert a Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11 of the LPPF, and to incorporate the Historical Archaeological Management Plan in the Planning Scheme.
The Panel consisted of: Chairperson: Elizabeth Jacka Member: Julia Lamborn Member: Boyce Pizzey
2.2 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS
A Directions Hearing was held on 23 April 2004 at City of Maribyrnong Council Offices. A number of directions were made, which included arrangements for exchange of expert witness reports and the need for an appearance before the Panel by representatives of Peerless Holdings.
Ms Phelan from Clayton Utz, solicitors for Peerless Holdings advised the Panel that their clients have been in discussions with Council in relation to the Heritage Overlay relating to the Peerless Holdings property. She suggested that in view of these discussions and the assessment of her client’s site by Peter Lovell and Associates it may not be necessary to appear before the Panel. It was agreed that copies of the heritage assessment and other relevant material would be made available to the Panel by no later than close of business, 6 May 2004.
This material was reviewed by the Panel and the Panel arranged for Ms Phelan to be advised that it did not consider it necessary to hear further submissions or evidence in relation to the Peerless Holdings site.
The Panel Hearings were held on 24 to 28 May 2004, 31 May 2004 and 1 June 2004 at City of Maribyrnong Council Offices.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 4
The Panel members inspected a number of the areas and individual sites during the days of the hearings and on days after the completion of the hearings. Accompanied site visits were made to: the former Kinnears’ Rope Factory at 130 Ballarat Road, Footscray (submission 2) on Monday, 31 May 2004; the former Bradmill factory at 341-351 Francis Street, Yarraville (submission 9/9a), the Port of Melbourne Corporation land at 221 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (submission 39); and the Orica site at 295 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (submission 41) on Tuesday, 8 June 2004; the Sugar Australia factory at 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (submission 40); and the Ryco factory at 11-21 Whitehall Street, Footscray (submission 38) on Tuesday, 22 June 2004;
The Panel also inspected the following areas and individual sites: the Queensville Estate, including 88-96 Williamstown Road (submission 42); the Footscray Residential Heritage Area, including 56 and 58 Nicholson Street (submission 23); and 42-44 The Esplanade, Maribyrnong (submission 34) on Tuesday, 25 May 2004; the Ballarat Road/Geelong Road Residential Precinct, including the VUT properties in Geelong Road (submission 10); 69-71 Droop Street, Footscray (submission 7) on Tuesday, 22 June 2004; the Munitions Workers Housing Heritage Area, Braybrook (submission 58); Olex factory, 207 Sunshine Road, Tottenham (submission 33); 76 The Esplanade, Maribyrnong (submission 35); 39-41 Moore Street, Footscray (submission19) and industrial sites between Whitehall Street and the Maribyrnong River on Monday, 28 June 2004; individual sites in the Queensville Estate, the Seddon Residential and Commercial heritage area, 260 and 268 Geelong Road, and the Greens Buildings in Geelong Road on Wednesday, 21 July 2004.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 5
2.3 SUBMISSIONS
A list of all written submissions to Amendment C31 is included in Appendix A.
The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.
The Panel heard the following parties:
Submitter Represented By Maribyrnong City Council Ms. Ruth Gallant and Ms Kerryn O’Keefe presented the submission for the City of Maribyrnong, and called the following witnesses: – Mr Graeme Butler, architectural and social historian. – Mr Gary Vines, archaeological and industrial historian. Mr Andrew Jamison, Senior Archaeologist from Heritage Victoria made comment on the archaeological aspects of the amendment. Inner West Branch, National Trust Mr Hugh Bassett Footscray Historical Society Ms Catherine Reichert Mr & Mrs Aloneftis Mr Frank Caleandro of the firm Caleandro, Guastalegame & Co, Barristers and Solicitors. Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West Ms Olwen Ford Drs Robert & Simon Benson Dr Robert Benson Mrs N Parker and Mr S Parker Mrs and Mr Parker and Mr Bryce Raworth Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board Ms Katie Murphy, of the firm Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd, town planners. Ryco Hydraulics Mr Leigh Morrison, Managing Director and Mr Mark Hayward, Director, Ryco Hydraulics Councillor Joseph Cutri Councillor Joseph Cutri Orica Australia Pty Ltd Ms Michelle Quigley SC instructed by Ms Naomi Lindsay solicitor of the firm Allens Arthur Robinson. She called the following witnesses: – Mr Peter Lovell, conservation consultant, Allom Lovell & Associates. – Ms Anita Brady, conservation consultant, Allom Lovell & Associates Sugar Australia Pty Ltd Ms Michelle Quigley SC. She called the following witness: – Mr Peter Lovell, conservation consultant, Allom Lovell & Associates. Denim Connection Pty Ltd Mr John Cicero solicitor of the firm Best Hooper. He called the following witness: – Ms Robyn Riddett, conservation consultant, Allom Lovell & Associates.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 6
Submitter Represented By Port of Melbourne Corporation Mr Jeremy Gobbo QC instructed by Mr Scott Stewart solicitor of the firm Minter Ellison. He called the following witnesses: – Mr Peter Lovell, conservation consultant, Allom Lovell & Associates. – Mr Andrew Biacsi, town planner, Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd Riverside Kinnears Pty Ltd Mr Adrian Finanzio of Counsel instructed by Middletons lawyers. Mr Lino and Mrs Angelina Airo-Farulla Mr Gary Testro, lawyer. He called the following witness: – Mr John Briggs, conservation consultant. Victoria University of Technology Mr Paul Connor of Counsel. He called the following witness: – Mr Bryce Raworth, conservation consultant. The Vice-Chancellor and President of VUT also addressed the Panel on the future of the university. Mr Gaetano Ventrice Mr Gerald Ventrice Olex Australia Pty Ltd Mr Anthony Hemingway, conservation consultant, RBA Architects and Conservation Consultants Pty Ltd.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 7
3. WHAT IS PROPOSED?
3.1 THE AMENDMENT
Amendment C31proposes to apply a Heritage Overlay to an additional 102 individual heritage places in the City of Maribyrnong, and to amend and extend existing heritage areas. The amendment also proposes to include a section relating to Cultural Heritage in the MSS, to introduce a Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11 of the LPPF, and to incorporate an Historical Archaeological Management Plan in the Planning Scheme. The amendment has been prepared in two parts – Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 comprises the changes to the planning scheme maps and overlay schedule, and incorporation of the Historical Archaeological Management Plan. Part 2 comprises the changes to the MSS and introduction of the new Cultural Heritage Policy. Interim heritage controls, comprising the Part 1 controls, were introduced by a Ministerial amendment - Amendment C33, on 21 November 2002 (when Amendment C31 was placed on public exhibition).
Prior to introduction of the interim heritage controls, the Heritage Overlay in the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme covered a total of 18 heritage areas and 65 individual heritage places. These places were places included in the former Footscray Planning Scheme and were transferred into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. As a result of this process heritage places outside the former City of Footscray received no heritage protection in the new scheme. The Panel/Advisory Committee that considered the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme noted the lack of emphasis on local heritage in the planning scheme and commented that: The City of Maribyrnong is one of the most industrialised inner urban areas and it contains many valuable remnants of its industrial past. The Panel is aware that the Council is committed to a review of its Heritage and Conservation Policy which will include a re-assessment and update of the Heritage Overlay as it applies to the entire municipality. The Panel believes this review and the formulation of an updated Heritage and Conservation Policy should proceed as a matter of urgency given the fast rate of change occurring throughout the municipality. 1
The Maribyrnong Heritage Review was initiated in May 1998. This review investigated natural and cultural heritage places in the municipality through a program of specialist studies. These studies were: Aboriginal Heritage Study (1999) by David Rhodes, Taryn Debney and Mark Grist. Natural Heritage Study (1999) by Adam Muir, Sarah Way, Darren Quin and Neville Rosengren. Archaeological Management Plan for early post-contact archaeological sites in the City of Maribyrnong (2000) by Iain Stuart. Historic Places Study (2000-1) by Jill Barnard, Graeme Butler, Francine Gilfedder and Gary Vines, comprising:
1 New Format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee, p10.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 8
- Volume 1: Project Methods and Results - Volume 2: Environmental History City of Maribyrnong - Volume 3: Industrial Places in the City of Maribyrnong - Volume 4: Non-industrial Places in the former City of Sunshine (Maribyrnong, Maidstone, Braybrook and Tottenham) - Volume 5: Urban Conservation Areas & Individual Places in the former City of Footscray - Volume 6: Significant Trees in the City of Maribyrnong - Volume 7: Research on additional places identified in Volume 5.
From the specialist studies a Heritage Plan was prepared by Chris Johnston that set out a vision, goal, objectives, guiding principles and a series of action plans. The Heritage Plan was adopted by Council in February 2002. Action 1 of the Heritage Plan included preparation and exhibition of a heritage amendment to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.
Amendment C31 was developed from recommendations contained in the Historic Places Study and the Archaeological Management Plan. For the sake of simplicity these two studies are referred to in this report as the Heritage Review.
The Heritage Review has provided a detailed assessment of the heritage places in the City of Maribyrnong and provides excellent background to the proposed amendment. Citations have been prepared for each of the recommended heritage places, and the citations include a description of the place; its condition, integrity, context and threats; a history of the place; a statement of cultural significance (with reference to AHC criteria); comparative examples and recommendations.
The amendment was placed on public exhibition from 21 November 2002 to 31 January 2003. Notices of exhibition of the amendment were placed in local newspapers and The Age and the Government Gazette. Notices and covering letters were sent out to owners and occupiers of land affected by the amendment. Approximately 6000 letters were sent out, and the covering letters included translations in Vietnamese, Chinese, Amharic, Macedonian, Spanish and Arabic (languages of the more recent residents in the municipality). The amendment was available for inspection at Council offices, four municipal libraries, four community centres and the DSE Information Centre, and the Council officers involved in preparation of the amendment were available to discuss the amendment with property owners. Brochures were also produced about the heritage controls, entitled: Why Is Heritage Important? How Will Heritage Controls Affect You? What Is The Maribyrnong Heritage Review?
The Panel is satisfied that the notification process was comprehensive and adequate.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 9
3.1.1 HERITAGE AREAS
Prior to the approval of the interim controls created by Amendment C33, the schedule to the Heritage Overlay in the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme contained 18 heritage areas that had been translated from the urban conservation areas in the former Footscray Planning Scheme.
Amendment C31 has revised those 18 heritage areas and has consolidated them into the following 13 areas: Angliss Housing Estate heritage area, Yarraville (HO1) Ballarat/Geelong Road residential heritage area, Footscray (HO2) Footscray commercial heritage area, Footscray (HO3) Footscray residential heritage area, Footscray (HO4) Old Footscray Township residential heritage area, Footscray (HO7) Queensville Estate heritage area, Kingsville (HO8) Seddon residential and commercial heritage area, Seddon/Yarraville (HO9) Somerville Road 20th Century residential heritage area, Yarraville (HO10) Upper Footscray residential heritage area, Footscray (HO11) War Service Homes heritage area, Maribyrnong (HO12) William Angliss Worker Housing Estate heritage area, Footscray (H13) Yarraville civic and commercial heritage area, Yarraville (HO14) Yarraville residential heritage area, Yarraville (HO15)
The amendment also proposes an additional heritage area - the Munition Worker’s Housing heritage area at Braybrook (HO5) that was in the former City of Sunshine.
The proposed heritage areas that were part of the former City of Footscray have a complex history. The 1989 City of Footscray Urban Conservation Study (Footscray Conservation Study) by Graeme Butler identified 12 significant urban areas, and recommended 9 of those areas as urban conservation areas. Those were: Urban Conservation area 1 This was similar to the currently proposed HO2, HO4 and HO13. Urban Conservation area 2 This was similar to the currently proposed HO9 and HO10. Urban Conservation area 3 This was similar to the currently proposed HO12. Urban Conservation area 6 This was similar to, but more extensive than the currently proposed HO1. Urban Conservation area 8 This was similar to, but less extensive than the currently proposed HO3. Urban Conservation area 9 This was similar to the currently proposed HO14, plus most of the currently proposed HO15. Urban Conservation area 10 This was similar to the currently proposed HO11. Urban Conservation area 11 This was similar to, but more extensive than the currently proposed HO7. Urban Conservation area 12 This comprised a small section of the currently proposed HO8.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 10
Thus the heritage area boundaries in the current amendment are similar to the urban conservation areas identified in the 1989 Footscray Conservation Study.
Amendment L26 to the Footscray Planning Scheme proposed to introduce the urban conservation areas into the planning scheme. The panel that considered submissions to that amendment concluded that the proposed controls were more aesthetic (urban character) controls rather than heritage controls, and that the proposed controls were inappropriate to the municipality. For those reasons the panel recommended abandonment of the amendment.
In response to the L26 panel report the Council engaged Graeme Butler to carry out a review of the urban conservation study. The review responded to a recommendation of the Ministry of Planning and Development: ‘that the existing areas should be reduced to illustrate only the best built expression of the historical themes evident in the area’ 2. The review also placed greater emphasis on clearly stated links between significant periods in the history of development of the municipality and the identified urban conservation areas. However, the review expressed concern that that the amended urban conservation areas were ‘highly representative samples taken out of the broader precincts, and hence, similar houses or house groups can be seen nearby which are not in the proposed new urban conservation areas although they are a reflection of the same historic theme’. 3
The amended urban conservation areas identified in the Butler review formed the basis for Amendment L48, which introduced 18 urban conservation areas into the Footscray Planning Scheme. Those areas were subsequently translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme as heritage areas included in the Heritage Overlay.
Ms Gallant in her submission to the Panel explained that: The recommended changes to the former urban conservation areas generally imply return to or extension of the boundaries of those identified in the 1989 Footscray Conservation Study and a more comprehensive assessment of their historic character. Some areas, those where there is a different basis of significance attributed to various parts, such as the Footscray Residential Area, have been disaggregated from a pre- existing area. Some smaller areas have been enveloped within a larger area, such as the Seddon Commercial and Residential area, where the basis of significance is consistent.
The Heritage Review includes new citations for each heritage area, based on Australian Heritage Commission criteria. The citations include a description of the area, its history, its thematic context, its cultural significance, an assessment against AHC criteria and recommendations. Volume 5 also includes, as appendix 2, a list of contributory heritage places in each heritage area. These places are listed by both street and street number, and are in alphabetical and numerical order.
A detailed heritage area policy for each heritage area has also been prepared as part of Clause 22.11.
2 Graeme Butler, Footscray Urban Conservation Area Review, 1993, p1. 3 Jill Barnard et al, Maribyrnong Heritage Review, Vol. 5, 2001, p17.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 11
Ms Gallant also informed the Panel that: Volume 5 of the Review also recommended that a new industrial riverside precinct be protected by the heritage overlay. The recommendation related to the significance of the group of early and major industrial complexes which depended on river access and provided Footscray with its reputation as the industrial centre of Victoria in the Edwardian era. The Yarraville/Footscray Industrial precinct is one of Victoria’s oldest surviving industrial centres and is still very expressive of an era early in the 20th Century when the area probably held the greatest concentration of industry in Victoria.
However, Council did not adopt that recommendation. Ms Gallant commented in response to questions from the Panel that Council is still trying to resolve how the special character of this area should be retained. This issue is discussed by the Panel in Section 13.
Ms Gallant also informed the Panel that the heritage review recommended that the Heritage Overlay be applied to the Old Footscray Civic/Commercial heritage precinct around the intersection of Napier and Hyde Streets, and south along Hyde Street to include the Primary School. However, Council did not adopt that recommendation because it was considered that significant buildings in the area were already covered by the overlay as individual heritage places, and the land linking those places was not sufficiently significant to be included in the overlay.
3.1.2 INDIVIDUAL SITES
The amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to: 60 new individual sites, including houses, shops, churches, schools, halls and other public buildings, bridges, and factories; 23 trees or groups of trees; and 20 archaeological sites.
All but one of these sites are based on recommendations included in the Heritage Review, volumes 3, 4, 6 and 7. HO138 relates to specimen trees in the Yarraville Gardens precinct. The gardens have been included in the overlay following preparation of the Yarraville Gardens Precinct Conservation Plan by Jenni Lee. The conservation plan included a Statement of Cultural Significance that identified significant mature trees along with other significance features of the precinct.
Volume 3 of the Heritage Review includes citations for the industrial places included in the overlay, volume 4 includes citations for the non-industrial places in the former City of Sunshine, volume 6 includes citations for significant trees and volume 7 includes citations for additional places in the former City of Footscray identified for inclusion in the overlay.
The General Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11.1 guides decision making in relation to these individual sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 12
3.1.3 CHANGES TO EXISTING SCHEDULE
The amendment also includes changes to the current overlay schedule to more accurately reflect site conditions and to correct errors. These changes are: Deletion of external paint controls on the following places, that are all unpainted buildings: - HO27, HO28, HO30, HO33, HO36, HO37, HO41, HO43, HO46, HO48, HO56, HO62, HO63, HO65, HO66, HO67, HO68, HO69, HO70, HO72, HO76. Deletion of internal alteration controls at: - HO25, HO30, HO37, HO38, HO43, HO46, HO48, HO58, HO62, HO63, HO66, HO72. Deletion of tree controls at: - HO21, HO36, HO62, HO63, HO67, HO72. Addition of tree controls at HO48. Deletion of listing ‘outbuildings and fences which are not exempt from advertising’ controls from: - HO1, HO2, HO3, HO4, HO5, HO6, HO7, HO8, HO9, HO10, HO11, HO12, HO13, HO14, HO15, HO16, HO17, HO18, HO34, HO36, HO42, HO62, HO67, HO68. Correction of the address of HO34 to 24 Buninyong Street, Yarraville. The Panel recommends inclusion of these changes in the adopted amendment.
3.1.4 CHANGES TO THE MSS
The amendment introduces reference to the cultural heritage of the City of Maribyrnong in the Municipal Profile at Clause 21.01, Key Issues at Clause 21.02, and Objectives, Strategies and Implementation at Clause 21.04. The objective at Clause 21.04-9 is: To care for heritage places throughout the municipality ensuring their conservation, use and appreciation.
The strategies to achieve that objective are: To designate the heritage places throughout the city worthy of protection and actively seek their legal protection. To protect significant heritage places from adverse impacts resulting from proposals for change. Enhance knowledge and popular understanding of Maribyrnong’s architectural, cultural, historic, natural archaeological and aboriginal heritage.
Actions to implement the strategies include application of the Heritage Overlay to identified heritage places and a range of support actions to assist property owners care for and manage heritage places.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 13
3.1.5 CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY
The Cultural Heritage Policy is based on the policy contained in the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme. The Queenscliffe model included specific objectives and policies relating to individual precincts.
The proposed Maribyrnong Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11 comprises a General Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11.1 and specific sub-clauses for each of the 14 heritage areas.
The General Cultural Heritage Policy applies to all heritage places listed in the schedule to the overlay. The policy includes: Policy Basis; Objectives; Policy and Performance measures relating to new buildings and additions in heritage areas and places; Demolition policy and performance measures; Subdivision policy and performance measures; Policy and performance measures relating to landscape in heritage areas and place; Policy and performance measures relating to buildings and works in public areas; Policy and performance measures relating to use of a heritage place.
The sub-clauses relating to each of the heritage areas include: Policy basis; Objectives; Policy provisions in relation to permit applications that reflect the built form of the area.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 14
4. ISSUES
4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS
4.1.1 THE COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION
Ms Gallant and Ms O’Keeffe presented the submission for the Council. They called Mr Graeme Butler (author of the Footscray Conservation Study and contributory author of the Heritage Review) and Mr Gary Vines (contributory author of the Heritage Review) to give expert evidence in relation to the heritage study and the heritage assessments of individual properties. Mr Butler and Mr Vines presented their expert evidence during the first two days of the hearings, and prior to the presentation of the other submissions to the Panel they also gave an outline of their assessment of the relevant property and were available for cross examination. Mr Vines also attended the accompanied site visits to industrial sites. The Panel was impressed by the quality of evidence presented by the consultants to the hearings and their contribution to discussion about general heritage issues. The Panel found this discussion very helpful to its deliberations.
Ms Gallant and Ms O’Keeffe described the background to the amendment, the amendment process, described the strategic context of the amendment and described Council’s consideration of the submissions. This presentation was also very comprehensive and helpful to the Panel.
A total of 58 submissions were received in relation to the amendment. Four submissions were in support of the amendment (submissions 45, 46, 47 and 48). Two submissions raised no objection to the amendment (submissions 49 and 52).
Thirty of the fifty two submissions that raised concerns about the amendment related to heritage areas. Table 1, below lists the submissions received in relation to the various heritage areas. No submissions were received in relation to heritage areas HO1, HO3, HO7, HO10, HO11 and HO13. The majority of submissions received related to HO5 – Munitions Worker’s Housing heritage area, Braybrook (13 submissions), HO8 – Queensville Estate heritage area, Kingsville (5 submissions), and HO9 – Seddon residential and commercial heritage area, Seddon/Yarraville (7 Submissions). The heritage areas proposed cover a very large number of properties and the small number of submissions received is possibly due to the fact that heritage controls have applied to a number of heritage areas since 1993. Nearly all submissions received relate to properties that have not previously been covered by a Heritage Overlay.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 15
Table 1 Submissions relating to heritage areas Submission No. Address HO1 Angliss Housing Estate heritage area, Yarraville None HO2 Ballarat/Geelong Road residential heritage area, Footscray 10 2, 8, 10, 12, & 14 Geelong Road, Footscray HO3 Footscray commercial heritage area, Footscray None HO4 Footscray residential heritage area, Footscray 19 39 & 41 Moore Street, Footscray 23 56 & 58 Nicholson Street, Footscray HO5 Munition Worker’s Housing heritage area, Braybrook 16 57 Lily Street, Braybrook 17 59 & 61 Lily Street, Braybrook 20 13 Myalla Street, Braybrook 21 15 Myalla Street, Braybrook 22 17 Myalla Street, Braybrook 28 2 Ravenhall Street, Braybrook 29 4 Ravenhall Street, Braybrook 30 8 Ravenhall Street, Braybrook 31 10 Ravenhall Street, Braybrook 36 1 Treloar Court, Braybrook 56 100 Duke Street, Braybrook 57 70 Duke Street, Braybrook 58 Munitions Worker’s Housing heritage area HO7 Old Footscray Township residential heritage area, Footscray None HO8 Queensville Estate heritage area, Kingsville 5 13 Coronation Street, Kingsville 6 38 Coronation Street, Kingsville 37 4-6 Wales Street, Kingsville 42 88-96 Williamstown Road, Yarraville 43 164 Williamstown Road, Yarraville HO9 Seddon residential and commercial heritage area, Seddon/Yarraville 3 33 Tongue Street, Yarraville 14 85 Hamilton Street, Yarraville 24 320 Nicholson Street, Yarraville 25 320 Nicholson Street, Yarraville 27 40 Princess Street, Seddon 44 17 Barnet Street, 27 Tongue Street and 86 signatures 53 32 Tongue Street, Yarraville HO10 Somerville Road 20th Century residential heritage area, Yarraville None HO11 Upper Footscray residential heritage area, Footscray None HO12 War Service Homes heritage area, Maribyrnong 18 1 Monash Street, Maribyrnong HO13 William Angliss Worker Housing Estate heritage area, Footscray None HO14 Yarraville civic and commercial area, Yarraville None HO15 Yarraville residential heritage area, Yarraville 32 71 & 73 Stephen Street, Yarraville
Of the 22 remaining submissions, 13 relate to industrial sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 16
Ms Gallant informed the Panel that following exhibition of the amendment the Council formed a working party to hear from submittors and that submissions were also heard at a full Council meeting. In response to that process Council substantially resolved a number of the concerns raised by agreeing to modify the amendment.
Table 2 sets out the Council decisions directed at resolving submittor concerns Table 2: Resolved submissions Submission no. Heritage Place Modification 4 8 & 9 Belvedere Close, Removal of Heritage Overlay as archaeological Maribyrnong (HO99) material is unlikely to be present. 7 Footscray Fire Station, 69-71 Reduce overlay to contributory buildings, rather than Droop Street, Footscray (HO116) the whole site, and correct errors in the citation 8 Peerless Holdings, 19-21 Evans Removal of Heritage Overlay because extent of Street, Braybrook (HO118) significant fabric does not warrant an overlay. 13 Former Ammunitions Factory, 1 Alteration to schedule to overlay to clearly identify Gordon Street, Maribyrnong significant buildings. (HO131) 15 Terminal Station, 308 Hyde Street, Modification to extent of overlay to relate only to Yarraville (HO130) significant components. Modification to schedule listing to clarify that internal controls apply only to switch gear control panels and original crane. Incorporated plan to provide permit exemption for works on components covered by internal controls, other than major upgrade, demolition or removal 23 56 & 58 Nicholson Street, Modification to extent of heritage area to exclude 55, Footscray (HO4) 57, 61, 56, 58 & 60 from overlay, as these properties are cut off from the main area of the precinct by Donald Street. 32 71 & 73 Stephen Street, Yarraville Modification to extent of heritage area to exclude 69, (HO15) 71, 73, 75, 77 & 79 Stephen Street, and former Ebling’s factory site from overlay because heritage significance of this part of the area has been altered by building demolition and new developments. 33 Olex Cables, 207 Sunshine Road, Modification to extent of site affected by overlay and Tottenham (HO162) correction to citation in accordance with submittor’ s heritage advisor’s appraisal. 50 Railway land within Seddon and Modification to heritage areas to exclude railway Yarraville heritage areas (HO9, reserve land which is not an individual heritage place. HO14 and HO98) 55 Ralph McKay, 44-56 Hampstead Removal of Heritage Overlay subject to preparation of Road, Maidstone (HO134) a documented historical record of the place.
Ms Gallant also informed the Panel that two sites are now being considered for inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register. These are: HO90 – Kinnears Ropeworks, Ballarat Road, Footscray (submission 2) HO183 – part of Sugar Australia site, 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (submission 40).
Forty of the submissions received remain unresolved by Council.
Mr Butler’s evidence related to the heritage areas and the non-industrial individual sites. Mr Butler provided the Panel with an overview of the development of the municipality, and the effect of the broad historical influences on the pattern of development. In particular, the role that industry played in the development of the municipality, and the construction of modest worker’s housing close to places of work. Mr Butler described the significant housing in the municipality as falling into the following four broad types:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 17
the simple cottages and more ornate villas of the mid and late Victorian eras; the more picturesque Edwardian-era houses; the Californian Bungalows, sharing the gable roof emphasis of the Edwardian-era; and the inter-war revivals from the Mediterranean. Each of the above house types represents a particular era in the growth of the City and each house that represents one of these eras has a contribution to the evocation of the City’s past. Post WW2 places are few in the identified precincts and typically are visually different, providing an expression of a new era of architecture, that of rationalism over revival. Hence, because of the differing cultural emphasis to what had come before, these places are not seen as contributory to the heritage precincts but may be individually significant where they are well preserved. The assessment, Statement of Significance and recommended management for the identified heritage areas (as reviewed in 2000) focused on a primary expression for each area, being for example Victorian-era, Edwardian-era, inter-war or a combination. In addition to the primary contributory places, secondary contributory places have been identified in the site schedule of contributory places for each precinct. 4
Mr Vines’ evidence related to the industrial sites identified in the heritage review. Mr Vines also provided a description of the importance of industry to the history of development of the municipality, and referred to Footscray and the inner west as the ‘pre-eminent industrial district in Australia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’. Footscray itself (and the City of Maribyrnong) has a heritage intrinsically linked to its industrial origins and development, whether this is in terms of its present industrial character, the historical association of local business and historic figures with industries, such as captains of industry such as James Cuming who dominated civic affairs, or the character of the working class suburbs which housed the employees of these industries. The surviving evidence of this rich industrial heritage constitute possibly the greatest concentration and most diverse group of early historic industrial sites remaining in Australia, particularly considering the massive redevelopment of many traditional inner urban industrial areas in the last two decades. 5
Mr Vines also referred to the opportunity that was provided after exhibition of the amendment to meet with property owners and to gain access to sites. In many cases access to the sites had not been possible during the heritage review, and information for the place reports was based on external inspection of the site, historical documents, and previous reports..... Following the additional site visits and review of the Heritage Study citations for industrial places, certain amendments can be made to both the extent of proposed Heritage Overlays, and the Place Reports themselves. 6
4 Graeme Butler, Expert witness report, Amendment C31 Panel, p4 5 Gary Vines, Expert witness report, Amendment C31 Panel, p2 6 Ibid
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 18
4.1.2 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SITES
Thirteen submissions relate to individual industrial sites, and seven of the submittors appeared before the Panel in support of their submission. Table 3 shows the industrial submissions received. Table 3 Industrial Submissions Submission no. Heritage Place 2 Kinnears Ropeworks, Ballarat Road, Footscray (HO90) 8 Peerless Holdings, 19-21 Evans Street, Braybrook (HO118) 9 Bradmill, 341 – 351 Francis Street, Footscray West (HO125) 11 Graham Campell Ferum, 260 Geelong Road, Footscray (HO128) 12 Hopkins Odium (Apex Belting) 268 Geelong Road, Footscray (HO129) 13 Former Ammunition Factory, 1 Gordon Street, Footscray (HO131) 15 SEC Terminal Station, 308 Hyde Street, Yarraville (HO130) 33 Olex Cables, 207 Sunshine Road, Tottenham (HO162) 38 Ryco, 11-13, 17 & 19 –21 Whitehall Street and 44 Moreland Street, Footscray (HO168) 39 Pivot (Cumming Smith), Dee Cottage, Miller’s Ropes, 221 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (HO179, HO 180 & HO 181) 40 CSR, 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (HO183) 41 Orica Australia, 295 Whitehall Street, Yarraville (HO184) 55 Ralph McKay, 44-56 Hampstead Road, Maidstone (HO134)
Of these submissions 8, 13, 15, 33 & 55 have been resolved as shown in Table 2.
A number of common issues were raised by these submitters regarding the application of a heritage overlay to industrial sites. These issues were: The importance of continuity of use to the heritage significance of some sites. Evolving industrial processes, and the importance of the evolutionary process to future heritage significance. The need for certainty. The use of a heritage overlay to protect and manage industrial sites. The need to assess industrial sites on a regional rather than municipal basis. The lack of typological studies to enable the importance of a site to be ascertained. Problems associated with contaminated sites, and unsafe and redundant buildings.
These issues are considered in Sections 7 and 12.
4.1.3 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS AND OTHER INDIVIDUAL SITES
Thirty one submissions relate to inclusion of individual properties in heritage areas, and six submissions relate to other non-industrial sites.
The main issues raised by these submittors include: That the dwellings are not significant and do not warrant inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. That the dwellings are in poor condition and should be demolished That the Heritage Overlay will frustrate plans to redevelop sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 19
That the heritage controls will introduce restrictive permit requirements for essential repairs and minor alterations. That the heritage controls will cause unnecessary delays and impose an additional cost burden. That the proposed controls will encourage reproduction architecture and stifle creative design.
These issues are considered in Sections 9 and 11.
4.1.4 SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OVERLAY
Four submissions were received in support of the overlay, from: Mr Hugh Bassett (Submission 45) Inner West Branch, National Trust of Australia (Vic) (Submission 46) Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West (Submission 47) Footscray Historical Society (Submission 48).
All four submissions commended the Heritage Review and the planning scheme amendment. Mr Bassett, Ms Reichert and Ms Ford appeared before the Panel in support of their submissions. The following are concerns that were raised by the submittors: Failure of the Council to include as a heritage precinct the industrial area on the Maribyrnong River. This issue is discussed by the Panel in Section 13. The trigger in Clause 54 for a ResCode assessment of a permit application for buildings and works on land affected by a Heritage Overlay. The Council also raised this issue as a matter of concern. The need for ongoing review of potential heritage sites and heritage controls in the planning scheme.
Application of the Clause 54 provisions to permit applications for buildings and works on land affected by a Heritage Overlay has been referred to by a number of previous panels, with the recommendation that reference to land in a Heritage Overlay should be deleted from the clause. This Panel agrees with Mr Bassett, and the Council and former panels that the ResCode trigger in Clause 54 adds an unnecessary compliance requirement to applications for buildings and works on land affected by the Heritage Overlay. The Panel recommends that DSE give consideration to removing reference to permit applications for buildings and works on land affected by a Heritage Overlay in Clause 54 of the VPPs.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 20
4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL
The Panel identified the following key issues in relation to the amendment from submissions made to it, from its site inspections, and from its reading of background documents provided by Council and submittors: Issues surrounding Heritage Studies, including the need for a regional approach to studies. Use of AHC Criteria at the local level. The need to balance heritage objectives against other strategic planning objectives at the planning scheme amendment stage. Issues surrounding the proposed Cultural Heritage Policy, including: - the form and wording of the policy; - the need for an industrial heritage policy that deals with both operational and non- operational sites. Use of Incorporated Plans for residential areas and industrial sites. Industrial heritage issues. The significance of the industrial sites on the Maribyrnong River at Yarraville.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 21
5. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
5.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK
This Section identifies the strategic context within which issues associated with Amendment C31 to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme must be considered.
The relevant documents that provide the strategic context for considering Amendment C31 are as follows: Planning and Environment Act 1987 Metropolitan Strategy – Melbourne 2030 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme – SPPF and LPPF Maribyrnong Housing Strategy 2000 Maribyrnong Heritage Review 2002 Maribyrnong Heritage Plan 2002
Other documents that provide guidance and background to the amendment are: Victorian Heritage Strategy 2000-2005 Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications Planning Practice Note on applying the Heritage Overlay Burra Charter Draft Yarraville Riverfront Port and Industrial Framework Plan
5.2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
Section 4 (1) of the Act sets out the objectives of planning in Victoria. These include: (d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; (e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; (f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Furthermore, Section 12(1) of the Act states that: A planning authority must – (a) implement the objectives of planning in Victoria; (b) provide sound, strategic and co-ordinated planning of the use and development of land in its area; ....
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 22 5.3 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY - MELBOURNE 2030
The key directions of Melbourne 2030 that are of most direct relevance to this matter include:
Policy 1.3 Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.
A structure plan will be prepared for the Footscray Principal Activity Centre and surrounding lands in accordance with this policy and it is not expected that the Heritage Overlay areas within the Activity Centre will conflict with this process. A significant proportion of new residential development within the City of Maribyrnong will occur on strategic redevelopment sites, such as land released by the Commonwealth government, and this development will take pressure off the heritage areas.
Policy 4.3 Further develop the key transport gateways and freight links and maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre.
This policy is relevant to the submissions made on behalf of the Port of Melbourne Corporation. Melbourne 2030 recognises that the region’s ports, airports and associated rail and road networks are crucial elements of Victoria’s competitive capability. Melbourne 2030 further recognises that the Port of Melbourne and Dynon transport hub is geographically confined on all sides, but comments that the port has considerable scope to grow and use its existing land more effectively. Melbourne 2030 includes as an initiative: Protect options for access to, and future development at, the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings, and ensure that all ports are protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land-use conflicts at the perimeter.
Policy 5.2 Recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.
Heritage, neighbourhood character and other non-physical aspects of an area combine to create sense of place. Melbourne 2030 proposes to reinforce the sense of place of areas by emphasising, amongst other things: Heritage values and built form that has resonance for the community
Policy 5.4 Protect heritage places and values
Melbourne 2030 recognises that heritage places ‘offer a way of experiencing the heritage and unique cultural identity of the people who live in a region.’ For this reason the cultural heritage of a place is seen as important not only to the people who live in the area, but also as an attraction to tourists. Melbourne 2030 states that the identification, conservation, protection and management of cultural heritage values across the region will receive continued support and lists as initiatives: Promote a consistent framework for assessment of heritage places and refine guidelines for the assessment of development proposals under the Heritage Overlay Provide guidance to local government and other agencies on preparing statements of heritage significance Ensure that planning schemes reflect the full extent of heritage values in each municipality
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 23 5.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF)
Many of the elements of the SPPF that are relevant to Amendment C31 also reflect policies in the Metropolitan Strategy. Relevant elements of the SPPF include:
Clause 11 Introduction, Goal and Principles
The introduction at Clause 11.01 states that: It is the State Government’s expectation that planning and responsible authorities will endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. 7
Clause 11 also recognises that society has various needs and expectations that need to be addressed by planning schemes. Clause 11.03 sets out seven general principles that must be considered by a planning authority when preparing a planning scheme. The general principle relating to the environment makes particular reference to the need to: Protect areas and sites with significant historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values.
Clause 14.01 Planning for urban settlement
The objectives of planning for settlement are to ensure sufficient supply of land for various uses and to facilitate orderly development. To achieve these objectives planning authorities should: Encourage consolidation of residential and employment activities within existing urban areas while respecting urban character.
Clause 15.11 Heritage
The heritage objective at Clause 15.11-1 is: To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or other special value important for scientific and research purposes, as a means of understanding our past, as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State.
To achieve this objective: Planning and responsible authorities should identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. These include: Sites associated with the European discovery, exploration and settlement of Victoria. Important buildings, structures, parks, gardens, sites, areas, landscapes, towns and other places associated with the historic and cultural development of Victoria, including places associated with pastoral expansion. gold mining, industrial development and the economic expansion and growth of Victoria.
7 Panel’s underlining
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 24
Clause 17.03 Industry
To ensure availability of land for industry: Existing industrial areas that include key manufacturing or processing industries; a major clustering of allied industries; key industrial infrastructure should be protected and carefully planned where possible to facilitate further industrial development.
Clause 18.05 Ports
The SPPF recognises the importance of the major ports and includes as an objective: To plan the land resources adjacent to ports to facilitate the efficient operation of port- related uses and minimise adverse impacts on surrounding urban development and the environment.
To achieve this objective: The land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their value for uses which depend upon or gain sufficient economic advantage from their proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations.
5.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)
There are various elements of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme LPPF that are relevant to Amendment C31. Many of the issues and objectives of the LPPF directly overlap with those of the SPPF and the Metropolitan Strategy. The following clauses are of particular relevance. Clause 21.01-3 describes the municipality and land use patterns. In relation to shopping centres the Clause recognises that: In particular, Yarraville, Seddon and Barkly Village have the potential for development of individual character and greater social and cultural roles. In relation to industry the Clause comments that: Industrial activity is scattered widely throughout the city. It has been a dominant economic factor for over a century. Until recently, industry provided most of the city’s jobs and was the source of its well-being...... The city’s industrial past has left a legacy of land use conflict in a number of localities, some serious contamination, many under-used, obsolete buildings, significant areas of vacant industrial land, and a real image problem revolving around unattractive appearance and perceived poor environmental performance. The Clause comments in relation to housing that: For much of its history, the city has provided low cost accommodation for industrial workers, and since the second world war, low income groups and wave upon wave of mostly unskilled migrants. In the eastern and south eastern part of the city, which developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries, this is reflected in the small, tightly packed single fronted, mostly weatherboard housing which prevails. In areas developed in the 1920s housing allotments and houses began to grow larger. This trend continued in the 1950s and early 1960s (though housing was still predominantly weatherboard) by which time most of the areas available for housing had been fully developed.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 25
The Council’s vision for the municipality at Clause 21.03 includes: - A greater residential focus, with 50% of the city used for residential purposes. Whilst it is recognised that house prices will increase, the Council is committed to ensuring that lower cost housing remains available. - A reduction in the amount of land devoted to industrial activity. Existing industry is to be encouraged to remain and expand and to enhance industrial sites by replacing existing obsolete buildings and improving the visual qualities of sites and industrial areas. - A change in emphasis along the Maribyrnong River from industrial activities to housing, open space and cultural, leisure and recreational activity. - Significant development in and around existing tertiary education establishments.
Relevant objectives, strategies and implementation measures at Clause 21.04 include: - Ensure the preservation of our heritage including buildings, streetscapes, natural areas, significant vegetation and sites of cultural significance. - Encourage restoration of period housing and the renovation of existing housing using planning scheme overlay controls (Heritage areas) and policy. - Undertaking a Heritage Study to further develop an understanding of the heritage assets of the City of Maribyrnong. - Enhance cultural and historical expression and interpretation of the (Maribyrnong) river environs. - Increase opportunities for public access to the Maribyrnong River and Stony Creek. - Manage the development of the city in a way which conserves and enhances heritage assets and preserves the mixed period and mixed activity ambience of older areas. - Recognise the important role of industry, and the work it provides, plays in the community. - Identify and preserve (whenever practical and feasible) important industrial heritage.
The Residential 1 Zone Land Use and Development Policy at Clause 22.01 refers to: Older parts of the city, containing heritage areas, where there is particular need for very careful and very sensitive housing redevelopment so as to preserve and enhance existing period character and amenity.
A policy objective is: To preserve and enhance the mixed period character of land settled and developed before 1930.
Included as policy is to: Encourage and facilitate the conversion of attractive, suitably located non-residential buildings, no longer required for their original purpose, for residential use, especially the conversion of those with period character. Particularly suitable for residential conversion are buildings in, or adjacent to , areas with strong or dominating residential activity, especially:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 26
- non-conforming industrial buildings in residential zones or industrial buildings in older industrial zones no longer needed for industrial purposes and recognised as having residential or residential/mixed use potential; - purpose built service or community buildings such as banks, post offices, churches, schools and the like; - shops in small declining shopping centres. Preserve and enhance the current mixed period character of the municipality and to ensure that new buildings with modern architectural characteristics are sympathetic to the general ambience of their context and do not create a visual clash.
The Mixed Use Zone Land Use and Development Policy at Clause 22.02 includes as a policy objective: To encourage the preservation of period buildings – particularly on the south side of Buckley Street between Victoria and Arran Streets and new development which is compatible with remaining period character. However, the Panel notes that the Clause does not include as policy the preservation of period buildings.
The Panel considers that the policy at Clause 22.02-1 should be reviewed, and if appropriate amended to include a policy relating to conservation of period buildings.
The Business 1 Zone and Business 4 Zone Policy at Clause 22.03 includes principles and planning policy in relation to a number of activity centres. Policy in relation to the Footscray Centre (which includes some properties in the Footscray commercial heritage area) includes supporting development that facilitates: the preservation and enhancement of period buildings.
Policy in relation to the Yarraville Centre (which includes the Yarraville civic and commercial heritage area) includes as policy: Support for future developments which further the aims of the Yarraville Streetscape Study 1993 and in particular preserve, promote and develop the historic streetscapes and character which currently exist. To protect and enhance the Yarraville Centre’s period character and buildings.
Policy in relation to the Seddon Centre (which does not include any properties covered by the Heritage Overlay) includes as policy to: Protect and enhance the Seddon Centre’s period character and buildings.
The Business 2 Zone and Comprehensive Development Zone Policy at Clause 22.04 includes policy in relation to the Footscray Riverside Precinct and the Footscray Business Centre. The Footscray Riverside Precinct covers land between the Maribyrnong River and Moreland Street, and from Hopkins Street to Lyons Street. This area is to be developed with an arts, entertainment, leisure and tourist focus and an objective of the policy is: To protect and emphasise the site’s historic character.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 27
However, the Panel notes that there is no policy relating to protection of the precinct’s historic character. The heritage significance of this area is discussed further by the Panel in Section 13.
Policy in relation to the Footscray Business Centre includes as an objective: To preserve existing period buildings of a commercial nature in Barkly Street. Whilst there is no policy included to preserve period buildings, the Heritage Overlay does apply to the policy area.
The Industrial 1 Zone Land Use and Development Policy at Clause 22.06 recognises that there is vacant and under-used land in the industrial precincts, and also a number of obsolete buildings. The policy seeks to encourage development of new and existing industry in the key industrial precincts.
5.6 MARIBYRNONG HOUSING STRATEGY 2000
The Housing Strategy has assessed housing trends and characteristics within the City of Maribyrnong, and has developed objectives, directions and actions designed to manage future residential development.
The strategy recognises the need to promote urban consolidation, housing diversity and housing affordability, whilst at the same time maintaining residential character and amenity.
5.7 MARIBYRNONG HERITAGE REVIEW 2002
The Maribyrnong Heritage Review is described in Section 3.1. The Heritage Review provides the background to the amendment, and the citations contained in volumes 3, 4 5, and 6 contain the statements of significance for each of the heritage places.
5.8 THE HERITAGE PLAN 2002
The Heritage Plan places heritage protection proposed by Amendment C31 in the context of National and State heritage strategies. The plan also sets out guiding principles for heritage conservation, based on the Australian Natural Heritage Charter and the Burra Charter and includes the following action plans: Action Plan 1 – Protecting heritage places Action Plan 2 - Guiding change Action Plan 3 - Helping the custodians of Maribyrnong’s heritage Action Plan 4 – Managing heritage places Action Plan 5 – Building community awareness and support Action Plan 6 – Documenting Maribyrnong’s heritage Action Plan 7 – Links & partnerships Action Plan 8 – Equipping Council
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 28
Of particular relevance to submissions made in relation to Amendment C31 is acknowledgment of the challenge faced by those who own and manage heritage places, and in particular owners of large industrial sites. The plan comments that: Large industrial heritage sites present more complex issues. In many instances the changing nature of the industry may require changes to buildings and plant. In some cases a new, non-industrial use may be sought. Council will need to be proactive, working with industry to meet a number of important strategic objectives to protect heritage, jobs and economic development opportunities. Council can assist in the development of strategic plans and conservation management processes.
5.9 OTHER DOCUMENTS
5.9.1 VICTORIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY 2000-2005
The Victorian Heritage Strategy is a State government vision to identify, protect and manage the State’s cultural heritage assets. For the purposes of the strategy cultural heritage is defined as: built structures and their surrounds; gardens; trees; cultural landscapes; sites; areas; precincts; cemeteries; ruins and archaeological sites; shipwrecks; sites of important events; commemoration sites; contents of buildings and significant relics; objects; artefacts and collections of objects.
The strategy sets out a number of principles that support the direction of the strategy, including: The conservation and management of heritage places and objects require the cooperation and involvement of diverse groups within the community, and must be capable of embracing changing needs and priorities within a flexible regulatory environment. Managers and owners of heritage places and objects are custodians of those places and objects, with obligations to care for them on behalf of the community and future generations. ‘Conservation by use’ is essential for maintaining a sustainable heritage resource.
The objectives of the strategy in relation to protecting heritage assets include: An appropriate level of protection for all significant heritage assets, based on a balanced assessment of values. Improved use and application of local government planning controls to protect a broader range of heritage places at local level.
The proposed program to implement these objectives includes: Protection of places at the local level The Heritage Council, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure, will develop a model of agreed protocols to assist local government authorities to comply with the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as they relate to the protection of heritage assets. This program will work with the current review of the Department’s Local Government Heritage Guidelines 1991. The protocols will help to add clarity by recommending the use of more consistent grading and terminology
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 29
in heritage studies, conservation policies and planning schemes. The protocols will also provide direction for dealing with non-heritage provisions of planning schemes where these provisions potentially impact on cultural heritage management and protection.
5.9.2 DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE PLANNING APPLICATIONS 2000
Heritage Victoria has released a draft set of guidelines that are intended to guide decision- makers in the assessment of permit applications for heritage places. The guidelines provide detailed advice on the wide range of applications that may be made in relation to heritage places. The guidelines cover: Subdivision and consolidation of land Demolition and removal of buildings Construction of new buildings, including additions and extensions to existing buildings, verandahs and shopfronts, and demolition and construction of fences External alteration of an existing building Construction and carrying out of works Installation, demolition and alterations to utilities and services Signs External paint work Internal alterations Significant trees Heritage areas, including gardens, parks and landscapes Change of use Historical and maritime archaeological sites.
The guidelines for each of these matters are set out in a standard format, providing a Guideline Basis, Objectives and Guidelines.
The guidelines are comprehensive and provide a very helpful reference for the assessment of permit applications. The Panel was informed that the Council officers make extensive use of the draft guidelines when considering permit applications.
5.9.3 PLANNING PRACTICE NOTE ON APPLYING THE HERITAGE OVERLAY
The Planning Practice Note provides advice about the use of the Heritage Overlay in the new format planning schemes. The Practice Note states that: 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 Practice Note also states that: 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.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 30
Recognised heritage criteria are discussed in the Planning Practice Note. Heritage criteria that could be adopted include those adopted by the Australian Heritage Commission or Heritage Victoria. However, the Practice Note emphasises that: The most important thing is that the assessment of heritage places has been rigorous and that heritage controls are applied judiciously and with justification.
The Practice Note also provides advice about drafting a heritage overlay schedule and describes what is a heritage place.
5.9.4 BURRA CHARTER
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) defines the basic principles and procedures to be observed in the conservation of heritage places. The Charter includes definitions of concepts such as ‘cultural significance’, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, ‘restoration’, ‘reconstruction’; and it defines conservation principles, conservation processes and conservation practice. The Charter also contains guidelines for the establishment of cultural significance.
The definitions, principles and processes set out in the Burra Charter are widely accepted as the basis for development of conservation policy in relation to heritage places in Australia.
5.9.5 DRAFT YARRAVILLE RIVERFRONT PORT AND INDUSTRIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN
This plan has been prepared by Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd for the Port of Melbourne Corporation. The plan has been prepared in consultation with the City of Maribyrnong and the Council has advised the PMC that it supports the recommendations of the plan and will work with the PMC to implement the recommendations of the plan. The plan relates to PMC land and the industrial land adjacent to the Maribyrnong River, east of Whitehall Street and between Somerville Road and Francis Street.
Key features of the land use framework plan include: retention of the existing berths with the potential to upgrade the berths and use no. 6 Yarraville to supplement the Holden Dock; use of the main CSR, Orica and Albright & Wilson sites for port related industrial purposes including the storage and processing of product imported and or exported through the berths; use of the Orica site on Whitehall Street for port related purposes including its continued use as a bulk liquids store; or for office, warehousing and logistical purposes; use of the Pivot site on Whitehall Street for port related purposes including office, warehousing and logistical purposes with an emphasis on high quality design to reflect the prominent nature of the site; use of the rear of the Pivot site for port related purposes including processing, logistics and storage type activities: use of the land (PMC land) between Somerville and Youell Street for port related purposes namely storage; use of the land (PMC land) between Youell Street and Napier Street for maritime and leisure purposes including marinas and boat building.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 31
The plan further comments that: While options for the CSR, Orica and Albright & Wilson sites are relatively fixed, the Pivot site provides an excellent opportunity to capitalise on the existing berths (eg for the export of mineral sands) while also providing opportunities to establish complimentary functions (eg transport and logistics, warehousing, port storage, processing and administration).
The plan also states in relation to cultural heritage that: ..... the Plan recognises the historic significance of the area and seeks to protect Dee Cottage while calling for recording of other historical sites in order to retain the cultural heritage of the area.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 32
6. USE OF AHC CRITERIA AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
A number of planning panels have considered the question of criteria to be used in assessing inclusion of heritage places in an amendment.
In particular, the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) Criteria have been subjected to careful analysis by previous panels (Darebin C37, Hobsons Bay C17, Stonnington, L47(D), C5&6, C12). The VPP Practice Note and Heritage Victoria’s standard brief for local heritage studies each encourage some use of the AHC Criteria and in the case of this amendment, the Council has noted its reference to them.
Whilst acknowledging the contribution the AHC criteria have made to the rigour of research, this Panel concurs with the view expressed in the Stonnington L47(D) Amendment Report: …that the AHC criteria, which are the criteria that form the basis for assessment of the local significance of buildings, are not readily suited to this purpose in their present form and elaboration. In our view, much difficulty is caused by the uncertainty of, and various interpretations of, the application of these criteria to the local level
There appear to be two difficulties: The threshold of significance at which the criteria are pitched. The AHC criteria were established to enable the Commission to test places under consideration for a national register and the criteria typically call for the establishment of ‘importance’. Heritage Victoria’s brief does acknowledge use of AHC criteria should be tempered in that: ‘… thresholds applied in the statement of significance may include State Significance and Local Significance.’ The scope of the criteria. The AHC criteria do give some guidance in respect to matters that may constitute heritage value. However it also appears to the Panel that the guidance provided by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is clear.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 in Section 4(1) to provides guidance in respect to both threshold and significance. It states (inter alia): 4(1) The objectives of planning in Victoria are – .... (d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. 8
8 Panel’s underlining
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 33
Here the test for inclusion of an item in an Amendment is clear – ‘interest’ (not the higher semantic hurdles of ‘significance’ or ‘importance’) in one of the nominated areas; or, ‘special cultural value’.
The questions, then, are: - of interest to whom? and, - who determines what can be properly called special cultural value?; and, - of special cultural value to whom?
Clearly, the Act calls for a municipality to act on its own account on behalf of its own ratepayers – except where it specifically calls for schemes to protect items designated by the Heritage Act 1995, or in response to other State policies. If this is the case, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must envisage only one answer to all the above questions – the municipality.
This is not to say that an item should be included in an amendment on the ‘whim’ of a municipal Council. On the contrary, it is incumbent on the Council to demonstrate its clear understanding of the contribution an item may make to the heritage of the municipality. This should be elaborated in the Council’s MSS and local planning policies.
The State Planning Policy Framework calls on municipal authorities to prepare schemes as follows: 15.11 Heritage 15.11-1 Objective To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance or other special value important for scientific and research purposes, as a means of understanding our past, as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State. 15.11-2 General implementation Planning and responsible authorities should identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. These include: Places of botanical, zoological or other scientific importance, including national parks and conservation reserves and the habitats of rare or endangered plants and animals. Places and sites of geological, palaeontological or other scientific importance, including rock formations and fossil sites. Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, including historical and archaeological sites. Sites associated with the European discovery, exploration and settlement of Victoria. Important buildings, structures, parks, gardens, sites, areas, landscapes, towns and other places associated with the historic and cultural development of Victoria, including places associated with pastoral expansion, gold mining, industrial development and the economic expansion and growth of Victoria.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 34
Planning and responsible authorities should take account of the findings and recommendations of the Victorian Heritage Council and the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995.
The Panel takes the view that this represents a State level requirement to deal with items of ‘significance’ or ‘special value important for scientific and research purposes’ which must be taken account of in addition to a municipality’s prerogative to deal with items of interest. This conforms to the State Heritage Strategy 2000-2005 which notes the following: …The objectives of the strategy in relation to protecting heritage assets include: An appropriate level of protection for all significant heritage assets, based on a balanced assessment of values. Improved use and application of local government planning controls to protect a broader range of heritage places at local level. … The proposed program to implement these objectives includes: Protection of places at the local level The Heritage Council, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure, will develop a model of agreed protocols to assist local government authorities to comply with the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as they relate to the protection of heritage assets. This program will work with the current review of the Department’s Local Government Heritage Guidelines 1991. The protocols will help to add clarity by recommending the use of more consistent grading and terminology in heritage studies, conservation policies and planning schemes. The protocols will also provide direction for dealing with non-heritage provisions of planning schemes where these provisions potentially impact on cultural heritage management and protection.
Overall, the implication of this approach may be to lower the academic rigour in establishing significance but may increase the need to demonstrate the local relevance of interest. Clearly the imperative is to understand the context of local heritage and to demonstrate how a place contributes to that heritage. For sites of interest this local contribution model seems superior to attempts to place sites either in a regional context, an industry context, or some other generic framework.
The Council has demonstrated a strong commitment to identifying heritage places since production of the City of Footscray Urban Conservation Study (1989), preparation of subsequent Heritage Overlays and the Heritage Review of 2001. However the Panel notes that a sound strategic base for heritage protection may not have been firmly established in the existing MSS or local planning policies.
Neither the current MSS nor the current local planning policies demonstrate: a focus and compelling rationale for heritage conservation at the local level; a clear understanding of the differences between ‘conserve’, ‘preserve’ and other terms generally accepted and defined of the ICOMOS Burra Charter; direction on establishment of criteria and interpretation of terms such as ‘significance’, ‘importance’, ‘period character’, ‘enhance’…
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 35
The existing Municipal Strategic Statement identifies heritage objectives as components of the following: Residential Land Use Maribyrnong River and Valley Economic Development Industrial Development
Objectives in these sections include reference to: ‘preservation of our heritage …’; ‘conserves and enhances heritage assets …’ ‘identify and preserve …’; for places of ‘cultural significance’, ‘important industrial heritage …’ and so on.
Similarly, the LPPF has no specific planning policy in relation to heritage sites but does have references to ‘preserve and enhance’ or ‘protect and enhance’: … mixed period character of land settled and developed before 1930; … period buildings; … Seddon Centre’s period character and buildings.
However, with the adoption of the Heritage Plan, and introduction of Cultural Heritage Land Use Elements (Cl.21.04) and the General Cultural Heritage Policy (Cl.22.11-1) into the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, Amendment C31 provides a far more coherent strategic basis for action.
The Panel’s consideration of submissions is based on degree of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest to the City of Maribyrnong. The AHC criteria were used by the consultants in their assessment of sites, and the Panel has also used the AHC criteria and the AHC Application Guidelines 9 in its consideration of submissions, but interpreted in the context of local interest to the municipality.
9 Australian Heritage Commission, Criteria for the Register of the National Estate – Application Guidelines, 1990.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 36
7. THE NEED FOR COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
The Panel also considered the proposition that industrial properties could be best evaluated in the context of either typological or regional studies.
Mr Lovell in his discussion on general industrial heritage issues referred to the need for typological studies of industrial sites on a state wide or regional scale, rather than a council by council basis. He argued that this broad view is essential to provide proper context to individual sites.
The Panel agrees that a state-wide typological study would provide a means of identifying industrial properties and assessing the relative contribution industrial properties had made to Victoria’s industrial heritage. Development of particular criteria for assessment would establish an ordered way of weighing respective merits of different properties brought to the attention of the responsible municipality.
Similarly, regional studies would enable a comparative analysis of properties within a chosen regional context.
The Panel accepts that both regional and state-wide typological studies could only enhance understanding of the role industry has played in the State’s development and could improve the sophistication with which places were assessed. The Panel notes, in particular, that there is a lack of state-wide or regional typological studies in relation to some industries or industrial building types that enable the best examples of industrial buildings or sites to be identified.
The excellent state-wide Mining Sites Survey is an example of the type of studies that are required. The Panel takes the view that such studies could quite productively be undertaken by Heritage Victoria for its own purposes – particularly for identification of places of state-wide importance.
The Panel, however, does not accept that such studies are a necessary pre-cursor to evaluation at the local planning level. Nor does it accept that such evaluations would provide a binding view in the local context.
The Panel relies on the objectives of the Act as its criteria for inclusion of industrial properties under the Heritage Overlay. Like all properties, industrial places must meet the test of: ..... places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. In particular, in assessing the heritage value of industrial properties in Maribyrnong, the Panel was satisfied to receive information which addressed the significance of the place to Maribyrnong (or indeed, beyond this to the State, nation or industry) but was not persuaded by comparison to other industrial places outside the municipality. Furthermore, the Panel takes the view that these principles may apply equally to any other regional or typological surveys.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 37
The Panel recommends that Heritage Victoria continue its program of state-wide typological studies, particularly in relation to different industrial uses and industrial building types.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 38
8. THE NEED TO BALANCE HERITAGE OBJECTIVES AGAINST OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING OBJECTIVES
A number of submittors argued that particular sites were of sufficient strategic importance in relation to other planning objectives to warrant deletion from the overlay.
Mr Biacsi in his evidence on behalf of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PMC) argued that the strategic significance of the PMC land is sufficiently important to justify its deletion from the overlay. He submitted that: In my opinion, one would be entitled to question to what extent are the buildings so significant in cultural heritage terms to warrant heritage protection when one takes into account the strategic significance of the land, its unquestionable value to the future planning and development of the Port of Melbourne and State interest considerations. Clause 11 of the Planning Scheme states it is the State Government's expectation that planning and responsible authorities will endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development...... In terms of balancing potentially conflicting objectives and policies in favour of net community benefit and sustainability, I believe that there are strong grounds upon which to challenge the level of strategic justification supporting the proposed heritage controls over the nominated buildings on the PMC land. In my opinion, the proposed application of heritage provisions over the PMC buildings will have a considerable impact upon the achievement of State significant strategic objectives for the Port...... when weighing up the importance of the land to the Port of Melbourne, the significance attributed to the Port in terms of ongoing investment, development and employment together with the potential of the PMC land in advancing the future planning and development of the Port, I consider that there is a compelling net community benefit argument that favours the removal of any heritage control over the site...... The Amendment has basically ignored the impact that the proposed controls will have on the achievement of other important strategic policy objectives of the Planning Scheme, Melbourne 2030 and the State Government. The Amendment appears to be singularly focussed and lacking in its justification. Mr Biacsi further argued that the strategic significance of the PMC land is of sufficient importance that the process of balancing of competing strategic objectives should be done at the planning scheme amendment stage rather than when an application is made for a planning permit. In relation to that issue he submitted that: I do not believe that it is appropriate at this point in time to adopt the view that the decision about whether or not a particular building should be demolished can be left to the discretion to be exercised under the Heritage Overlay. The strategic significance of the PMC land in furthering the future development of the Port, accommodating vitally important port-related activities and providing the framework for the ongoing operation and growth of a strategic area within Australia’s leading port are all significant factors which must bear upon the validity or otherwise in introducing heritage overlays over parts of the subject land. ....
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 39
The strategic basis for the proposed heritage controls needs to be critically evaluated now and such an assessment, in my opinion, must take account of the potential impact of the controls upon the achievement of other strategic objectives, the most notable being those concerning the value of the land to present and future operations of the Port of Melbourne and the broader interests of the State of Victoria.
Similarly, Mr Gobbo on behalf of the PMC submitted that the Panel must weigh up whether the heritage significance of the buildings on the PMC land is sufficient to warrant inclusion in the heritage overlay and went on to submit that: This is not to say that the significance of the buildings is overridden by other considerations, but rather that the significance should better be recorded and recognised through some mechanism other than application of the heritage overlay. This is the only opportunity that land owners have to enunciate such matters. If they do not, then subsequent decision-makers usually adopt an approach of assuming such matters were properly weighed and considered at the time of inclusion of the place within the Heritage Overlay and not reopen the question of significance of the building. .... this is not a departure from the position of previous panels in concluding that if the requisite level of significance exists that the overlay should then be applied. It is simply a reflection of the unusual circumstances before the panel – that the land in question is part of the Port of Melbourne...... It is overly simplistic therefore to suggest, as the Planning Authority has done, that heritage is equally important in the Planning Scheme as economic or industrial factors, so the panel need not undertake this balancing exercise.
Mr Connor advanced similar arguments on behalf of VUT.
Mr Gobbo also referred to the PMC’s Yarraville Riverfront Port and Industrial Framework Plan and drew the Panel’s attention to the obligations of a planning authority under Clause 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. These obligations include: (1) A planning authority must – (a) implement the objectives of planning in Victoria; (b) provide sound, strategic and co-ordinated planning for the use and development of land in its area; (c) .... (2) In preparing a planning scheme or amendment, a planning authority – (a) must have regard to the Minister’s directions: and (aa) must have regard to the Victoria Planning Provisions; and (ab) in the case of an amendment, must have regard to any municipal strategic statement, strategic plan, policy statement, code or guideline which forms part of the scheme; and (b) must take into account any significant effects which it considers the scheme or the amendment might have on the environment or which it considers the environment might have on any use or development envisaged in the scheme or amendment; and (c) may take into account its social effects and economic effects. (3) A planning authority may – (a) ..... (b) do all things necessary to encourage and promote the orderly and proper use, development and protection of land in the area for which it is a planning authority; and
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 40
(c) take all steps and consult with any other persons it considers necessary to ensure the co-ordination of the planning scheme with proposals by those other persons. 10
Reference was also made in Mr Biacsi’s evidence to the following comments of Ms Helen Gibson, the former Chief Panel Member, in relation to Heritage Overlays – comments that were drawn from the Ballarat C58 panel report: ..... where heritage conservation policies include policies which effectively prohibit demolition of significant or contributory buildings or which otherwise restrict the height or form of new development contrary to other provisions of the planning scheme (in the Ballarat case urban consolidation objectives), the Panel concluded that they should not be approved unless they are supported by an analysis of the way in which the policy will impact on the achievement of other strategic objectives. It considered that when any heritage conservation policies are approved, they should be integrated with other strategies, especially residential and housing strategies. 11
However, these comments relate to heritage policies, and not to whether a Heritage Overlay should be applied to a particular site. In the same paragraph the Ms Gibson went on to say that the Ballarat C58 panel: ..... endorsed the findings of previous panels that the Heritage Overlay should be applied to places of identified heritage significance without reference to the effect this may have on other planning objectives. 12
The Panel has considered: the above submissions; the obligations of a planning authority set out in Clause 12 of the Act: and the State Government’s expectation expressed in Clause 11.01 of the SPPF, that planning and responsible authorities will balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
The Panel accepts that the heritage value of a place must be established through a rigorous assessment process. However, once the interest of a place is established the Panel believes that it is appropriate that a Heritage Overlay should apply to the place, irrespective of other competing strategic objectives, or other issues such as economic hardship.
The Panel has concluded that the sound, strategic and coordinated planning required by the Act and the balancing of conflicting objectives referred to in the SPPF should be expressed by the planning authority, not by preferring one strategic objective above others, but by including in the LPPF: the full range of strategic objectives that should be considered in relation to the future use and development of the municipality; and clear guidance to decision makers, by way of local planing policies, in relation the matters that should be considered in order to provide a balanced decision ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’
10 Panel’s underlining 11 Helen Gibson, paper to Panel Member’s Forum, 5 April 2004. 12 Panel’s underling
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 41
The Panel considers that inclusion of one strategic objective in the planning scheme, at the expense of another, as advocated by Mr Biacsi, would fail to provide for balancing of conflicting objectives in the decision making process. It would in fact provide an unbalanced planning scheme that ignored one objective in favour of another. This approach would also fail to provide transparency in the decision making process, where one objective is weighed against another. The balancing of competing objectives would have been done already, in a non-transparent way, during the preparation of the planning scheme. Furthermore, this approach would fail to provide for consideration of special circumstances where one apparently less important objective may have preference over another.
The Panel, however, does agree with the submissions of Mr Gobbo, Ms Quigley, Mr Finanzio, Mr Connor and Mr Cicero that the objectives, strategies and policies expressed in the LPPF must provide appropriate guidance in relation to the exercise of discretion at the permit application stage, and that where appropriate an incorporated plan should be used to provide appropriate permit exemptions. The Panel has discussed these issues in Sections 9, 10 and 11.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 42
9. MSS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY
Following on from the discussion in Section 8 above, the Panel has reviewed the Council’s MSS and the local planning policies contained in the LPPF to assess whether appropriate guidance is provided in the exercise of discretion by the responsible authority.
9.1 MSS
The introduction to the MSS at Clause 21.01-1 sets out a broad vision for the future development of the municipality. The introduction states that the Council is committed to bringing about change in the municipality, but that the most rapid change will occur in the peripheral parts of the city, and that change in the older, central parts of the city: ..... if it occurs at all, will be slow and subtle, consolidating and enhancing the existing character rather than re-creation.
However, whilst this broad vision indicates an emphasis on conservation in the older parts of the city, the MSS also foreshadows a balanced approach to managing change: ..... to achieve the outcomes which are carefully considered, fair and just to all, which will enhance the environment and economic and social opportunities......
The MSS also recognises its role in providing a framework of objectives and strategies to guide decision making, and states that: Achieving the best outcomes from change requires a description of what is wanted. The process of change needs to be carefully managed to increase future opportunities for choice in, and access to, housing, employment, leisure, recreation, entertainment, shopping and education. These are the foundations of our quality of life. The Maribyrnong Planning Scheme can be, indeed must be, an important tool for managing physical change in the future. It must not only establish the future direction of change, but also provide effective guidance for consistent decision-making to bring about the desired future. The purpose of this strategic statement is to provide the framework to help us do just that. 13
This role is again referred to in a closing clause of the MSS – Clause 21.05 Linking Strategy and Policy to Decision Making. The clause reiterates the role of the MSS in ensuring consistent decision making.
The MSS sets out the main features and issues relevant to the municipality, and objectives, strategies and implementation measures in relation to various issues. The Panel has considered the strategic objectives described in the MSS and other relevant documents such as Melbourne 2030, and has considered potential for conflict with the Council’s heritage conservation objectives.
13 Panel’s underlining
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 43
The Panel does not consider that the Council’s residential heritage conservation objectives are likely to conflict with the ‘compact city’ direction of Melbourne 2030 or the urban consolidation objective of the SPPF. The older housing areas around Seddon, Yarraville and parts of Footscray, that are expected to experience little change (and are included in the Heritage Overlay) contain mainly inter war and Edwardian era workers’ housing that is already at a relatively high density. Increases in residential density in the municipality will be mainly achieved, not by increases in density in these areas, but through large scale residential developments on land released for development by the Commonwealth government or rezoning of former industrial land. Furthermore, development around the Footscray Principal Activity Centre is unlikely to conflict with the Council’s heritage conservation objectives, and will be guided by a structure plan.
However, one issue that has been identified in the MSS is the role of existing housing stock in providing affordable housing. Gentrification of the older housing areas around Seddon, Yarraville and parts of Footscray is likely to raise house prices, thus reducing housing affordability for lower income groups. Thus whilst gentrification is welcomed by Council as a means of providing for the conservation of the early workers’ housing in these areas, the MSS recognises that the down-side of this trend may be: Further declines in affordability. A less culturally diverse community. A community which becomes more homogenous than presently exits. We want to ensure that this does not happen.
Council’s strategies to address the issue of affordability and housing diversity are to: Encourage variety and mix of allotment size in new subdivisions. Encourage variety and mix of housing types and sizes in new developments. Involve the State and Commonwealth, the private sector and local groups in the provision of housing for low income people.
However, these strategies do nothing to maintain affordability of the existing housing stock.
Cultural heritage actions proposed by Amendment C31 at Clause 21.04-9, include to: Provide a free Heritage Advisory Service. Provide support, assistance and encouragement to those who are responsible for the care and management of heritage places.
The Panel considers that the complex permit application requirements proposed by the Cultural Heritage policy may put the application process beyond the capability of the lay householder. These complex requirements may increase the cost of applications, and thus the cost of alterations and extensions to existing buildings, and also be a cause of frustration and delay. The Panel has suggested additional measures in later sections of this report to help limit the extent and complexity of some permit requirements.
One area of potential conflict is the proposed Heritage Overlay at the south west corner of Ballarat Road and Geelong Road, opposite VUT (part of heritage area HO2). VUT is identified as a Specialised Activity Centre in Melbourne 2030 and the Council’s MSS refers in the Framework Plan at Clause 21.04-7 to encouraging expansion of VUT. Part of heritage area HO2 is already zoned for VUT purposes (PUZ2) and a number of the buildings in this
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 44 proposed heritage area are currently owned and used by the university. The Panel was informed that a masterplan has been prepared for the university and that the masterplan is to be submitted to the Council for consideration in the near future. The masterplan proposes future demolition of the buildings at the south west corner of Ballarat Road and Geelong Road that are proposed to be included in HO2.
VUT’s current proposals for future expansion of its campus have not been considered by the Council, and are not referred to in the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. Furthermore, the Council’s proposal for a Heritage Overlay over part of the VUT land may not proceed. However, Melbourne 2030 and Council’s MSS both recognise the important role of in the City of Maribyrnong and the western suburbs and the need for the university to expand. Furthermore, the likely direction of the university’s expansion is indicated by the current zoning.
If a Heritage Overlay is placed over properties earmarked by VUT for future demolition, the Panel considers that strategies and policies for balancing the competing objectives of VUT’s expansion requirements and protection of identified heritage places should be developed for inclusion in the planning scheme. This may be resolved through a structure planning process.
The other main area of potential conflict is in relation to industry. The MSS describes: the development of industry in the municipality; the importance of industry to the economy and to the local workforce; the recent decline in industry with consequent loss of jobs and high unemployment; issues associated with existing industrial sites, including land use conflicts, contaminated sites and under used and obsolete buildings; and the heritage significance of many of the industrial sites.
The 2011 Vision for Maribyrnong at Clause 21.03 states that: Industry will remain a major element of the economic base of the city, but will no longer dominate local employment, nor the city’s image. Existing industry will be encouraged to remain and expand, and at the same time, to adopt best practice, more environmentally friendly processes, to replace existing obsolete buildings with modern ones, and to improve the visual qualities of sites and industrial areas. New cleaner manufacturing industry and recycling activity will be encouraged to locate here on existing vacant or under-used industrial land ...
On the other hand the section on protecting and promoting heritage places under Key Issues in Clause 21.02 states that: The City of Maribyrnong is one of the most industrialised inner urban areas in the metropolitan area, containing many valuable remnants of its industrial past. Conservation policy and practice is needed to protect and promote these remnants in a context of rapid change occurring throughout the municipality. Many large industrial sites are now in transition from their traditional use. There is pressure to demolish heritage buildings which are not able to be easily adapted for other uses. Council will work with the operators of industry and owners of historic industrial sites so that heritage values are respected and heritage places may be preserved within a context of efficient land use and employment objectives. Conservation Management Plans for industrial sites will be the best way to responsibly manage change to complex sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 45
Many of the submissions to the Panel expressed concern that industrial buildings identified for heritage protection were: structurally unsound and needed to be demolished; seriously contaminated; needed to be demolished or extensively altered to provide for technological change, occupational health and safety requirements or other current day standards.
Objectives relating to industrial development are set out in Clause 21.04-5, and include, inter alia: Encourage the development of new, clean, value adding, export oriented industry using the latest technology. Identify and preserve (whenever practical and feasible) important industrial heritage. Recognise the important role industry, and the work it provides, plays in the community.
However, the strategies that follow do not attempt to address these potentially competing objectives. The Panel does not consider that the statement that ‘Council will work with industry’ provides sufficient assurance to industry about how it intends to go about balancing potentially competing objectives in its decision making ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’.
The Panel considers that strategies should be included in the MSS in relation to industrial heritage sites, that indicate the approach that will be taken by the Council to balancing the potentially competing objectives of conserving industrial heritage and encouraging and facilitating industrial viability, redevelopment and expansion.
The Panel further notes that the MSS refers in Clause 21.03 to a change in emphasis along the Maribyrnong River from industrial activities to housing, open space and cultural, leisure and recreational activity. The Panel assumes that this is a reference to the Footscray Riverside Precinct north of Lyons Street. However, this is not clearly stated in the MSS.
Whilst the industrial framework plan at Clause 21.04-5 shows the area north of Francis Street between Whitehall Street and the river as a core industrial area, the Panel considers that the MSS should clearly state that the change in emphasis from industrial to other uses applies to the area north of Lyons Street, and not to the core industrial area. The Panel further notes that the MSS contains only scant reference to the Port of Melbourne despite the fact that: the lower Maribyrnong River is part of the Port of Melbourne area; the Yarraville wharves adjoin part of the Yarraville core industrial area; the Port of Melbourne owns strategic sites in the Yarraville industrial area. Clause 18.05 of the SPPF and Policy 4.3 of Melbourne 2030 emphasise the strategic importance of the Port of Melbourne and yet Clause 21.04-2 of the MSS that relates to the Maribyrnong River and valley includes no reference to the Port of Melbourne. Ms Gallant in her closing submission commented that the lack of reference to the port land in the MSS ‘is a symptom of the time the MSS was prepared’. The Yarraville Riverfront Port and Industrial Framework Plan is currently being developed by the Port of Melbourne Authority in consultation with Council. The Panel expects that more comprehensive reference to the
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 46
strategic importance of the Port of Melbourne and the framework plan will be included in the MSS at the completion of that process. The amendment proposes to include a new Clause 21.04-9 in relation to Cultural heritage. In addition to the above comments, the Panel comments in relation to Clause 21.04-9 that: the second listed strategy is an objective; the policies listed under the heading implementation should be included in the Cultural heritage policy; the third listed policy relating to prohibited uses appears unnecessary, given that only 3 heritage places in the schedule have a notation that prohibited uses may be permitted: 2 places that are listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and the Dale stables, that the Panel expects may be demolished; the last listed policy is unnecessary. The Panel recommends that: If necessary, strategies for balancing the competing objectives of VUT’s expansion requirements and protection of identified heritage places should be included in the MSS. Strategies in relation to industrial heritage sites should be included in the MSS that indicate the approach that will be taken by the Council to balance the potentially competing objectives of conserving industrial heritage and encouraging and facilitating industrial viability, redevelopment and expansion. The MSS should clearly state that the change in emphasis along the Maribyrnong River from industrial to other uses applies to the area north of Lyons Street, and not to the core industrial area. Clause 21.04-9 should be amended by: - including the policies in the Cultural Heritage policy, if these are appropriate; - deleting unnecessary policies; - including the second listed strategy as an objective.
9.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY
The proposed Cultural Heritage Policy is in 15 parts – a General Cultural Heritage Policy and 14 sub-policies relating to each of the heritage areas. The general policy and sub-policies are discussed separately.
The Panel received a number of submissions in relation to the need for a separate industrial heritage policy. This matter is discussed in Section 10.
9.2.1 GENERAL CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY
The General Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11-1 is to apply to all heritage places listed in the schedule to the overlay. The purpose of the policy is to provide guidance to the decision maker in relation to permit applications made under the provisions of Clause 43.01-1. Decisions are also guided by the matters set out in Clause 65 of the planning scheme, including matters set out in Section 60 of the Act, the SPPF, the MSS, the purposes of the overlay and the overlay decision guidelines. The role of the local policy is to provide local expression to the discretion provided by the overlay, and in particular, to implement the objectives and strategies of the MSS.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 47
The Panel has discussed in Section 8 the need for the local policy to provide clear guidance on the range of matters that should be considered when assessing a permit application to provide a balanced decision ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’.
The Panel considers that the General Cultural Heritage Policy fails to adequately implement the objectives and strategies of the MSS or provide guidance on the way in which competing strategic objectives should be balanced in the decision making process.
The Panel notes that the Council’s Heritage Plan has recognised the complex issues associated with conservation of some heritage places, such as large industrial heritage sites. The Heritage Plan includes in Action Plan 2 the following actions: 2.1 Process for assessing large-scale developments Establish a process for the assessment of large-scale development applications affecting sites of heritage significance. In particular, establish specific procedures for complex issues including: Broad-scape redevelopment and subdivision processes Industrial sites (including redevelopment for industry and new uses) ..... 2.4 Prepare a policy on planning incentives Prepare a policy on planning incentives for natural and cultural heritage places protected under the planning scheme where this will result in enhanced conservation outcomes. This policy may include considerations related to facilitation of the planning application and specific planning concessions (use, parking, height, density and development yield and other matters). It may also recommend the use of Section 173 agreements to bind parties to the agreement...... (i) Develop decision-making guidelines for Council Develop decision-making guidelines and processes to assist Council officers effectively implement the requirements of the Planning Scheme and Local Policies.
However, whilst these actions were given the highest priority, this work does not appear to have been done.
The Panel considers that the priority actions 2.1, 2.4 and 2.8 of the Heritage Plan should be implemented and used as background to development of a heritage policy that is relevant to the issues facing the City of Maribyrnong.
A number of submissions were made in relation to the content and wording of the General Cultural Heritage Policy.
Mr Finanzio made the following comments regarding the wording of the Heritage Overlay:
Caution must be exercised in relation to the wording of the proposed heritage policy clause 22- 11 as words can be used in a very constraining way when cases go to appeal before VCAT. Do the policies have sufficient basis with respect to the significance of the site? When words are used empathically and when in the hands of a component lawyer, the words can take on meaning that no one intended when the policy was written.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 48
Both Mr Connor and Mr Finanzio provided examples of confusing wording.
The Panel agrees that great care is essential in the choice of words used in a policy, and in the overall drafting of policies.
The Panel also has a number of specific concerns about the drafting of the General Cultural Heritage Policy. Those concerns are that:
The policy contains unnecessary, complex and repetitious policies and performance measures.
For example, under each of the six sections of the policy there is a policy that states that: The heritage significance of all places listed in the Maribyrnong Heritage Review 2001 be taken into consideration in the assessment of planning applications which may impact on their heritage values.
However, the decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01-5 already include reference to: Any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
And the Maribyrnong Heritage Review 2001 is listed as a reference document in the policy.
The Panel considers that the policy should avoid unnecessary repetition by including as an overarching policy that assessment of a permit application will include consideration of the heritage assessment and statement of significance for the heritage place contained in the Maribyrnong Heritage Review 2001.
Furthermore, many of the policies are obvious objectives of heritage conservation. For example the first subdivision policy is that: Subdivision of a heritage place should not have an adverse impact on the cultural significance of the place or area.
This in effect repeats the fourth listed purpose of the Heritage Overlay, which is: To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
The length and complexity of the policy could be significantly reduced by removing unnecessary words, and by carefully redrafting the objectives and policies with a view to helping permit applicants understand how a permit application for development in a Heritage Overlay area will be considered.
The VPP Practice Note on Writing a Local Planning Policy provides advice on how to write a local planning policy and examples of good and bad practice. The Panel considers that that the policy should be redrafted to comply with the requirements of the practice note.
The language used in the policies and performance measures is complex and difficult to understand.
For example, the performance measures relating to demolition include a requirement that an application must be accompanied by supporting documentation that demonstrates:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 49
That the demolition or removal is in accordance with an approved conservation program; or That a major part (eg that part of the building that is covered by the main roof of the building including the roof) of the publicly visible, contributory elements, which make up the place or area must be replaced due to damage or structural defect as verified by a written report from a Structural Engineer with recognised experience in heritage places and an experienced Heritage Architect; or The demolition or removal of a building, part of a building or elements that are not considered contributory to the significance of the heritage place or area. That the demolition or removal will contribute to the long-term conservation of the fabric of the heritage place or area; and Where demolition is considered the only option available, consideration is to be given to the need for recording the place. The need for such recording will depend upon the type of place and its degree of significance.
This requirement is not a performance measure, and the Panel considers that this requirement is complex, confusing and onerous. The Panel considers that more careful thought should be given to the circumstances where demolition may be appropriate, such as where a building is beyond repair. Performance measures should then be drafted that clearly explain the circumstances where a permit may be granted for demolition. This approach should be applied throughout the policy.
The policy contains undefined terms.
For example, the policy includes definitions of contributory places and non-contributory places, but includes in the performance measures for new buildings and additions reference to ‘significant or contributory building’. The Panel considers that introduction of the undefined term ‘significant’ is unnecessary and confusing.
The Panel also notes that terms such as ‘restoration’, ‘reconstruction’ and ‘adaptation’ are included in the policy, but are undefined. The Panel assumes that these words have the same meaning as in the Burra Charter. This also should be clarified.
The application requirements for new buildings and works are onerous.
The policy lists under performance criteria a mandatory requirement for written documentation of how a proposed development satisfies 15 separate criteria - a requirement that is incorrectly described as a performance measure. The Panel considers that this requirement is inappropriate in the case of a minor addition or alteration to an existing building, or minor works, and may also be excessive in the case of a substantial extension or new building.
A number of submissions have raised concerns that the heritage controls will introduce restrictive permit requirements for minor alterations and will impose an unacceptable cost burden. The Panel shares these concerns.
The heritage areas included in the Heritage Overlay affect a very large number of properties, many of which contain modest workers’ cottages that were built during the first half of the 20th century. Many of these cottages still provide housing for low income families. The Council’s Housing Strategy has identified that housing affordability is a significant issue in the municipality, and the Council should, in line with its Housing Strategy, be looking for ways of avoiding unnecessary cost to property owners.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 50
Whilst the Heritage Overlay does provide a permit exemption for repairs and routine maintenance that do not change the appearance of the heritage place, concern has been expressed by submittors that application of the Heritage Overlay to a property is a trigger for an assessment under Clause 54 of the planning scheme – an issue that the Council also raised concerns about. This concern is heightened by the proposed policy requirement for a further assessment against another 15 criteria. The Panel believes that the documentation accompanying a permit application for even a modest building extension or alteration is likely to put the application process beyond the capability of the lay householder. Householders, consequently, may be forced to engage professional help in lodging their permit application, which could add significantly to the cost of the proposal.
The Panel considers that the Council should carefully examine its requirements for permit applications and consider ways of reducing the documentation necessary to accompany a permit application and circumstances where permit exemptions could be provided. The issue of permit exemptions is discussed by the Panel in Section 11 in relation to incorporated plans.
The policy contains prescriptive measures
Mr Connor and Mr Finanzio also expressed concern about prescriptive measures in the policy. Mr Finanzio submitted that the words ‘strongly opposed’ in the demolition policy should not be used. He commented that there might be circumstances where demolition of a building is appropriate - where a building is unsafe for example. He further observed that the wording of the Heritage Act1995 takes a more appropriate approach by stating that ‘reasonable and economic use and undue financial hardship’ must be taken into account when considering a permit application for demolition.
In the same vein, Mr Connor commented that policy is intended to guide discretion, not fetter or control it. He referred in particular to the VCAT decision SMA Projects v Port Phillip City Council (1999) and the comments on local planing policies in the Final Report on New Format Planning Schemes (April 1999). 14
Mr Liston in the SMA Projects decision commented that: Policy can never be more than a guideline; it should not be applied as if it is a mandatory limitation on the exercise of discretion provided for by the scheme.
Similarly, Ms Gibson in the Final Report on the New Format Planning Schemes commented that policies need to be carefully monitored to ensure they do not become de facto zone (or overlay) controls.
The Panel agrees with these submissions.
The Panel has concluded that in view of the extent of concern in relation to the General Cultural Heritage policy, the policy should be completely redrafted and introduced into the planning scheme in a later amendment. Ms Gallant and Ms O’Keeffe, in response to questions from the Panel, commented that Council officers currently make extensive use of the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications prepared by Heritage Victoria in considering permit applications under the Heritage Overlay provisions. The Panel considers that the draft guidelines are a very useful tool for guiding decision making, and could continue to be used until a redrafted policy is
14 Final Report on New Format Planning Schemes, 1999, p10.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 51
introduced into the planning scheme. The Panel also considers that reference to the guidelines in the redrafted local policy could have the benefit of: reducing the length and complexity of the policy, and enabling the policy to concentrate on local issues.
The Panel also considers that the VPP Practice Note on Writing a Local Planning Policy should be used as a guide in redrafting the heritage policy.
9.2.2 SUB-POLICIES RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS
The 14 sub-policies include a description of the heritage area and the policy basis, and set out the policy objectives and detailed policies for the heritage area. The policy basis provides in effect a statement of significance for the heritage area, and the objectives describe the features of the area that the sub-policy is seeking to conserve. For example the objectives of Clause 22.11-2 that relates to the Angliss Housing Estate (HO1) are: To conserve and enhance the contributory elements in the area and individually significant places, as perhaps the best physical expression of the Californian Bungalow estates created between the two wars in the City. Elements include buildings, objects, fences, landscape, lot sizes and street works (concrete footpaths, kerb and channelling). To conserve and enhance the area’s historical links with William Angliss as the best built representation of his 1920s Edwardian era worker housing. To maintain the block sizes and common side and front setbacks.
The Panel considers that the policy basis and the objectives in each of the sub-policies are clear and appropriate. The Panel’s concerns rest with the detailed policies.
Each sub-policy contains a policy that states that it is policy to: Support the following design characteristics for alterations to contributory buildings or as a guide for contemporary interpretation for infill design in the area:
And then lists detailed design characteristics of the contributory buildings in the heritage area.
For example, the design characteristics of the contributory buildings in the Angliss Housing Estate (HO1) are listed as: Californian Bungalows and Mediterranean style villas in garden settings; Corrugated profile sheet iron or Zincalume or colourbond roofing, and Marseilles pattern terra-cotta unglazed tile roofing; Hipped and gabled roof forms of nominally 33 to 45 degrees; Timber framed windows in grouped or single vertical rectangle format; Painted horizontal weatherboard walls with limited use of stucco and pressed red imperial size brick cladding; and Timber framed front verandahs of a skillion profile or integral with the main roof pitch.
A number of submissions expressed concern that the proposed heritage controls will encourage reproduction architecture and stifle creative design. The Panel agrees with the
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 52 submissions that the above policy is likely to be interpreted as encouraging re-creation of the contributory building style in the heritage area. This was a concern raised by the Ballarat C58 panel in relation to the proposed Ballarat heritage policy. This Panel reiterates the concerns of the Ballarat C58 panel, that this form of policy is likely to produce ‘mock’ architecture, that is at odds with the conservation principles set out in the Burra Charter and its guidelines.
The Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications provide a useful interpretation of the Burra Charter philosophy. In the section on Construction of New Buildings the Guidelines state that: Design that closely imitates, replicates or mimics the surrounding historic styles should normally be discouraged .....
Similarly, the guidelines for additions and extensions to existing buildings state, inter alia, that: Care should be taken when considering additions or extensions to a heritage place. New work should be distinguishable from the old. New work should be harmonious and sympathetic with the significant features of the place. This can be achieved by making the new material slightly recessed; a different material to the old; a different texture; surface treatment or by dating the new. The contrast should not be harsh or visually obtrusive.
The Panel recognises that the policy proposed by Council does state that the design characteristics of existing buildings are provided as a guide for contemporary interpretation. However, the Panel is not convinced that the lay person will appreciate the subtlety of the wording. The Panel fears that the design characteristics are more likely to be taken as a design manual for new building. Similar concerns were expressed by the Ballarat C58 panel in relation to the Ballarat heritage policy. The Ballarat C58 panel commented that: The Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications (2000) deal with the notions of reconstruction (and the limited occasions when this will be appropriate) sympathetic additions etc in a way that is far more intelligible to the lay person than the Panel considers is done in the Heritage Conservation Policy in Amendment C58. The Panel does not consider that the ‘message’ that emerges from Amendment C58 sufficiently captures the very fine nuances between the concepts of restoration, reconstruction and reproduction that a heritage expert might appreciate but which are likely to be lost on the average person. Instead, a person seeking a permit for development in the form of a new building, or an alteration or addition to an existing building in Ballarat is more likely to gain the impression that ‘if it looks old and the same as other houses in the street, it will be OK’...... The degree of detail referred to in the local precinct policies reinforces the perception that this is the sort of design detail that the Council wants and that will be acceptable. The detail in Amendment C58 is given without the context and guidance that are included in the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications (2000). 15
Whilst this Panel considers that the design characteristics included in the sub-policies provide a useful description of the essential characteristics of the existing contributory buildings, insufficient guidance is provided on the appropriate approach to contemporary interpretation of the existing built form. The Panel believes that the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications provide far better guidance on the design of new building that is compatible with the character of a heritage area.
15 Panel Report, Ballarat Planning Scheme Amendment C58, p86.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 53
The Panel considers that a better approach would be to refer to the Draft Guidelines for assessment of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings, and to add objectives along the following lines: To ensure that new buildings and additions and extensions to existing contributory buildings do not detract from character of the heritage area or overwhelm the existing contributory building. To discourage new building design that closely imitates, replicates or mimics the contributory buildings in the heritage area.
The design characteristics of existing contributory buildings could be included in the description of the heritage area under Policy basis.
The sub-policies also refer to the type of fencing that should be used in each heritage area. The Panel considers that fences are minor structures that could be the subject of a permit exemption in an incorporated plan, subject to compliance to specific guidelines. This issue is discussed further in Section 11. The Panel recommends: That the exhibited General Cultural Heritage Policy be redrafted as a clear, simple document that: - gives local expression to the conservation purposes of the Heritage Overlay; - implements the objectives and strategies of the MSS; - provides guidance on the way in which competing strategic objectives of the planning scheme should be balanced in the decision making process; - refers to the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications; - follows the guidelines in the VPP Practice Note on Writing a Local Planning Policy. That the priority actions 2.1, 2.4 and 2.8 of the Heritage Plan be implemented and used as background to development of the redrafted heritage policy. That the redrafted General Cultural Heritage Policy be introduced into the planning scheme in a later amendment. That a simple interim Cultural Heritage Policy be included in the planning scheme that: - states that the policy applies to heritage places other than industrial sites; - includes as a policy ‘It is policy to apply the incorporated Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications when considering applications under the Heritage Overlay’; - includes amended sub-policies relating to heritage areas that delete reference to fence styles and relocate the description of the design characteristics of existing contributory buildings in the Policy basis section. That the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications be included as an incorporated document in the Schedule to Clause 81.
The Panel notes that the Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications are still in draft form despite the fact that the draft document was released for comment in August 2000. Other panels have recommended that DSE finalise the guidelines and include them in the schedule to Clause 81 as an incorporated document in all planning schemes. This Panel reiterates that recommendation.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 54
10. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY
A number of submissions expressed concern about the lack of relevance of the Cultural Heritage Policy to industrial sites, and argued that a separate industrial heritage policy should be included in the planning scheme that recognises the special issues associated with industrial heritage sites. As Mr Lovell commented the Cultural Heritage policy: ..... focuses primarily on the conventional domestic heritage of Maribyrnong, rather than the more complex industrial heritage of the municipality.
Draft Industrial Heritage Policies were submitted to the Panel on behalf of Sugar Australia and the Port of Melbourne Corporation. These draft policies are based on the Hobsons Bay Industrial Heritage policy.
Comment has also been made that the Heritage Overlay provisions have not been drafted with industrial heritage in mind, and the decision guidelines provide little guidance in relation to decisions on industrial sites. For example, the decision guidelines refer to the affect of development on a heritage place, and the emphasis is on issues such as the scale and appearance of new development – issues that are of little relevance to industrial heritage. The Panel also notes that the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications do not include a section on industrial sites.
The Panel recognises that there are a number of special issues associated with industrial heritage sites that need to be considered. The Panel also agrees with submissions that the Council needs to develop policies to address those issues, either as a part of the Cultural Heritage Policy or as separate Industrial Heritage Policy. Ms Gallant in her closing submission indicated a willingness to revisit the heritage policy, with a view to addressing the industrial heritage issues.
Issues associated with industrial heritage sites are discussed in Section 12 and include: problems associated with contaminated sites, and unsafe and redundant buildings; ‘conservation by use’ as an essential part of heritage conservation ; evolving industrial processes, and the importance of the evolutionary process to future heritage significance;
The Panel has considered ways in which industrial heritage policies could address these issues, and how the policy should address potentially conflicting objectives and strategies in the MSS.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 55
10.1 CONTAMINATED SITES, AND UNSAFE AND REDUNDANT BUILDINGS
A number of the industrial sites proposed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay are contaminated, or are structurally unsound, or are now redundant to the requirements of the historic industrial use on the site. Council’s MSS includes as part of its vision for the municipality: expansion of existing industries; adoption of ‘best practice’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ industrial processes; and replacement of obsolete buildings.
On the other hand the MSS proposes protect valuable remnants of the city’s industrial past.
In order to provide guidance to the decision makers these potentially conflicting objectives need to be acknowledged in an industrial heritage policy and guidance given in relation to balancing the objectives ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’.
10.2 ‘CONSERVATION BY USE’
‘Conservation by use’ is listed in the Victorian Heritage Strategy as a principle to guide and support the direction of the strategy. The concept of ‘conservation by use’ was raised in relation to a number of industrial sites. Mr Lovell in his evidence in relation to the former Pivot Industries site commented in relation to that site that: In essence the site as it now stands contains buildings and built fragments, reflective of an evolved industrial complex which stands on land which has had a history of industrial use spanning some 140 years. Its significance is as much about a continuous industrial use and the importance of this activity to Maribyrnong and more broadly the State, as it is about individual buildings and structures...... The continuation of industrial activity on the site and maintenance of an industrial landscape, in retained or new buildings, may be seen to be as important, if not more important, than the retention of specific buildings.
Similarly, the significance of the Sugar Australia site rests very much with the production of sugar, and the significance of the site will be substantially diminished if the site was no longer used for sugar production.
However, whilst ‘conservation by use’ can be important to the conservation of the historic interest of a place, the Heritage Overlay has only limited ability to influence this. The overlay is simply a development control that has as an objective to conserve and enhance elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage place. However, an industrial heritage policy can play an important role in ensuring that the conservation objectives of the overlay are balanced, where appropriate, against the objective of ensuring continuation of an historic industrial use.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 56 10.3 EVOLVING INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS TO FUTURE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
Following on from the concept of ‘conservation by use’ the Panel notes that many industrial processes are subject to a process of constant evolution and change. Sometimes the change can be accommodated within the existing building fabric, but in other cases buildings have to be modified or new buildings constructed to accommodate new processes. This evolutionary process can be an important part of the historic interest of an industrial site, and today’s buildings, machinery and processes can become tomorrow’s heritage. The place for change on industrial sites should also be recognised in an industrial heritage policy.
10.4 DRAFT INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY
The draft policy submitted as part of the Sugar Australia submission has been developed from the policy included in Amendment C19 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. The policy submitted as part of the PMC submission is a further refinement of the Sugar Australia draft. The PMC draft is attached as Appendix C.
The Panel considers that the draft policy provides a good start for development of an industrial heritage policy that could be included in the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme in a later amendment. The Panel makes the following comments on the PMC draft policy: That the fifth listed dot point under Policy Objectives should be amended to refer to historic industrial use. That the first dot point in the first policy under exercising discretion should be amended to refer to historic industrial use. That the second dot point in the first policy under exercising discretion should be amended by deleting the words ‘industry, economic development, transport, infrastructure’. That the third policy under exercising discretion should be amended by retaining the words ‘a use is discontinued and’ by deleting ‘including subdivision’ (subdivision falls within the definition of development). That the second dot point under Decision Guidelines refer to historic industrial use. That the third dot point under Decision Guidelines delete the words ‘on the site’ and replace the words with ‘that is compatible with the past history of the site’. That the fourth dot point under Decision Guidelines delete the words ‘of a building or fabric of primary significance’. That the fifth dot point under Decision Guidelines should be deleted. That the last dot point under Decision Guidelines should delete the words ‘adopted’ and ‘plan’ where it first appears, and add the words ‘that is included as a reference or incorporated document in the planning scheme’. The Panel recommends that the Council include industrial heritage policies in the LPPF, and that the draft Industrial Heritage Policy submitted on behalf of PMC and amended by the Panel be used as a basis for the development of such policies.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 57
11. USE OF INCORPORATED PLANS
A number of submissions, particularly those relating to industrial sites, expressed concern about lack of certainty surrounding future development of sites affected by a Heritage Overlay. In relation to this issue Mr Gobbo argued that either the overlay should not be applied to industrial sites, or an approach should be adopted: ..... which would result in the highest degree of certainty, and fairest degree of constraint upon the future industrial operations of the site.
Use of incorporated plans to provide permit exemptions under Clause 43.01-2 was suggested by Ms Quigley and Mr Gobbo as one way of providing a degree of certainty to industrial property owners.
Submissions were also made in relation to residential properties that the heritage controls will introduce restrictive permit requirements for essential repairs and minor alterations, and would cause unnecessary delays and costs. The Panel considers that these concerns can also be reduced through the use of an incorporated plan that applies to heritage areas.
The form of incorporated plans that apply to industrial sites and to heritage areas will differ and the Panel has discussed the two types of incorporated plan separately.
11.1 INCORPORATED PLANS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS
The 14 heritage areas included in the Heritage Overlay affect many thousands of properties throughout the City of Maribyrnong. Whilst Clause 43.01-2 provides a permit exemption for repairs and routine maintenance, the permit requirement under Clause 43.01-1 does include a wide range of activities, including: construction of a new building; alterations and extensions to existing buildings, including sandblasting and rendering; demolition of any building, including fences, walls, service installations, outbuildings and other structures; construction of fences, walls, service installations, outbuildings and other structures such as pergolas; carrying out of works, such as changes in ground level; and external painting of any unpainted surface.
The permit requirement under Clause 43.01-1 is likely to add to the cost and timing of even the most minor buildings and works, and to the work load of Council staff in processing applications.
Amendment C58 to the Ballarat Planning Scheme proposed to apply a Heritage Overlay over extensive areas of the City of Ballarat, and proposed an incorporated plan that exempted from the permit requirement: front fences that comply with specified guidelines;
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 58
new buildings, and building alterations and extensions on non-contributory properties that comply with specified guidelines; new outbuildings and minor development on contributory properties that comply with specified guidelines.
Interpretation of the exemption provisions is assisted by inclusion of simple diagrams that show where development will or won’t require a permit.
A copy of the Ballarat incorporated plan is attached as Appendix B.
The permit exemptions proposed by the City of Ballarat are based on the principle that external changes that do not affect significant fabric and are not visible from the public domain should not be controlled. The Council tested the incorporated plan during the period of interim heritage controls and found that the exemptions reduced the number of permit applications and did not result in any loss of significant fabric.
The Panel considers that a similar approach would be appropriate in the City of Maribyrnong.
Volume 5 of the Heritage Review has identified contributory buildings, and the exemption provisions in the Ballarat incorporated plan could be adapted to the Maribyrnong heritage areas (the main difference is that the Ballarat amendment referred to significant and non- significant buildings rather than contributory and non-contributory buildings).
The Panel has already suggested that the policy provisions in relation to fences could be included in the incorporated plan, with a permit exemption for fences that comply with the policy requirements for each of the heritage areas.
The Ballarat C58 panel also recommended that the incorporated plan should be modified to exempt demolition of non-contributory buildings from the need for a permit. The Ballarat panel took into account the fact that any replacement building will require a permit, and impacts that the replacement building may have on the heritage area can be managed through the permit process for that building, or the guidelines in the incorporated plan. This Panel shares that view, and notes that the demolition exemption would also apply to any non-contributory extension to a contributory building. The Panel further considers that the risk that a demolished building may not be replaced is very slight, and that the risk will be outweighed by the reduction in compliance costs and administration.
The one concern of the Panel is the accuracy of the list of contributory buildings in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review. The Panel has noted some errors in the list and expects that there will be more. The Panel considers that the list of contributory buildings should be checked and that the corrected list should be incorporated in the planning scheme.
The Panel has considered whether inclusion of an incorporated plan should form part of a later amendment or could be adopted as part of this amendment. The Panel has concluded that because inclusion of the incorporated plan responds to submissions that the overlay controls will impose onerous compliance burdens on property owners, and because no one will be disadvantaged by inclusion of the incorporated plan, the incorporated plan could be introduced as a modification to the exhibited amendment. The Panel recommends that Council prepare an incorporated plan relating to the proposed heritage areas that provides permit exemptions for minor buildings and works that comply with specified guidelines. The incorporated plan should:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 59
adopt a similar format to that used in the incorporated plan proposed by Amendment C58 to the Ballarat Planning Scheme; include additional exemptions for buildings and works that comply with specific guidelines, if that is appropriate; include a permit exemption for fences that comply with the policy requirements for the heritage areas; include a permit exemption for demolition of non-contributory buildings. The Panel further recommends that the list of contributory buildings in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review should be checked for accuracy, and that the corrected list should be included as an incorporated document in the Schedule to Clause 81.
11.2 INCORPORATED PLANS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SITES
Ms Quigley in her submissions in relation to the Orica site (submission 41) and the Sugar Australia site (submission 40) advocated the use of incorporated plans as a management tool on working industrial sites. She submitted that: The use of an incorporated plan can be tailored to identify the buildings of significance and the management tools to ensure their conservation and recording in an appropriate manner.
In the case of the Sugar Australia site she further submitted that: The use of an Incorporated Plan has the following benefits in the management of the Sugar Australia site including that it: (a) Provides a greater level of detail in the management of the site than reliance on policy alone, particularly in the absence of local policy which deals with complex large industrial heritage sites. (b) Provides certainty of outcome for the owner and operator of the site. (c) Reduces the work load and resources of Council officers in the management of the heritage place. (d) Reduces the time required to determine an application.
She also commented later in her submission that: This is the most appropriate tool in terms of excluding unreasonable permit requirements imposed through the broad application of the heritage overlay across ‘live’ industrial sites.
Mr Gobbo submitted that if the Panel considered a Heritage Overlay should apply to the Pivot site, there are a number of approaches that could be taken by the Panel in relation to the demolition of buildings on the site: Application of the overlay to individual buildings, and refinement of the heritage policy and citations to ensure ‘they leave open an argument to be made in favour of demolition of the buildings’. Application of the overlay, with a recommendation for an incorporated plan that exempted certain parts of the site or buildings from the permit requirement for demolition and redevelopment. This approach would leave open the form of the incorporated plan and the exercise of discretion pursuant to it.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 60
Application of the overlay and recommendation of a specific form of incorporated plan to be inserted.
Ms Quigley further commented on the fact that there is no guidance provided in any practice note (or in the Minister’s Direction on the From and Content of Planning Schemes) on the form or use of an incorporated plan. She therefore submitted that ‘the tailoring of such a plan and its form is flexible’ and that ‘there is no reason why the form of an incorporated plan should not be flexible as to issue, time, area and controls’.
Draft incorporated plans were submitted to the Panel for the Orica and Sugar Australia sites, and in view of the fact that this tool has not been widely used in the past, Ms Quigley invited the Panel to comment on the format, content and appearance of the draft incorporated plans. The Panel was also urged to make recommendations on the draft plans so that decisions in relation to application of a Heritage Overlay to the sites could be made as part of the amendment, and ‘not at some unspecified time in the future’.
The Panel has carefully considered the complex range of issues associated with industrial heritage sites and has concluded that, in general, where heritage significance or interest of a site has been established the most appropriate approach is to apply the Heritage Overlay to the whole of the site and to provide permit exemptions in relation to the non-contributory buildings parts by way of an incorporated plan.
The Panel considers that this is the most appropriate approach for the following reasons: Application of the overlay to the whole of the site recognises that the historic significance or interest normally applies to the whole of a site and not just to its individual parts. Application of the overlay to the whole of the site avoids problems of mapping errors and later disputes about where the boundary of the overlay actually lies. Application of the overlay to the whole of the site may help to address issues where a significant building shares a party wall with a non-significant building. The incorporated plan will provide certainty about the range of things that can be done on the site without the need for a planning permit. The permit exemptions provided by incorporated plan will avoid the potential for frustrating delays and unreasonable permit requirements. The incorporated plan can include specific conditions attached to permit exemptions, such as proper recording of a building where a permit exemption is provided for demolition of a building. The incorporated plan can apply to an existing significant use and can cease to apply should that use cease.
Turning now to the draft incorporated plans submitted to the Panel for the Sugar Australia site and the Orica site, the Panel makes the following comments in relation to the form and content of the plans.
The Sugar Australia Incorporated Plan includes: A statement of the purpose of the incorporated plan – ie to exempt certain development from the permit requirement of the overlay. The purpose also includes reference to exemption from the Council’s Cultural Heritage policy. However, the Panel considers that this is unnecessary in view of the overriding permit exemption.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 61
A Statement of Significance. Permit Requirements. This section provides a permit exemption ‘for development, including demolition, subdivision and consolidation’, and then lists buildings not included in the exemption. The section also exempts any permit application from the requirements of the Council’s Cultural Heritage policy. The Panel considers that subdivision should not be included in the permit exemption, and that the permit exemption for removal of plant and equipment from the Table 1 buildings should be checked to ensure there is no plant or equipment of heritage significance or interest, and whether the plant or equipment would fall within the definition of building - service installation for example. The Panel in its consideration of the Sugar Australia submission at Section 14.2.11 has also commented that Table 1 should be amended to include the Drier Station (building 1), the Refined Sugar Store(building 6), and the Carbonation Station (building 18), if they all still exist. Exemption from Notice and Review.
The Incorporated Plan then includes sections relating to Policy Objectives, Exercising Discretion and Decision Guidelines. These sections have been included because there is no Industrial Heritage Policy proposed in the amendment. Ms Quigley suggested that any future amendment that introduces an Industrial Heritage Policy into the planning scheme could delete the redundant policy objectives, and decision guidelines from the incorporated plan.
The Panel notes that the only reference to an incorporated plan in the Heritage Overlay provisions (apart from the schedule) is in Clause 43.01-2 that provides permit exemptions. The Panel therefore takes the view that the role of an incorporated plan is to provide permit exemptions, and not to guide decision making in relation to permit applications. However, in view of the fact that the amendment does not include appropriate policy provisions that will guide decision making in relation to industrial properties, (and no guidance or direction is provided on the form or use of an incorporated plan) the Panel considers it is reasonable to include temporary policy provisions in an incorporated plan until such time as an Industrial Heritage Policy is introduced into the planning scheme.
Finally, the incorporated plan has a section that states that the plan will cease to apply if the refinery operations cease on the land. The Panel supports inclusion of this statement but considers that the sentence should refer to ‘sugar’ refinery operation.
Overall, the Panel is satisfied that the form of the incorporated plan in this particular case is appropriate. The Orica/Mt Lyell site Incorporated Plan follows much the same format as the Sugar Australia Plan, and much the same comments of the Panel apply. In particular, the Panel comments that: It is unnecessary to include reference to exemption from the provisions of Clause 22.11-1 in the purpose of the incorporated plan, in view of the overriding permit exemption. There should be no permit exemption for subdivision of land. The permit exemptions for the nominated buildings should include more specific provisions relating to remedial treatment of corroded or contaminated elements. The Panel considers that current wording could allow for complete demolition of the nominated buildings without a permit.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 62
The incorporated plan should include reference to the bluestone paving and retaining walls included in the description of the site in the Allom Lovell conservation assessment of the site.
The Panel accepts Ms Quigley’s recommendation that the Incorporated Plans for the Sugar Australia site (if required) and the Orica site, with amendments suggested by the Panel, should be included as part of Amendment C31. Other incorporated plans recommended by the Panel should prepared in consultation with the property owners and included in the planning scheme as soon as possible.
The Panel, in Section 13, has recommended creation of an industrial heritage precinct covering the Yarraville industrial area along the Maribyrnong River. Should an industrial heritage precinct be introduced in a later planning scheme amendment, the incorporated plans relating to the Sugar Australia and Orica sites will need to be amended. The Panel recommends: That where heritage significance or interest of an industrial site has been established, the Heritage Overlay should normally be applied to the whole of the site and permit exemptions provided in relation to the non-significant parts of the site by way of an incorporated plan. That the draft Incorporated Plans prepared for the Sugar Australia site and Mt Lyell site should be amended as recommended by the Panel. That the amended Mt Lyell Incorporated Plan should be included in the planning scheme as part of Amendment C31. That the amended Sugar Australia Incorporated Plan should be included in the planning scheme as part of Amendment C31, in the event that the Sugar Australia site is not to be listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. That the recommended Incorporated Plans for other sites in the municipality be prepared in consultation with the owners of the land and included in the planning scheme as soon as possible. That once appropriate industrial heritage policies are included in planning scheme amendment, deletion of the redundant policy objectives, and decision guidelines in the Mt Lyell site and Sugar Australia site incorporated plans should also be included in the amendment.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 63
12. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
A number of general issues on industrial sites have been raised in submissions and the Panel considers that these need to be discussed separately from the discussion regarding individual sites. These issues are as follows: the importance of continuity of use to the heritage significance of some sites; evolving industrial processes, and the importance of the evolutionary process to future heritage significance; the need for certainty; problems associated with contaminated sites, and unsafe and redundant buildings.
12.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUITY OF USE TO THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOME SITES
Many industrial sites have gained their importance from the ongoing use that has occurred on that site. If that use should cease, then so some of the value of the site would also be lost. Industrial sites rely on more than just architectural importance to demonstrate their heritage significance. The interest of an industrial site may lie in the history of its development, the technical processes used and the evolution of those processes, and the type of buildings used to house the industrial processes. Furthermore, the historic interest of an industrial site may come from the progression of uses that have occurred on the site and the interrelationship with other industries in the immediate area.
The Burra Charter states that use is of value but with industrial sites it often is critical.
Interpretation and understanding of an industrial site may also be quite difficult once a significant use has ceased, and the building fabric and equipment no longer exists or is no longer functioning.
For example looking at the CSR site, the Heritage Review states that: CSR is of national historic and architectural significance as a unique example of the high point of late nineteenth century industrial design, and one of the largest factories of the second half of the nineteenth century left in Australia. It is the oldest surviving sugar refinery, and the last intact of a series built in the period 1870 to 1980.
If Sugar Australia were to close their business on this site, then most of the equipment would probably be lost when Sugar Australia vacated the site (unless another sugar refiner took over the site) or when the new owner started another industrial use. It can also be assumed that a number of structures on the site would also be removed during this change over process.
The Panel takes the view that the best use for industry specific heritage sites is continuance of the industrial use – that is ‘conservation by use’. This implies that certain concessions may need to be made in order to facilitate ongoing industrial use and to take into account the economic realities governing industry in the 21st century.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 64 12.2 EVOLVING INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS TO FUTURE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
Industrial processes go through many changes over time. These changes occur as a result of improvements in design, processes, and technology and are driven by economic factors relating to ongoing business viability. From a heritage point of view, it’s often the historic equipment that is of interest as it directly demonstrates the process that has significance. However, for industry to survive in a business world, changes in industrial processes may be required. These changes may involve not only the technology used but changes in the space required. Change may involve substantial shrinking of the space required to undertake industrial processes and this is often reflected in large complexes by a number of redundant buildings.
Change is also part of the evolutionary process of industry and can become part of the future heritage of the site. Thus the changes that occur on a site have potential future heritage value.
The Panel is concerned that the current assessment process tends to focus on the past and does not acknowledge the importance of the evolutionary process to future heritage significance.
12.3 THE NEED FOR CERTAINTY
Operating industries must be able to plan with a degree of certainty. Considerable delays can occur in the process of applying for permits under a Heritage Overlay, particularly where there are no clear guidelines in a policy in relation to the sort of development that may be allowed. Operating industries need to be able to carry out works such as maintenance, critical equipment repairs or compliance with occupational health and safety requirements without the delays often associated with the permit application process.
Clear guidelines are needed in relation to development that is likely to be favourably considered by the Council. Furthermore, appropriate permit exemptions through use of an incorporated plan can provide industries with a greater degree of certainty. Some draft incorporated plans have been provided as part of submissions to the Panel. The Panel considers that where possible incorporated plans that provide appropriate permit exemptions should be included as part of the amendment, and that other incorporated plans should be developed in consultation with property owners for inclusion in the planning scheme at a later stage.
The Panel was very concerned to learn that Incorporated Plans recommended by the Hobsons Bay Amendment C17 panel are still not in place. The Panel considers that the process of development of incorporated plans should occur as expeditiously as possible in order to allow industrial property owners affected by the Heritage Overlay to efficiently plan and manage their sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 65 12.4 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTAMINATED SITES, AND UNSAFE AND REDUNDANT BUILDINGS
Industrial sites are often highly contaminated, particularly sites which have been operating over a considerable period of time and have involved significant chemical use during that period. Owners have responsibilities under occupational health and safety regulations to provide a safe working environment for their workers. Furthermore, there are rigid requirements under the Environment Protection Act with respect to contaminated land and discharge of contaminants to the air, land or waterways. Contamination issues are an ongoing liability to industrial property owners unless the sites can be cleaned sufficiently to enable the issuing of a certificate of environmental audit. This certificate enables the land to be used for a future beneficial use.
The costs for contamination land cleanup can be significant - often running into tens of millions of dollars for full cleanups. Furthermore, contamination is often throughout the buildings and the soil, and may extend significant distances from the source of the contamination. This means that often equipment and buildings that are of heritage significance are also contaminated and cannot continue to be used or need to be demolished for health and safety reasons.
In addition to issues associated with contaminated sites, the ongoing and changing nature of industrial processes means that many sites contain redundant, or older and often unsafe buildings. The costs associated with maintaining redundant buildings can have an effect on the viability of some businesses.
Whilst the heritage value of industrial sites needs to be decided without regard to these issues, an industrial heritage policy is required that acknowledges the need to take these issues into account in the process of deciding whether a permit should be issued for demolition of a building, or for alterations that address safety and other operational issues.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 66
13. YARRAVILLE INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT.
The outstanding submissions made on behalf of the various industrial property owners (particularly of 221 Whitehall St, 265 Whitehall St, and 295 Whitehall St.) and the Living Museum of the West provided valuable information and insight into the historical development of western suburbs industries and their impact on Melbourne and the nation. The historical reasons for establishing trades on this side of the Yarra, the interrelationships between developing industries, and the importance of wharf facilities are considered a particularly significant base for the proposed Heritage Overlays. There appears no doubt that the Yarraville riverside area had importance in shaping the municipality’s character - in both physical and cultural terms. The Living Museum of the West also submitted that the bluestone heritage of Melbourne also had its roots in the quarries and masons’ yards of Yarraville.
The Living Museum of the West further submitted: … To have the opportunity to learn about the place where you live, to be able to make sense of your environment, is part of the process of belonging, part of the quest for identity.
The Panel considers that such a view could stand at the core of any rationale for heritage conservation. The Panel also accepts the Museum’s proposition that scale and linkages between sites are issues posing ‘… challenges and opportunities’ but are nonetheless matters of relevance.
In all discussion of (particularly) the Yarraville riverside properties the Panel is concerned that consideration tended to focus on individual buildings within each property. The Panel accepts evidence that some buildings may have interest on account of their construction type, architecture, contribution to industrial process, or age. In respect to the properties of the Yarraville riverside area contained in the Heritage Overlay, the Panel is less satisfied that submissions dealt with the significance of the precinct as a whole. Historical sites, archaeological sites, building remnants, internal roads, infrastructure works, and landscape features were not identified as components of a larger entity. The Panel is also concerned that a number of buildings (including buildings and installations constructed after 1945) were not adequately considered in terms of their contribution to the heritage of companies, industries, the precinct and the community.
The Panel takes the view that Heritage Overlay protection only of buildings of interest for construction type, architecture, contribution to industrial process, or age substantially understate the actual archaeological, historical, and cultural heritage value of the area. On the other hand the Panel understood owner’s concerns that ongoing operations or future development may be affected by future decisions under the Heritage Overlays. Nonetheless, at this identification stage, the Panel is firmly of the view that issues of heritage value are the principal matters for consideration and that any calibration of control, dispensation, permit exemption, management planning, etc. can properly be addressed after the question of interest is established.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 67
In these circumstances the Panel strongly recommends that the area bounded by Francis Street to the South, the River to the East, Whitehall Street (to Lyons Street) and Moreland Street in the West, and Napier Street to the North, be reassessed by the Council with a view to defining a Yarraville Industrial Heritage Precinct that identifies: contributory buildings; non contributory buildings; historical sites; archaeological sites; building remnants; internal roads; industrial installations and infrastructure works; and landscape features.
The industrial heritage precinct could be in two parts, one part to the north of Lyons Street that recognises that the area is to have an arts, entertainment, leisure and tourist focus in the future, and another part south of Lyons Street that recognises the areas core industrial role.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 68
14. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
14.1 SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO HERITAGE AREAS
14.1.1 HO2, BALLARAT/GEELONG ROAD RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 10)
Submission 10, by the Victoria University of Technology (VUT) relates to 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Geelong Road, Footscray. The planning scheme maps also appear to include 2 David Street in the overlay. However, the list of contributory places in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review does not include 2 David Street, and inclusion of this property in the overlay appears to be a mapping error.
The six properties that front Geelong Road are separated from the rest of the heritage area by the width of Geelong Road, a park, and properties fronting the east side of Nicholson Street (a distance of approximately 100 metres and more). Numbers 6-14 Geelong Road form part of the VUT Footscray Park campus, and the university has plans to acquire 2 Geelong Road. Adjoining the rear of all these properties is a VUT car park.
Whilst the Footscray Conservation Study identified the Geelong Road properties as significant and proposed to include them in the Footscray urban conservation area, Amendment L48 to the Footscray Planning Scheme did not include them in the heritage controls (and thus they were not included in the Heritage Overlay in the new format scheme). Amendment C31 now proposes to add these properties to the Heritage Overlay.
VUT is a major facility in the Footscray area and the western region. The Footscray Park campus occupies land on the north side of Ballarat Road to the west of Footscray Park, and has spread across Ballarat Road to occupy land between Geelong Road and Tierney Street. VUT is identified as a Specialised Activity Centre in Melbourne 2030. Furthermore, the Council recognises the important role VUT has to play in the future development of the municipality and reference to VUT in Council’s MSS includes: identification of the VUT land on both sides of Ballarat Road as a ‘special use’ in the Physical Framework Plan; reference to setting aside adequate land for the development of VUT in the Cultural/social objectives in Clause 21.04-4; reference to encouraging expansion of VUT in the framework plan at Clause 21.04-7.
Professor Harman, the university Vice-Chancellor and President, described to the Panel the role of the Footscray Park Campus as the hub of VUT. She also referred to the enormous rate of growth at the university and the urgent need for future development at the campus in order to meet the university’s obligations under its charter. The Panel was told that a draft masterplan has been developed for the campus and that this masterplan proposes removal of all existing buildings on the VUT land south of Ballarat Road and construction of a new Chancellery Building, a University Hall and a new Campus reception with associated car
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 69 parking. Mr Connor on behalf of VUT argued that the proposed Heritage Overlay over the VUT land could frustrate the university’s plans for future development in accordance with the draft masterplan, and the strategic objectives of Melbourne 2030 and Council’s MSS.
The issue of balancing potentially conflicting planning objectives at the amendment stage has been raised in a number of submissions. This issue is discussed in detail in Section 8 and the Panel reiterates the conclusion of the Ballarat C58 panel that: ..... the Heritage Overlay should be applied to places of identified heritage significance without reference to the effect this may have on other planning objectives.
However, the Panel agrees with Mr Connor, that application of a Heritage Overlay to these properties should be justified by ‘very compelling and rigorously defensible’ reasons.
The properties included in HO2 are regarded as significant as examples of housing of the Footscray elite. Mr Butler described the area as: Originally set in spacious landscaped grounds along Geelong and Ballarat Roads, facing parklands and on the top of a rise, the houses contrast with the small weatherboard houses to the south, representing well the close juxtaposition of middle and working class residences.
Mr Raworth commented in his evidence that: Of the six buildings in this section of the proposed heritage overlay, three can be seen to be clearly non-contributory, being 6, 12 and 14 Geelong Road.
In Mr Raworth’s opinion the contribution by the Geelong Road properties to the overall HO2 heritage area is ‘modest at best ..... It is a disparate group containing some buildings of interest but without a consistent architectural character.’ Mr Raworth commented that the properties are physically isolated from the main part of the precinct (the Ballarat Road properties) and are not legible as part of it. Furthermore, the building group is too small and contains too many non-contributory buildings (50%) to warrant protection as a stand alone heritage area.
Mr Raworth further commented that: The group has suffered to a large extent from the loss of its former residential context. The buildings are now situated in a precinct dominated by the University and its more substantial building stock. They address a major highway. Many of the garden areas associated with the original dwellings have been converted into car parks and the group has generally been the subject of alterations and additions required to facilitate their current institutional use and adverse impacts on their integrity.
In other words, the context and early residential character of the buildings have been lost, and the area now presents as an institutional group of buildings on a major highway site.
The Panel agrees with Mr Raworth’s assessment that the Geelong Road properties are too remote from the rest of precinct to be included as part of that heritage area. The Panel also agrees that the group of buildings is too small and contains too many non-contributory buildings to warrant protection as a stand alone heritage area. The Panel has then given consideration to whether some or all of the buildings warrant heritage protection as individual sites.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 70
2 Geelong Road, at the corner of Ballarat Road, is zoned Public Use and there is a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO1) over a strip of land along the Ballarat Road frontage. This land is reserved for road widening by VicRoads and once the land is acquired the road reserve will be only 1 metre from the building on the land.
The house was designed by architects Gibbs & Finlay for Sydney Richardson, a prominent Footscray industrialist. Mr Butler described the building as an English Domestic Bungalow style house that has ‘suffered unrelated but minor additions, mainly confined to the Geelong Road elevation’. There is also an extensive concrete paved car park within the building’s grounds that visually impacts on the building’s setting. Mr Raworth describes the house as a ‘relatively fine, albeit much altered, example of its type and style’.
Mr Butler, in his evidence to the Panel, provided a statement of significance for 2, 8 and 10 Geelong Road.
2 Geelong Road is described as historically and aesthetically significant because: the house is associated with a prominent Footscray industrialist, Sydney Richardson (Criterion H1); its construction for a local industry leader reflects the rapid growth of industry and their firm in the Edwardian-era (Criterion A4); it is a simple, relatively large example within the City of the transition from the Queen Anne to the Californian Bungalow style (Criterion E1); it forms part of a distinctive group within the City which is expressive of the desired location for Footscray’s famous on the one hand and the stylistic progression this took over the Victorian & Edwardian-eras (Criterion A3).
However, the Panel considers that: the degree of alteration to the building and its setting; inclusion of the land in PUZ2 and the intention of VUT to acquire the property; and the future impact of the road widening along Ballarat Road by VicRoads; all combine to compromise the heritage interest of the place and realistic expectations for its future conservation.
The Panel therefore concludes that it is not appropriate to include 2 Geelong Road in the Heritage Overlay.
6 Geelong Road is a 1930s 2-storey block of flats built on land subdivided from the grounds of 8 Geelong Road. This property is zoned Public Use and whilst the building is listed as contributory to the precinct in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review, it was not described by Mr Butler as one of the individually significant buildings.
The Panel therefore concludes that it is not appropriate to include 6 Geelong Road in the Heritage Overlay.
8 Geelong Road is a substantial brick Federation style house built for a prominent local draper, John Robertson. The building is described by Mr Raworth as ‘a reasonably generic Arts & Crafts villa of a type found regularly throughout the inner suburbs of Melbourne’. The house is substantially intact, but with some external alterations. The property is also included in a Public Use Zone.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 71
The statement of significance provided by Mr Butler described the dwelling as historically and aesthetically significant because: the house is, architecturally, an adept and one of the best executed designs in the Queen Anne villa manner judged within the City (Criterion E1); of its historical association with one of Footscray’s more famous commercial figures, John Robertson (Criterion H1); of its owner’s association with the development of industrial relations in the City when Footscray led the State in obtaining uniformly more adequate working conditions (Criterion A4); and of its contributory role within a notable group of houses built by prominent persons, both within Footscray and the State during a number of key eras in the City’s history (Criterion A3).
However, the Panel considers that: the degree of alteration to the building and its setting has limited its ability to satisfy Criterion E1; the association with Robertson (and the association of 10 Geelong Road with Hooper) is of limited interest and the building therefore has little ability to satisfy Criterion H1; whilst the building may provide some understanding of the social history of Footscray, this association is not of sufficient interest to satisfy Criterion A4 – the group of houses in Ballarat Road does this far better; and the building does not satisfy Criterion A3.
The Panel therefore concludes that there is insufficient reason to include 8 Geelong Road in the Heritage Overlay.
10 Geelong Road is a substantial brick Italianate suburban villa built for J H Hooper, partner to John Robertson. The dwelling has been altered by reconstruction of the verandah and external painting. Furthermore, an extensive and incompatible building has been erected on the land towards the rear of the house, and there are intrusive concrete car parking areas in the grounds.
Mr Butler placed emphasis on the fact that the dwelling was once the home of Charles Hoadley, an early Antarctic explorer, the first principal of Footscray Technical School from 1916-1947, and Victorian Chief Commissioner of Scouts from 1927-1937.
The statement of significance provided by Mr Butler described the dwelling as historically significant because: it was the home of prominent persons in the history of Australia and the City, particularly Hoadley who was known nationally and Hooper whose business once reached most parts of Victoria and whose name is foremost among Footscray’s 19th and early 20th century commercial figures (Criterion H1); of its contributory role within a notable group of houses built by prominent persons, both within Footscray and the State, during a number of key eras in the City’s history (Criterion A3); its owner’s association with the development of commerce and industry in the City when the Footscray municipality led the State in industrial development.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 72
The Panel does not consider that the building satisfies Criterion A3. Mr Butler’s assessment appears to place most importance on the association with Charles Hoadley (and the Panel considers that the association with J H Hooper is of limited interest).
Criterion H1 is: Importance for close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant within the history of the nation, State or region.
The Application Guidelines for the Criteria for the Register of the National Estate state in relation to Criterion H1 that: The association should be with the person’s productive life only, unless there are few other places available which illustrate the person’s contribution, or unless their formative or declining years are of particular importance to their contribution. This applies to birthplaces and graves as well.
The house at 10 Geelong Road is a substantial, but generic Italianate villa that tells little about the productive life of Charles Hoadley. Mr Butler argued that the conservative architecture of the dwelling, the dwelling’s location in a prestige area, and the size of the dwelling tells a lot about the character of Hoadley. However, the Panel does not consider that the dwelling tells us anything about the ‘productive’ life of the man. It considers that the early Footscray Technical School buildings that date from his time as principal (if they still exist), and Hoadley Hide at Gilwell Park will tell far more about the productive life of Charles Hoadley.
The Panel therefore concludes that insufficient reason has been provided to include 10 Geelong Road in the Heritage Overlay.
The smaller Victorian cottages at 12 and 14 Geelong Road have been substantially altered and are not described as individually significant by Mr Butler.
The Panel therefore concludes that it is not appropriate to include 12 and 14 Geelong Road in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel recommends that 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Geelong Road, Footscray and 2 David Street, Footscray be deleted from HO2 of the Heritage Overlay.
14.1.2 HO4 FOOTSCRAY RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSIONS 19 AND 23)
Submission 19 relates to 39 and 41 Moore Street, Footscray. The dwelling at 39 Moore Street was built around 1890, but has been substantially altered. The dwelling at 41 Moore Street was demolished some 10 years ago. Dwellings at both 39 and 41 Moore Street are listed as contributory in volume 5 of the Heritage Review. Mr Ventrice appeared before the Panel on behalf of his father, and expressed concern that the Heritage Overlay would devalue the properties and make it difficult to redevelop them. He told the Panel that his father wishes to demolish the dwelling at 39 Moore Street and to redevelop the two sites with a larger house.
Mr Butler, in his evidence commented that whilst the dwelling at 39 Moore Street has been substantially altered: ..... the house was identified as having some contribution to the Heritage Overlay because of its simple verandahed and weatherboard cottage form.
and that
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 73
Redevelopment of the property will be subject to a permit application that might demonstrate that the replacement building has a similar contribution in terms of the small scale Victorian-era cottage form.
Council, in its submission argued that: The properties are located on a corner site at the southern end of the Footscray Residential Heritage Area. The exclusion of both 39 & 41 Moore Street will affect the heritage overlay on contributory buildings to the south, at 43 and 45 Moore Street, and potentially to the west on the opposite side of Moore Street.
Heritage controls over the Moore Street properties were introduced into the Footscray Planning Scheme in 1993, and were translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme as HO11.
The Panel inspected the dwelling at 39 Moore Street and concluded that it no longer performs the role of a contributory building because of the degree of alteration to the external fabric. The Panel therefore considers that 39 and 41 Moore Street should be deleted from the list of contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review. However, the Panel agrees that the two properties should remain in the Heritage Overlay area in order to ensure that new development on the two sites does not affect the significance of the heritage area.
The Panel has discussed the guidance provided in relation to new development in the Cultural Heritage Policy in Section 9 and use of an Incorporated Plan in relation to permit exemptions in Section 11.
Dr Robert Benson made a verbal submission to the Panel in relation to 56 and 58 Nicholson Street. These two properties, together with 60 and 55-61 Nicholson Street have been cut off from the rest of the Footscray residential heritage area by construction of a ring road around the Footscray Shopping Centre. These properties are now included in a Business 2 Zone and the RACV site 3 doors away is planned to be redeveloped with 5 and 6 storey apartment housing and ground level shops. Dr Benson told the Panel that he and his brother propose to redevelop their land as a 2-3 storey mixed residential and commercial development, in accordance with Council’s vision for the area.
Heritage controls over the Nicholson Street properties were introduced into the Footscray Planning Scheme in 1993, and were translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme as HO12.
Whilst Mr Butler did acknowledge that the Heritage Overlay would frustrate retail development of the sites south of the ring road, he commented that: Although some are altered, all of these houses are from either the primary period (Victorian-era and Edwardian-era) or the secondary contributory period of inter-war houses. There is no heritage reason to adjust the boundaries.
However, the Council in its submission commented that: It is Council’s view that the ring road acts to isolate and obscure the interpretation of the southern end of the precinct. That on this basis the heritage precinct should be modified to remove the seven properties south of the ring road from HO4.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 74
The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and concludes that 56-60 and 55-61 Nicholson Street should be removed from the Heritage Overlay. The Panel recommends that 39 and 41 Moore Street be deleted from the list of contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review.
The Panel recommends that 56-60 and 55-61 Nicholson Street, Footscray be deleted from HO4 of the Heritage Overlay.
14.1.3 HO5 MUNITION WORKER’S HOUSING HERITAGE AREA, BRAYBROOK (SUBMISSIONS 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 56, 57, 58)
Submittors argued that application of a Heritage Overlay to the estate would reduce property values, prevent redevelopment of sites and introduce restrictive permit requirements for essential repairs and minor cosmetic changes. Other submittors argued that the houses in the estate have no architectural merit that is worthy of protection and that many of the houses in the estate have already been altered and are not in original condition. Concern was also expressed that the amendment would impose a cost burden on a low income community.
Councillor Cutri told the Panel that whilst he regards the estate as an area of heritage significance, he considers that the Heritage Overlay should be confined to the most intact parts of the estate, and that properties at the southern and northern ends should be deleted from the controls.
The Panel notes that the relatively large number of submissions in relation to this heritage area is likely to be due to the fact that heritage controls have not applied to this area in the past.
The citation in volume 4 of the Heritage Review (and Mr Butler’s evidence to the hearing) provided a very comprehensive history of the estate. The history in the citation states that: These houses were built in 1942 by the Commonwealth Government, to house workers employed in the munitions industry in the Maribyrnong-Footscray area, the largest concentration of defence production establishments in the whole of Australia...... By the 1940s there were several thousand workers employed in the Ammunition, Explosives and Ordnance Factories, and other related industries. Particularly during World War Two, the need for mobilising a vast civil workforce, concentrated in a small area, put extra pressures on local services, and particularly housing. In an attempt to deal with this, the Commonwealth Government purchased land just outside of Footscray for housing for munitions workers. Altogether 235 houses were constructed ..... The design of the estate was in part contributed to by Melbourne University architecture students.
Ms Ford on behalf of Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West also referred to the significance of the worker’s housing estate, and commented that: To present owners, their homes may not seem ‘historic’, but they are part of a dramatic time in Australia’s history. With the disappearance of the factories that were so important in that war effort, the munition workers’ housing takes on new significance.
Ms Ford also provided the Panel with a bundle of fascinating reports and other correspondence from the National Archives of Australia in relation to the construction of, and conditions at, the housing estate.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 75
A small section of the housing estate is located on the west side of Duke Street in the City of Brimbank. However, the largest part of the estate is east of Duke Street, in the City of Maribyrnong. Furthermore, both parts of the estate are recommended for inclusion in a Heritage Overlay in municipal heritage studies.
The estate is characterised by curving street forms and culs-de-sac, single storey semi- detached brick housing with terracotta tiled roofs and timber framed windows, consistent boundary setbacks, garages located at the rear of the allotments, and low or no front fences.
The statement of significance in the citation states that the precinct is historically and technically significant because: it is part of a Federal Government-initiated housing scheme for workers in the munitions industry in the Maribyrnong-Footscray area, then the largest concentration of defence production establishments in Australia, when World War Two began, as exemplified by the high integrity of the estate with its uniformity of house design, siting, lot layout, early landscape and concrete road construction (Criterion A4, B2). it was among the first major Commonwealth war housing schemes to be undertaken and was one of the few large-scale housing schemes undertaken in Victoria during World War Two (Criterion B2). it is a good exemplar of contemporary mass house planning and estate layout principles, as indicated by the provision of parklands, curvilinear street patterns street trees and culs-de-sac (Criterion F1).
In response to submissions, Ms O’Keeffe and Council’s Heritage Advisor – Bernadette DeCorte inspected the estate and found that: only one dwelling on the 138 properties within the estate has been demolished and replaced with a new dwelling; whilst there have been minor alterations to porches, fences and windows, there has been little change to the overall fabric of the estate; views to the housing from the street demonstrate a high degree of intactness and clear visual boundaries of the estate from surrounding housing developments.
The Panel, during its inspection of the estate was also impressed by the distinctive visual character of the estate, the high degree of intactness of the housing fabric, and the very obvious demonstration of avant guard town planning principles of the early 1940s provided by the estate.
The Panel is satisfied that the workers’ housing estate satisfies AHC criterion A4, and to a lessor extent criteria B2 and F1. However, the Panel believes that compliance with criterion A4 is sufficient to justify application of a Heritage Overlay to the estate.
In response to suggestions that only specific parts of the estate should be protected Mr Butler commented that: The statement of significance states that the entity represented by this estate is significant not the parts...... Because the estate is a significant entity, the proposal to divide it into representative parts will defeat preservation of its significance.
The Panel agrees with that assessment.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 76
The Panel concludes that the Heritage Overlay should be applied to the whole of the Braybrook Munition Workers Housing Estate.
The Panel notes the concerns expressed by submittors in relation to restrictive permit requirements for essential repairs and minor cosmetic changes, and the cost burden that may accompany the permit requirement for minor buildings and works. The Panel shares those concerns and has discussed this issue in Section 9.
14.1.4 HO8 QUEENSVILLE ESTATE HERITAGE AREA, KINGSVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 5, 6, 37, 42, 43)
The Heritage controls over the Queensville estate, that were introduced into the Footscray Planning Scheme in 1993 and translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme as HO3, covered only a small representative part of the estate. Application of heritage controls over streets containing the submittor’s properties were first proposed by Amendment C31.
Issues raised by submittors include: That existing buildings at 4-6 Wales Street and 164 Williamstown Road do not contribute to the heritage significance of the area and should be excluded from the overlay. That the property at 96 Williamstown Road has been purchased for extension to the adjoining petrol filling station with a car wash. That the area around 13 Coronation Street has been substantially altered through demolition and redevelopment and does not warrant heritage protection. That the existing dwelling at 38 Coronation Street is in poor condition.
The statement of significance in the citation states that the estate is historically and aesthetically significant because: the precinct provides a distinctive physical expression of two important eras of residential speculation and growth in the area, the 1880s land boom and the post WW1 residential building surge, one overlaid on the other expressed by: - timber Edwardian and Post First War era single storey detached housing on small and consistent lot frontages; - long narrow streets on a grid-iron layout; - dominance of the gabled roof form; - some surviving early asphalt footpaths and stone kerb and channel; and - the pre-motor age, with no provision for on-site vehicle parking for most of the identified housing; (Criterion A4) the uniformity of building stock allows comprehension of the rapid rise of a community from paddocks in the post First war era (Criterion A4); the precinct growth period reflects the spread of tramways and the influence of new transport networks (Criterion A4); the precinct has strong visual cohesion arising from its relatively unaltered housing stock from the immediate post WW1 era, and the use of two basic house styles (Criterion E1); and of the visual effect of closely spaced mainly gabled Californian Bungalow forms on narrow 19th century lots is unusual in the metropolitan area compared to other Bungalow-era estates (Criterion B2).
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 77
The Panel inspected the estate and was impressed by the strength of the above features. The Panel supports extension of the overlay to the whole of the estate.
In relation to the submissions, the Panel notes that the properties at 4-6 Wales Street and 164 Williamstown Road are not listed as contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review. The Panel has discussed the guidance provided in relation to new development in the Cultural Heritage Policy in Section 9 and use of an Incorporated Plan in relation to demolition exemptions in Section 11.
The Panel further notes that the majority of lots in the Queensville Estate are less than 300 square metres in area, and a planning permit to construct or extend a dwelling is already required under the provisions of the Residential 1 Zone, and that the requirements of Clause 54 of the planning scheme will apply.
The Panel considers that 4-6 Wales Street and 164 Williamstown Road should remain in the Heritage Overlay area in order to ensure that any new development does not affect the significance of the heritage area.
The Council comment in relation to 38 Coronation Street was that the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit demolition or alterations to buildings and the poor condition of buildings is not an argument for deletion of a property from the overlay. The Council submitted that issues surrounding the condition of an existing building should be addressed when an application for a permit to demolish or alter a building is made. However, the Panel noted during its site inspections that the dwelling at 38 Coronation Street is not only in poor condition, but has also been substantially modified. The Panel considers that this building no longer performs the role of a contributory building because of the degree of alteration to the external fabric.
The Panel therefore considers that 38 Coronation Street should not be listed as a contributory building in the Heritage Review.
The Council commented in relation to 13 Coronation Street that whilst 50% of buildings at the northern end of Coronation Street are non-contributory, the estate is significant not only for its building stock but also as an example of a 1880s boom era subdivision. The Panel agrees with this assessment and supports Council’s view that the whole of the Queensville Estate should be included in the overlay, including the northern end of Coronation Street.
Mr Caleandro on behalf of Mr and Mrs Aloneftis described his client’s plans for future development of their petrol filling station at 88-94 Williamstown Road, and their plans for a car wash at 96 Williamstown Road. The existing petrol filling station at 88-94 Williamstown Road is not listed as a contributory building in the Heritage Review, but the dwelling at 96 Williamstown Road is listed as a contributory building. The petrol filling station and adjoining dwelling are zoned Residential 1, and a planning permit will be required under the zone provisions to alter the petrol filling station or to use 96 Williamstown Road as a car wash. As Council commented in its submission: ..... it is Council’s main aim to make sure that any new development relates to and respects the significance of the heritage area.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 78
The Panel noted during its inspection of the site and surrounding area that the dwelling at 96 Williamstown Road is in good condition and contributes to the heritage area.
The Panel therefore does not consider that 96 Williamstown Road should be deleted from the Heritage Overlay. Furthermore, the Panel considers that 88-94 Williamstown Road should remain within the in the Heritage Overlay area in order to ensure that any future development on the site does not affect the significance of the heritage area. The Panel recommends that 38 Coronation Street be deleted from the list of contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review.
14.1.5 HO9 SEDDON RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL HERITAGE AREA, SEDDON/YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 3, 14, 24, 25, 27. 44. 50, 53)
The heritage controls over this heritage area were introduced into the Footscray Planning Scheme in 1993, and were then translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. The only significant changes introduced by the proposed amendment are amalgamation of a number of heritage areas into HO9, and introduction of the Cultural Heritage policy to guide decision making.
The statement of significance in the citation for the heritage area includes as significant features: it is one of the best preserved of the City’s Edwardian residential enclaves and thus is expressive of this major growth era in the City’s history and the parallel development of better railway facilities as expressed by: - small Edwardian and Victorian period single-storey detached and some attached housing, with a dominance of weatherboard walling and corrugated iron roofing; - gable and hip roof form combination inherent in Edwardian housing; - some surviving early asphalt footpaths and stone kerb and channel; ..... (Criterion A4)
Issues raised by submittors include: That the heritage controls will restrict property rights, devalue properties and impose additional delays and costs. This issue is discussed by the Panel in Section 9. That controls relating to minor works such as external painting and front fences are unnecessary and will add to the cost of the works. The Panel notes that external paint controls are not proposed in HO9 and thus a permit will only be required to paint an unpainted surface (or if the painting is an advertising sign). The Panel has discussed in Section 11 use of an Incorporated Plan as a means of limiting the permit requirement for minor buildings and works. That dwellings at 17 Barnet Street, 27 Tongue Street and 85 Hamilton Street do not exhibit the significant features of the heritage area. 17 Barnet Street and 85 Hamilton Street are not listed as contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review. The Panel has discussed the guidance provided in relation to new development in the Cultural Heritage Policy in Section 9 and use of an Incorporated Plan in relation to demolition exemptions in Section 11.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 79
The dwelling at 27 Tongue Street has been listed as contributory in the Heritage Review. The Panel inspected Tongue Street during its site inspections and agrees with the assessment that 27 Tongue Street is a contributory building. That Hyde Street and Nicholson Street do not warrant inclusion in the heritage area. This submission relates more specifically to 320 Nicholson Street that is part of a small group of contributory buildings on the west side of Nicholson Street. The Panel agrees that these properties contribute to the heritage area and should be included in the overlay. That the overlay will prevent the owner of 40 Princess Street from demolishing and redeveloping the existing dwelling. Princess Street is described in area’s citation as one of the more intact residential streets in the heritage area that is ‘dominantly Edwardian in period expression’. 40 Princess Street is also listed as a contributory building. However, the Council response to the submission was: The dwelling at 40 Princess Street is constructed after the inter war period and as such is not considered contributory to the heritage significance of the Seddon Residential & Commercial Heritage Area. If an application was made to demolish the property demolition is likely to be supported by a planning application process. The Panel confirmed during its inspections that the dwelling is a 1960s single storey weatherboard house that is not contributory to the period of significance for the heritage area. The Panel therefore considers that 40 Princess Street should be deleted from the list of contributory buildings for the heritage area. The Panel has discussed the guidance provided in relation to new development in the Cultural Heritage Policy in Section 9 and use of an Incorporated Plan in relation to demolition exemptions in Section 11. That the heritage controls will not achieve the outcome proposed and that subdivision control would be more effective. The Panel does not agree with the submission that subdivision controls would be a more effective tool to protect the heritage significance of the area. That the proposed heritage controls will encourage reproduction architecture, and will stifle good creative design. This issue is discussed by the Panel in Section 9 in relation to the Cultural Heritage policy.
VicTrack, in submission 50 raised concern that the overlay, where it covers railway land, may inhibit use of railway land. Council has agreed to redraw the heritage overlay to exclude the railway line and associated land from the heritage precincts.
Similar concerns have been raised by VicTrack in relation to the impact on railway land within HO14, the Yarraville Civic and Commercial heritage area, and Council has agreed to exclude the railway land from this heritage area as well.
The Panel supports these amendments. The Panel recommends that: the Heritage Overlay be deleted from the railway land in HO9 and HO14; 40 Princess Street be deleted from the list of contributory buildings in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 80
14.1.6 HO12 WAR SERVICE HOMES HERITAGE AREA, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 18)
The submission relates to 1 Monash Street that is on the edge of the heritage area and is adjoined by a recent town house development on land that is outside the heritage area. The submittors argue that their house is in poor condition and is affected by the adjoining development and that the Heritage Overlay will affect their ability to demolish the existing dwelling and redevelop the site.
Heritage controls over the Monash Street heritage area were introduced into the Footscray Planning Scheme in 1993, and were translated into the new format Maribyrnong Planning Scheme as HO9. The dwelling at 1 Monash Street is identified as a contributory building to the heritage area in the Maribyrnong Heritage Review.
The citation in volume 5 of the Heritage Review describes the estate (the area bounded by Mitchell. Prince, Birdwood and Gordon Streets, and containing Monash Street) as a War Service Homes estate. Monash Street is identified as being the main focus of the estate, and of the 75 houses in the estate, 73 are considered to be contributory to expression of the inter- war housing period provided by the estate.
The statement of significance in the citation states that the estate as historically significant because: the War Service homes part of the precinct has a distinctive function related to events in the City and the State’s history, this being the city’s best example of such a war service estate (Criteria A4, B2). the precinct as a whole is expressive of the immediate post WW1 era and thus reflects an important era of growth in the City, with well preserved, if simple, examples of single storey detached Californian Bungalow and Mediterranean villa style weatherboard houses, with common front and side setbacks and originally fronted with wire fabric or low simple timber picket style fencing (Criterion A4).
The Panel is satisfied that the war service homes estate satisfies AHC criterion A4, and to a lessor extent criterion B2, and that compliance with criterion A4 is sufficient to justify application of a Heritage Overlay to the estate.
The Panel concludes that the Heritage Overlay should be applied to the whole of the War Service Homes Estate, including 1 Monash Street.
The Council’s response to the submission commented that: The condition of a house is not usually the basis for it being removed from the heritage overlay. However if the house is beyond repair, Council may support demolition of the house and its replacement with a new dwelling that respects the heritage significance of the estate.
The Panel notes that a permit can be issued for demolition of a building covered by a Heritage Overlay, and that any decision on whether a permit should be issued will be guided by, amongst other things, the decision guidelines at Clause 43.01-5 and the Cultural Heritage Policy at Clause 22.11 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. The Panel has discussed issues associated with the proposed Cultural Heritage Policy in Section 9.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 81
14.1.7 HO15 YARRAVILLE RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREA, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSIONS 32 AND 26)
Submission 32 relates to 71 and 73 Stephen Street, and to general aspects of the proposed heritage controls. In particular, the submittors argue that HO15 should not include the properties between Knox Street and Somerville Road, as the buildings have been substantially altered and do not reflect the characteristics of the heritage area.
Heritage controls over these Stephen Street properties were first proposed by Amendment C31.
71 and 73 Stephen Street are located on the east side of the street between Somerville Road (the northern boundary of the heritage area) and Knox Street. Of the 6 properties in this part of the street, only 73 and 75 Stephen Street have been identified as contributory buildings. Furthermore the land opposite, on the west side of Stephen Street between Somerville Road and Castlemaine Street is a former factory site that is currently vacant and which has been subdivided into 11 lots, five of which front Stephen Street.
In response to the submission the Council has taken into account the fact that only two buildings in this part of Stephen Street are contributory buildings. As this area is at the northern edge of the precinct the Council considers that it is reasonable to redraw the boundary to exclude the properties on the two sides of the street. The Council recommendation is to redraw the boundary of HO15 to exclude 69, 71, 73, 75, 77 and 79 Stephen Street and the former Embling’s factory site on the west side of Stephen Street.
On the other hand Mr Butler argued that the area is in a strategic location and that: The vacant Embling site sits at the intersection of three Heritage Overlays and is adjacent to one of the area’s most significant sites at 31-33 Somerville Road. Its development should be guided by the proximity to other heritage places under Cl 43 of the Heritage Overlay until a design and development overlay (DDO) can be formulated to regulate development in this part of the precinct.
31-33 Somerville Road contains a stone and timber dwelling built around 1859, which has been associated with a number of significant persons in the history of the area.
Whilst the Panel agrees with the Council recommendation, it also agrees with Mr Butler’s recommendation that a DDO should be developed for the former Embling’s factory site, and that the heritage overlay over the factory site should be retained until a DDO is applied to the land.
The Panel concludes that the 6 properties from 69-79 Stephen Street should be deleted from the Heritage Overlay, but that the overlay should be retained over the former Embling factory site on the west side of Stephen Street until an amendment to the planning scheme is approved that replaces the Heritage Overlay with a DDO that ensures that new development is compatible with the heritage character of adjoining properties.
Other issues raised by the submittors include: That the existing planning scheme provisions are sufficient to protect the character of the heritage area.
The Panel does not agree with the submittors. The Yarraville residential area has been identified as an area of heritage significance, rather than an area of heritage character.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 82
Heritage controls seek to conserve and manage places of heritage significance. One purpose of the Heritage Overlay is ‘To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places’, and in order to achieve that purpose the overlay includes a permit requirement to demolish or remove a building. On the other hand the existing residential zoning of the land does not provide control over demolition of buildings and therefore does not provide for the conservation of the significant heritage fabric of the area. That heritage controls will encourage mock Edwardian/Victorian development that will turn Yarraville into a theme park.
The issue of reproduction architecture is discussed in Section 9 in relation to the Cultural Heritage Policy. That reinstatement of timber picket fences in the area is incorrect.
The cultural heritage policy relating to Yarraville at Clause 22.11-15 identifies picket fences as the appropriate fencing style for the area. The policy is based in the recommendations of the Heritage Review, and the Council in its submission commented that the recommendation is consistent with literature on fencing from this period. The submittors have not provided any evidence in support of their claim and the Panel finds no reason to disagree with the Council’s consultants. That the overlay fails to reflect the migrant contribution to the evolution of buildings and the Yarraville township, and the working class history of the area.
The Panel agrees that the migrant contribution to the evolution of an area can be an important aspect of the area’s cultural heritage. However, the cultural significance Yarraville residential area has been identified as the Victorian and Edwardian era built fabric, which were ‘two major development period’s in the City’s history’. 16 This was not a major time of migrant settlement in the area. That the heritage controls will restrict property rights, devalue properties and impose additional delays and costs.
This issue is discussed in Section 9.
Submission 26 expressed concern that Council and State Government owned kindergarten and elderly persons units in Norfolk Street are not included in the overlay area, and argues that it is discriminatory that public owned land is excluded from the controls. However, these properties are on the southern border of the heritage precinct and do not belong to the significant period of development. The Panel agrees with the Council that it would inappropriate to include these properties in the overlay. The Panel recommends that: 69-79 Stephen Street be deleted from HO15 of the Heritage Overlay. the Heritage Overlay be retained over the former Embling factory site on the west side of Stephen Street, Yarraville until an amendment to the planning scheme is approved that replaces the Heritage Overlay with a DDO that ensures that new development is compatible with the heritage character of adjoining properties.
16 Jill Barnard et al, Maribyrnong Heritage Review, Vol. 5, 2001, p88.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 83 14.2 SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO INDUSTRIAL SITES
14.2.1 HO90, KINNEARS ROPEWORKS, BALLARAT ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 2)
The submitter’s original submission regarding this site changed due to the registration process for this site at Heritage Victoria. A letter dated 17th May 2004 was sent from the executive Director, Mr Ray Tonkin, Heritage Victoria to the owners notifying them that he has recommended that the whole of the site be included on the Victorian Heritage Register. The owners do not oppose this registration and have no argument with the proposed statement of significance for the site. There is a 60-day period where any interested party may make a written submission, or request a hearing before the Registrations Committee of the Heritage Council (ie about the 19th July). After that time the Heritage Council would then make its final determination regarding the site and any permit exemptions. For the interim period there are protection controls on the site that would be administered by Heritage Victoria.
Kinnear’s Ropeworks is recognised as the largest and most intact of a very small group of specialist industrial sites and is of historic, technical, social and aesthetic significance.
It is unlikely that the site will not be added to the register. However what could change is the permit exemptions that appear in the draft permit policy. The draft registration has included the whole of the site but defined which buildings are significant and has granted permit exemptions (including qualified possible demolition) for others. Once the site is on the Victorian Heritage Register then Heritage Victoria would become the permitting body for any future works. A permit would not be required under the Heritage Overlay if the extent of designation is the same as Heritage Victoria’s and heritage Victoria granted a permit.
The owners have prepared and submitted a Conversation Management Plan for the whole site.
Mr Gary Vines on behalf of Council commented that the difference between his approach and that of Ms Robin Riddett, the owner’s heritage consultant, is that he looks at complexes as a whole and not a series of individual buildings. He also was disappointed in the approach taken by Heritage Victoria in proposing an extent of designation that exempts some buildings and basically gives qualified approval for demolition.
Mr Finanzio, for the owner, then pointed out that the argument about building retention and future development was for another day and in another forum (i.e Heritage Victoria), the only decision at this stage was where the Heritage Overlay will drawn on this site.
In view of the very likely registration of the site to the Victorian Heritage Register the Panel considers that the extent of the Heritage Overlay should match that of the proposed Heritage Victoria registration.
The Panel recommends that HO90 be applied to the part of the Kinnear’s Ropeworks site proposed to be included on the Victorian Heritage Register, and that in the event of the site not being included on the Victorian Heritage Register, that an incorporated plan be prepared for the site, in consultation with the owners of the land, that provides permit exemptions for alterations to and demolition of the non-contributory parts of the site.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 84
14.2.2 HO118, PEERLESS HOLDINGS. 19-21 EVANS STREET, BRAYBROOK (SUBMISSION 8)
The Council’s industrial heritage consultant Mr Gary Vines had not inspected this site since a brief inspection in 1987. Following the engagement of Allom Lovell & Associates to prepare a heritage appraisal on behalf of the owner, a detailed site inspection was undertaken by Mr Vines. The historical significance of the site had been previously determined using documentary records and MMBW plans which indicated a factory on the site since the early 20th century or before.
The owners submitted: “the site is considered a minor example of an interwar factory. There is no early equipment or plant of technological significance on the site. The site is not of sufficient cultural significance to warrant the heritage overlay … there is little fabric which expresses the key period of significance of the site.” They also suggested several corrections of the citation for the site in the Heritage Review.
Mr Vines in an amended report stated that following his inspection of that site it was clear that there was limited fabric relating to the period of significance and combined with a review of the potential significance of the site it was determined that the site may not be appropriate for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay due to the condition and integrity of the buildings rather than a lack of heritage significance.
The Panel is satisfied after reading the Allom Lovell report and the amended report from Mr Vines that the site is not of sufficient interest to be included in a Heritage Overlay.
The Panel recommends that HO118 relating to the Pridham’s Peerless Holdings site at 19-21 Evans Street, Braybrook be deleted from the Heritage Overlay.
14.2.3 HO125, BRADMILL, 341-351 FRANCIS STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 9)
The former Davis Coop/Bradmill site comprises a large industrial complex with the majority of buildings constructed in the mid to late 1950s. The buildings on the site include a range of sawtooth roofed factory buildings and multistorey boiler house.
The statement of significance in the citation states that: The former Davis Coop/Bradmill site is of historical significance to the City of Maribyrnong as the largest textile manufacturer in the municipality (Criterion A4). It is also of architectural and aesthetic note for its scale and form in the predominantly industrial landscape of the West Footscray-Brooklyn area, the boiler house in particular standing out as a large and dominant local landmark (Criterion E1). The place is also of social/historic significance for its association with two major local companies, Davis Coop and Bradmill, each of which made a profound contribution to the development of industrial infrastructure in the district and consequently the prosperity of the municipality (Criterion D2). The Panel was informed by Mr Cicero that the Bradmill site was purchased by the De Lutis family in 2002, at a time when the Bradmill business was in the hands of receivers and about to close. However, in order for the business to remain financially viable the production processes will need to be streamlined, existing buildings will need to be altered and new buildings constructed. The current owners of the site are concerned that application of a Heritage Overlay to their site may:..... put in jeopardy the long term viability of the business and put at risk 360 staff currently employed at the business.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 85
The issue of the potential affect of the Heritage Overlay on the ability of businesses to adapt to new technology and standards, to introduce changes in processes, or to expand is discussed by the Panel in Section 12.
Allom Lovell & Associates were engaged to carry out a heritage appraisal of the site. The Allom Lovell report came to the conclusion that the site had no significance. However, Ms Riddett in her evidence did state: ..... it is acknowledged that the boiler house, elevator and associated elements have some degree of local landmark quality and their inclusion in the Heritage Overlay for this reason is not opposed.
After exhibition of the amendment Mr Vines was given an opportunity to inspect the site. In his evidence to the Panel Mr Vines commented that: Following the site visit it is now apparent that while the scale of the site is still a relevant factor in determining its historical significance, most of the building fabric is not of sufficient significance by way of form or age to warrant inclusion in the overlay...... The preliminary response to the submission is that the proposed heritage overlay can be reduced to apply to only the oldest buildings. The most significant parts appear to be: The boiler house at the rear of the site near the Westgate Freeway. The elevator and associated buildings. The saw-tooth roof/red brick factory in the southeast section of the site.
Mr Vines went on to comment that the canteen (which lies outside the reduced heritage overlay: ..... may be independently of architectural and historical significance for its design, possibly reflecting the zigzag motif of the Southern Cross and MMBW Brooklyn pumping station, and as an expression of the social and amenities facilities provided by the company in the 1960s.
Mr Vines recommended that the overlay be redrawn to ‘include only the significant buildings, with an appropriate curtilage’. The Council recommendation is to amend HO125 to include only the boiler house, coal loading elevator and associated structures and dye house.
Thus the only area in contention now between the two parties is inclusion of the former dye house in the overlay.
Mr Cicero commented that the Council’s case ‘appears to be based on the proposition that the oldest buildings should be the subject of a heritage overlay because they are just that, the oldest buildings’. He argued that the assessment carried out by Ms Riddett provided a more appropriate assessment of the cultural significance of the site and individual buildings.
The former dye house was constructed between 1953-54, at the same time as the boiler house. The original structure is a sawtoothed red brick building ‘with a substantial basement and tunnel area for the reticulation of liquid waste’. In 1969 and 1999 extensions were attached to the northern end of the dye house building.
Mr Vines in his evidence commented that the earliest buildings on the site are significant because they:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 86
..... reflect a transition phase in factory design, still featuring the large south-lit sawtooth roof design, but with trussed roofs able to span greater distances and so avoid the close column spacing of earlier buildings.
Ms Riddett noted that the plan form and fabric of the former dye house and proofing building are of conventional construction, and commented that: We have found no stylistic or technological features of the remainder of the site architecture (apart from the boiler house and elevator) which would make it special or which would elevate it above numerous other factory sites all over Melbourne. There is nothing in the buildings which is innovative, unique, of stylistic value or which demonstrates anything about the cotton industry other than perhaps the drain in the dyehouse which could be used for effluent disposal for a range of industries. They in themselves are not remarkable.
Furthermore the dye house contains no original machinery and has had two major fires since it was constructed.
The Panel has considered the assessment of the two consultants and considers that inclusion of the dye house in the overlay is appropriate.
The Panel considers that Ms Riddett’s approach of considering each building separately has the effect of ignoring the significance of the complex as a whole. Furthermore, the Panel considers that application of the Heritage Overlay to one small building in the corner of a large 38 hectare site diminishes the relevance of the overlay and ignores the context of the boiler house to the site as a whole. The Panel accepts Mr Vines assessment that the early buildings on the site are significant as an example of a transition phase in factory design and agrees that the dye house building should be included in the overlay.
In relation to the canteen building Ms Riddett commented: Although a conventional steel-framed structure, the architectural treatment of the building incorporates period stylistic elements which animate its appearance. These include the expression of the roof as a diamond gable infill with raked ceilings and the screened treatment to the west facade glazing incorporating stone, aluminium and concrete blocks, all of which are unremarkable and conventional for the period.
The Panel is not convinced by Ms Riddett’s submission that the canteen is nothing special, with no features of significance or aesthetic merit. The Panel is of the view that it may have architectural and social merit, and that this is indicated by its size and design. Furthermore, it may demonstrate the importance of social and amenity facilities provided for the staff by Bradmill in the 1960s.
The Panel considers that a further assessment should be carried out of the canteen building for inclusion in a later amendment.
Turning now to application of the Heritage Overlay to the Bradmill site. Ms Riddett commented that putting the whole 38 hectares of the Bradmill site in a Heritage Overlay is inappropriate. She argued that some aspects of industrial heritage are best recorded through interpretation and documentation rather than by retention of fabric, and that this is a matter for Heritage Victoria through the powers conferred by the Heritage Act 1995.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 87
The Panel, however, is concerned that applying the Heritage Overlay to small sections of a large complex can have the effect of deconstructing the site down to a point that is meaningless. Furthermore, the Panel has discussed in Section 11 the potential difficulties in defining the limits of a Heritage Overlay over part of a site, and notes in the Bradmill case that the northern extensions to the dye house building may be the cause of such a difficulty.
The Panel considers that it is more appropriate to retain the Heritage Overlay over the whole of the Bradmill site, and to develop an incorporated plan that provides permit exemptions in relation to the non-contributory parts of the site. The Panel recommends that: HO125 be retained over the whole of the Bradmill site; an incorporated plan be developed, in consultation with the owners of the land, that provides permit exemptions for the non-contributory buildings and works on the site and provides clear identification of the contributory buildings; the boiler house, elevator and associated buildings, and dye house be identified as the contributory buildings; that a further assessment be carried out of the canteen building for possible inclusion as a contributory building in the incorporated plan in a later amendment.
14.2.4 THE SAW-TOOTH ROOF/RED BRICK FACTORY IN THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE SITE HO128, GRAHAM CAMPBELL FERUM, 260 GEELONG ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 11)
The owners stated that the proposal appears to include two buildings on the site, the office building located at the front of the site and the factory building immediately behind it. They have no objection to the street facade of the office building being included but strongly object to the working factory being included. They submit that there is no historical interest in the factory and the original fabric has been changed many times over the years. They are also very concerned about the extra delays that would be caused by the application of a Heritage Overlay to an already lengthy planning process, and that an operating factory needs to be able to respond quickly to market demand. They further submitted that application of the Heritage Overlay conflicts with the objective of the maintaining existing businesses and further development of new businesses in the Industrial 1 Zone Land Use and Development Policy and that this is an unfair burden to be placed on local employers and the community.
Mr Vines stated that an internal inspection of the site had not been possible but that the external view was sufficient to see the main contributory elements. He then stated that the Heritage Overlay could be reduced to include only the significant buildings with an appropriate curtilage. These are the office building and the foundry shed.
The Panel agrees with the Heritage Review that the foundry is of historic importance as one of the oldest operating foundries with links to other industries. However the Panel is not convinced that the office building is part of a group of important Moderne style industrial complexes in this area and as such warrants the classification of AHC criterion D2. Evidence had not been presented to prove this statement and on page 86 of the Heritage Review it only states that this site is: One of a number of Moderne and other styled mid 20th century industrial complexes along Geelong Road and in the West Footscray/Brooklyn vicinity.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 88
No other evidence was presented to show that this was an important Moderne style industrial complex.
However, the Panel considers that the complex itself is of significance as it shows the connection between the office, the foundry and sheds; and demonstrates the industry and the type of work undertaken on the site. Separating individual buildings is not considered to be a suitable way to manage the site.
The Panel recommends that: HO128 be retained over the whole of the foundry site; and an incorporated plan be developed , in consultation with the owners of the land, for management of the site, including: - permit exemptions for minor buildings and works and demolition of non- contributory structures, and - identification of the contributory buildings as the office building and the foundry shed.
14.2.5 HO129, HOPKINS ODLUM, 268 GEELONG ROAD, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 12)
The submission from this owner was almost identical to that of Submission 11 – Graham Campbell Ferrum and was prepared by the same consultant Mr I Dickson of Powerhouse Projects. The owner objects to the overlay being applied to the factory building but has no objection to a Heritage Overlay over the street façade of the office building. The submission stated that there was no historic interest in the factory, that it had been substantially altered over the years and that the owners require unencumbered use of the property in order for the business to remain viable and on this site.
Mr Vines in his expert report agreed to a reduction in the exhibited overlay to include the office, the first bay of the saw tooth factory and the two-storey section north of the office. He stated that the office is the main architectural feature but that the eastern section of sawtooth roof factory contributes to the main street elevation and the retention of a full bay provides structural integrity to this section. The two-storey section is visible and reads as a functioning manufacturing space. He further stated that if this reduced overlay is adopted that a curtilage around the buildings and front grounds of around 5 meters should be included. Any future buildings should be respectful to the form, scale and materials of the current factory and should not be visually obtrusive from the public views.
However, in view of the difficulty in defining the exact extent of a reduced overlay on the planning scheme maps, and the need for future buildings to respect the form, scale and materials of the current factory, the Panel considers that the overlay should remain over the whole of the site, but that an incorporated plan provide permit exemptions in relation to the non-significant parts of the site.
The Panel recommends that: HO129 be retained over the whole of the factory site; and an incorporated plan be developed , in consultation with the owners of the land, that includes: - permit exemptions for demolition of non-contributory structures, and - identification of the contributory buildings as the office, the first bay of the saw tooth factory and the two-storey section north of the office.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 89
14.2.6 HO131, FORMER AMMUNITION FACTORY, 1 GORDON STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 13)
The land covered by HO131 forms part of the larger Edgewater residential estate that is being developed as a joint venture by Comland Limited/Delfin Lend Lease. Allom Lovell & Associates carried out a heritage appraisal of the former Commonwealth Ammunition Factory site in 1992. The assessment at that time concluded that Jack’s Magazine, the Percussion Cap Factory and the SAA Clean area were of State significance. These parts of the site were included on the Victorian Heritage Register. However, the remaining buildings on the site were not identified as significant in the Allom Lovell Conservation Management Plan for the site.
However, a January 1993 memorandum from Allom Lovell & Associates to the current developers of the site in relation to Amendment C31 notes that: In the ten years which have elapsed since the preparation of the heritage appraisal the former ADI site has been substantially cleared of all structures, other than those identified for the overlay and Jack’s Magazine. Both the SAA Clean area and the Percussion Cap Factory have been demolished (because of contamination issues). Other than for Jack’s, the buildings which survive are the last remnants of facilities associated with the previous use of the site. In relation to overall site development they reflect the last major period of works in the interwar and Second World War period...... Given the very substantial change in this site over the past decade and the acknowledged historical importance of the factory complex at both a national and local level, it is reasonable to comment that the remnant buildings, while not of individual significance, as a group provide some physical link to the site history and derive significance from that fact...... In the light of these comments and the more recent heritage study identification of these buildings, protection at a local level under a heritage overlay is considered to be a reasonable action and one which accords with the approach taken to related sites around Melbourne. The purpose of the overlay would be to recognise the importance of this site to the history of Maribyrnong and to provide for the conservation of the three principal buildings.
The surviving parts of the site proposed to be included in the overlay comprise former administrative and amenities buildings along the main roadway. The citation in the Heritage Review states comments that: The group of buildings along the main roadway provide a glimpse into the former layout of the site and a focal point for the approach to the adjacent Jack’s Magazine.
The detailed statement of significance is not repeated here, but refers to compliance with AHC criteria A4, B2, C2 and G1.
The submission by Urbis on behalf of the owners and developers of the land supports application of a Heritage Overlay to the site, but requests a more detailed description of the significant elements of the site in the Schedule to the overlay, and a notation that prohibited uses may be permitted.
The Council agrees with the request for a more detailed description of the significant elements of the site in the schedule, but does not support altering the schedule to allow prohibited uses. The site is included in the Comprehensive Development Zone 3 (CDZ3) and the Council argues that the CDZ3 provides greater flexibility than other zones in the range of uses that may be permitted. The Council therefore does not consider that a notation that prohibited uses may be permitted is necessary.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 90
Urbis submit that active re-use of the affected buildings is essential to their retention. The developers propose to develop the area for residential and commercial purposes, with uses that are complementary to the Edgewater residential development and surrounding area.
The Panel has reviewed Schedule 3 to the Comprehensive Development Zone and agrees with the Council that the range permissible uses is extensive, Section3 in the Table of uses lists only 27 prohibited uses, and these are uses such as Animal husbandry, Brothel, Cemetery, Corrective institution etc that are clearly uses that are inappropriate to the area.
The Panel supports the Council position that the schedule should be amended to provide a more detailed description of the significant elements of the site, but that the schedule should not be amended to permit prohibited uses. The Panel recommends that the description of heritage place HO131 in the schedule to the overlay be amended to clearly identify the significant elements of the place as ‘the former administration and amenities buildings of the Australian Defence Industries’.
14.2.7 HO130, TERMINAL STATION, 308 HYDE STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 15)
Submissions in relation to the Yarraville Terminal Station were received from SPI Powernet (the owners of the land) and AGL Electricity Limited who lease part of the terminal station building and distribute electricity from the site.
The overlay covers part of the terminal station site, and cuts through some existing buildings and excludes others. The schedule to the overlay indicates a permit requirement for alterations to original switch gear and equipment.
SPI Powernet sought clarification about the precise parts of the site affected by the overlay, and expressed concern that the overlay could affect its future business, and continued use of the machinery building. AGL sought clarification about ‘equipment’ affected by the overlay and submitted that it is vital that AGL is able to carry out urgent repairs and routine maintenance, and that repairs to switchgear are unlikely to use the same materials as the original.
The citation for the site in the Heritage Review states that the terminal station is of State historical and architectural significance. The detailed statement of significance is not repeated here, but refers to compliance with AHC criteria A4, D2, F1 and H1.
SPI Powernet engaged Allom Lovell & Associates to carry out a heritage appraisal of the site. The Allom Lovell report found that the terminal station is of historical, technological and architectural significance, and identified the following buildings and elements of significance: The Machine Hall, to the extent of its original external and internal fabric. The original remnant electrical equipment is also of significance. The former laboratory buildings on the north and south of the current entrance road. including the former garage (but not including the FAF workshop building), to the extent of their original external fabric. The toilet/amenities block (original external fabric).
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 91
The form of the original entrance road off Globe Street (not including that portion the road and entrance which has been built over), and associated turning circle and raised oval grassed area to the north of the Machine Hall. The entrance and associated gates off Vockler Street.
Following inspection of the site Mr Vines made some corrections to the citation in the Heritage Review, and in his evidence he suggested that a more appropriate overlay: ..... would include the Machine Hall and at least the main facades of the office/laboratory buildings, as well as the gates, driveway and amenity block.
He recommended: That the overlay should be altered to accurately reflect the contributory components at the site and that the internal controls apply to ‘the switch gear control panels and original crane’. That an incorporated plan be prepared to provide exemption for works on the components covered by internal controls other than for a major upgrade, demolition or removal of the control panels and crane.
The Council recommended likewise.
In its review of documents submitted in relation to this site, the Panel has noted that HO130 does not cover the whole of the SPI Powernet site, and that some of the significant elements identified – the former laboratory buildings, are outside the overlay boundaries, and other non- significant parts of the site are included. This highlights the difficulties in applying a Heritage Overlay to part of a site, as discussed by the Panel in Section 11 in relation to the use of incorporated plans. The Council recommendation is that an incorporated plan should apply to this site.
The Panel agrees with this recommendation, but considers that the overlay should apply to the whole of the SPI Powernet site, and that the incorporated plan should provide permit exemptions in relation to the non-contributory parts of the site. The Panel recommends that: HO130 be amended to cover the whole of the SPI Powernet site; the permit requirement for internal alterations in the Schedule to the overlay be amended to refer to ‘the switch gear control panels and original crane’; an incorporated plan be developed , in consultation with SPI Powernet, that includes: - a permit exemption for demolition of, and alterations to non-contributory buildings and works, - identification of the parts of the site of heritage interest; and - a permit exemption for works on the components covered by internal controls other than a major upgrade, demolition or removal of the control panels and crane.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 92
14.2.8 HO162, OLEX CABLES, 207 SUNSHINE ROAD, TOTTENHAM (SUBMISSION 33)
Olex Cables commissioned an independent heritage assessment of the site by RBA Architects. This assessment agreed that parts of the site have historical and architectural interest. The site was bought by the current owners in 1956 and construction started on the site at that time. Construction continued in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. There are currently 22 buildings on the site and all are different with no information known about the designers. The RBA report recommended that the overlay be restricted to the earliest buildings – circa late 1950s buildings (parts 2 and 7 of subdivision plan 439958F) only as these contribute most to the local historical and architectural significance. The report also recommended that Olex Australia consider having a Conservation Management Plan prepared for the site.
Mr Vines in his evidence to the Panel agreed with the RBA report. As a result of more accurate information about the site and an error regarding reference to “Egyptian elements” (which was mistakenly copied from the nearby Wiltshire Factory citation), changes were made to the citation in terms of date, extent of designation, history, significance and description of the site. Mr Vines recommended that the overlay be adjusted to apply to the earliest buildings on the site.
Mr Hemingway, from RBA Architects, stated at the hearing that he hadn’t seen Mr Vines’ re- assessment of the site but agreed that there was now concurrence between the positions of the owner and the Council.
The Council submission also agreed with the recommendations of the RBA heritage assessment in relation to application of the Heritage Overlay, but commented that the exhibited overlay does apply to only that part of the site that contains the earliest buildings.
The Panel has not been provided with plans of the site that show either lot boundaries or the location of the 22 buildings listed in the RBA heritage appraisal. The Panel has therefore been unable to confirm how the exhibited overlay relates to the significant buildings on the site. This should be checked prior to preparation of the final amendment documents. However, in view of the fact that the site has recently been subdivided, and that a number of the buildings are recent constructions that are occupied by others, the Panel considers that the overlay should apply to only the original Olex factory complex contained within lots 2 and 7 on plan of subdivision 439958F. The Panel recommends that HO162 be applied to the section of the site (lots 2 and 7 on plan of subdivision 439958F) that contains the late 1950s buildings.
The Panel further considers that Olex Cables should have a Conservation Management Plan prepared for the site as recommended by their heritage consultants.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 93
14.2.9 HO168, RYCO, WHITEHALL STREET AND MORELAND STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 38)
The owners requested that their site should be excluded from the heritage overlay and queried the archaeological evidence and cultural value of the site.
Following an inspection of the site Mr Vines confirmed the initial significance assessment. However, he now proposes that a reduced overlay be applied to cover the early 20th century structures only, which relate to the significant period of the site’s history. He recommends that the modern clean span block on the corner of Bunbury and Moreland Streets be excluded from the overlay, along with the open area on the corner of Bunbury and Whitehall Streets and the car park to the north of the site on Whitehall Street. The inspection revealed that the office had been extensively altered but that this does not appear to have impacted on the external fabric. Mr Vines’ overall assessment is that the buildings read as a consistent factory complex both externally and internally. However, he did comment during his submission that whilst the site was very indicative of the early 20th century period, the buildings ‘would not win any awards’.
The important elements identified by Mr Vines are: The Whitehall street administration building and the production space behind; The Bunbury Street Moderne brick façade and production space behind (sawtooth roof); The Moreland Street masonry/rendered façade and the production space behind.
Mr Vines further stated that there may be archaeological remains at both the Moreland Street factory (which has a raised floor), and under the Whitehall Street administration block. However, he acknowledged that parts of the site have been altered, excavated and blasted, which may have reduced the archaeological significance. He recommends that the corner of Bunbury and Whitehall Streets be registered on the Heritage Inventory as the site of the former bluestone butcher shop. However, the Panel notes that sites are automatically put on the inventory once they are identified in an archaeological study, and therefore the site will already be listed on the Heritage Inventory and under Heritage Victoria control. It was noted that Ryco did not seem to be aware of this situation.
Mr Morrison, managing director of Ryco Hydraulics stated that they bought the site in 1980 and have made significant modifications to the site. In particular blasting and excavation of the floors has occurred. On this basis he questioned the archaeological significance of the site. However he did state that the company has no problem with observers being present if any future excavation is undertaken, in case archaeological remains are discovered.
Mr Morrison also informed the Panel that asbestos cement sheeting of the sawtooth roof has been replaced and that another part of the roof has been replaced following tornado damage in 1999.
The Panel inspected the site and noted the degree of physical change that has occurred on the site, the disaggregated nature of the site and the limited architectural significance of the buildings. The detailed statement of significance in the citation is not repeated here, but refers to compliance with AHC criteria A4, B2, D2, F1 and H1. The Panel is not satisfied that the site satisfies any of these criteria.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 94
The Panel recommends that HO168 relating to the Ryco factory site be deleted from the Heritage Overlay.
14.2.10 HO179, HO180, HO181, 221 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 39)
Three separate overlays are proposed within the former Cuming Smith/Pivot site, now owned by the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PMC): HO179 Cuming Smith chemical works site HO180 Dee cottage HO181 Miller’s Ropeworks
Following exhibition of the amendment PMC commissioned a heritage assessment of the site by Allom Lovell & Associates.
Mr Gobbo, on behalf of PMC submitted that: ..... the panel ought recommend that the proposed application of an overlay to the Pivot site not be supported, but that the Framework Plan be the subject of a separate planning scheme amendment as recommended in the evidence of Mr Biacsi.
The draft Yarraville Riverfront Port and Industrial Framework Plan covers the PMC land along the Maribyrnong River frontage and the land east of Whitehall Street between Somerville Road and Francis Street (including the CSR and Orica land). The framework plan includes as recommendations that: The POMC and Council collaborate in the provision of suitable opportunities for improved heritage interpretation in the area. In this process recognition of POMC plans to improve cultural heritage interpretation throughout the Port and to Council’s broader heritage proposals should be made. The POMC consider retention of Dee Cottage and consult with Council regarding its future use including opportunities related to heritage interpretation.
Mr Gobbo argued that the PMC site should not be included in the overlay because the strategic importance the PMC operations far outweigh any historic significance that the site may possess. This issue of balancing heritage objectives against other strategic objectives is discussed in Section 8, and is not repeated here.
HO179
The Allom Lovell assessment commented in relation to the Cuming Smith site that: Change through the 1990s principally consisted of the demolition of most of the remaining earlier buildings on the site, thus completing the transformation of the site from being characterised by gable roofed brick stores and chimneys in the nineteenth century to one typified by large steel framed, corrugated iron clad sheds by the late twentieth...... The Cuming Smith site survives with only a fraction of the built fabric, which made up the complex at its height. The dominant elements are a number of large bulk store sheds for phosphate, a crushing plant and granulation store, an administrative complex and sundry staff support and store buildings. Little if any evidence above ground survives of the chemical process works and the site conveys little about this aspect of the works......
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 95
In essence the site as it now stands contains buildings and built fragments, reflective of an evolved industrial complex, which stands on land which has had a history of industrial use spanning some 140 years. Its significance is as much about a continuous industrial use and the importance of this activity to Maribyrnong and more broadly the State, as it is about individual buildings or structures. While there inevitably tends to be a focus on ‘older structure’ rather than more recent, the reality is that all contribute to an understanding of the scale and magnitude of the place...... While the site is of historical significance as a whole as the location of a key local industry and for its association with a prominent local person and family, its physical significance as reflected in the various buildings is less clear. The continuation of industrial activity on the site and maintenance of an industrial landscape, in retained or new buildings, may be seen to be as important, if not more important, than retention of specific buildings. 17
Based on an assessment of individual buildings on the Cuming Smith site, the assessment concluded that application of a Heritage Overlay over the whole of the site is not warranted. The assessment recommended that the overlay be reduced to cover the Administration complex – which in part sits outside the area covered by the exhibited overlay.
In relation to Shed 4-6, which was identified in Mr Vines evidence as a significant building, the Allom Lovell assessment stated that: In the case of Shed 4-6, while it is acknowledged that this shed is of a greater level of historical significance as the oldest and most closely related to the early Cuming Smith activity, the potential difficulties in its retention and reuse are seen to weigh against its elevation to a level of individual listing. Should it be determined that the shed warrants recognition it is recommended that it be done so with an attached Incorporated Plan or by some other planning mechanism which reflects upon the real limitations for its reuse and/or in the context of an industrial heritage policy which provides scope for removal, subject to meeting agreed tests.
On the other hand Mr Vines, in his evidence to the Panel stated that: The former Pivot site has several components which are significant: Sheds 4-6 including 7 as a supporting structure Administration complex comprising the two-storey office and laboratory buildings, the former stables, and the electricity substation.
Mr Vines also commented that: There is also considerable archaeological potential on this site relating to nineteenth century industry, and associated residences. The foundations and possible sub-floor deposits relating to McMeiken’s Bone Mills are evident south of the Main Road and east of the railway siding. I would recommend that prior to any other works being carried out, a thorough archaeological and heritage assessment is made. For this reason, retention of the overlay as initially proposed would be a good idea.
17 Panel’s underling
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 96
However, his recommendation for the site was: That the overlay on the former Pivot site only apply to the significant components. A Conservation Management Plan for this site would be of assistance in planning the future of the site. This could include management of the archaeological values of the site. Inclusion of the remains of McMeiken’s bone mills on the Heritage inventory is appropriate.
The Council recommendation is that HO179 be reduced to apply to the administration complex and Shed 4-6, and that the archaeological values of the site be included on the Heritage Inventory.
In Section 13 the Panel has expressed concern about the tendency in the heritage assessments to focus on individual buildings within sites, rather than the significance of the site as a whole. The Panel considers that heritage assessments should consider the historic significance or interest of sites, as well as the importance of individual buildings, and finds support for this view in the provisions of the Act and the SPPF.
Section 4(1)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 includes as an objective of planning in Victoria: to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. 18
Clause 15.11-2 of the SPPF states that: Planning and responsible authorities should identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. These include: Sites associated with the European discovery, exploration and settlement of Victoria. Important buildings, structures, parks, gardens, sites, areas, landscapes, towns and other places associated with the historic and cultural development of Victoria, including places associated with pastoral expansion. gold mining, industrial development and the economic expansion and growth of Victoria.
Mr Lovell’s evidence acknowledged that the ‘site is of historical significance as a whole’ and that ‘its significance is as much about a continuous industrial use and the importance of this activity to Maribyrnong and more broadly the State, as it is about individual buildings or structures’. The Panel considers that these statements provide strong support for application of the Heritage Overlay to the part of the site included in the exhibited amendment (and in fact it provides support for applying the overlay to the whole of the former Pivot site). Furthermore, the Panel considers that the approach of Heritage Victoria in registering entire sites and granting permit exemptions is a better tool to recognise a site’s importance and managing it.
The Panel considers that the former Pivot site is a place of considerable historical interest that it should be included in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel further notes that the Allom Lovell assessment of the site identifies the administration complex, that
18 Panel’s underling
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 97 partly falls outside the exhibited overlay, as significant and recommends that the overlay be applied to those buildings. The Panel agrees with that assessment and considers that the exhibited overlay should be extended to cover the whole of the administration complex.
The Panel also has concerns that the archaeological study in the Heritage Review did not include an assessment of this site. Mr Vines has identified potential archaeological sites that may be of considerable significance.
The Panel considers that an archaeological assessment should be carried out as a matter of urgency and that archaeological remnants should be identified in the statement of significance for the site.
Mr Gobbo and Mr Lovell referred to the structural condition of Shed 4-6 and the degree of contamination arising from its past use as a super-phosphate store. The Panel also noted the poor structural condition of the shed during its site inspection.
Mr Gobbo submitted to the Panel that: Other relevant factors against the protection of sheds 4-6 and Millers Ropeworks must include the practical difficulties in adapting them to some future development of the site, due to their form and their location, as well as the environmental and structural condition of the buildings. PoMC has received advice from structural engineers, and environmental consultants, which confirms the sheds in particular are in a very degraded form. .... Assuming that the panel believes the net community benefit does lie in favour of applying an overlay to some or all of the individual buildings on the Pivot site, the Panel should take a number of approaches with respect to the controls governing whether the buildings considered to be significant on the Pivot site should be demolished: simply apply an overlay to the individual buildings, but refine the policy and citations to ensure they leave open an argument to be made in favour of demolition of the buildings; apply the overlay with a recommendation for an incorporated document ‘exempting’ certain parts of the site or buildings from the need to obtain heritage permission for demolition and redevelopment – which would leave a discretion as to the form of incorporated plan and the exercise of discretion pursuant to it; or decide on the material before it that the position is so advanced that it can recommend a specific form of incorporated plan to be inserted which would permit demolition of certain parts of the buildings subject to, for example, a full history of the building or structure being recorded.
However, no draft incorporated plan was submitted to the Panel for the former Pivot site.
The Panel has discussed in Sections 10 and 11.2 the need for an Industrial Heritage Policy and the benefit of using incorporated plans to provide permit exemptions for industrial sites, and does not repeat that discussion here.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 98
The Panel agrees that an incorporated plan should be prepared for the Pivot site that provides appropriate permit exemptions. The Panel considers that in view of the PMC’s support for introduction of an incorporated plan and the similarity of issues associated with the former Mt Lyell site and the former Pivot site, the Panel considers that it can recommend a form of incorporated plan that could be included in the amendment.
The draft incorporated plan for the former Mt Lyell site refers to circumstances where demolition of existing buildings and new buildings and works will be necessary in order to meet legislative health and safety and environmental requirements.
The Panel therefore considers that the form of the draft incorporated plan prepared for the former Mt Lyell site, with the amendments recommended by the Panel, provides an appropriate basis for development of an incorporated plan, in consultation with the PMC.
The critical issue to be resolved is identification of buildings that should not be exempt from the overlay permit requirements.
Both Mr Lovell and Mr Vines agree that the administration buildings are significant. The building in contention is Shed 4-6. The Allom Lovell assessment of Shed 4-6 states that: It is a building of some historical significance as one of the earliest surviving buildings associated with the Cuming Smith & Co phase of occupation of the site. It is of technological interest as an unusual example of a large, broad span timber framed store, albeit modified and strengthened in the 1950s with the insertion of knee bracing. Sheds of similar vintage and related but not identical timber framed design exist on both the Sugar Australia and Orica sites to the south. In a comparative sense the Orica shed is the more impressive structurally. It is noted that this shed is in relatively poor condition and its structural integrity and level of contamination have not been assessed as part of this report. It has been extensively added to and modified on the eastern side and is understood to be in part dependent for structural support on Shed 7 to the west.
The Panel considers that this assessment provides support for exclusion of the building from the exemption provisions of an incorporated plan.
The Panel considers that any incorporated plan developed for the site should exclude from the exemption provisions the following: The administrative complex comprising the two storey office, laboratory buildings, former stables and electricity substation. Shed 4-6 and that part of shed 7 that provides structural support to shed 4-6. The foundations and possible sub-floor deposits relating to McMeiken’s Bone Mills, unless an archaeological assessment has been carried out and the remains found to be of no significance or the assessment has identified significant archaeological remains and the site has been included on the Heritage Inventory.
Finally, Mr Lovell referred to the need for industry to be able to continue to operate ‘without being unreasonably fettered.’ The Panel recognises that what the PMC is seeking is the ability to carry out whatever development is deemed necessary on the subject land to support its operation (including demolition of the existing buildings), unfettered by the constraints of heritage controls. However, the overlay provisions do allow for the issue of permits for buildings and works, and demolition, and the Panel has recommended deletion of the
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 99 exhibited Cultural Heritage policy from the amendment – thus removing one area of concern expressed by Mr Gobbo and others. What the Heritage Overlay will do is cause the corporation to give some thought to ways of conserving the significance of the site in its planning for future development – which may include recording of significant elements that are to be demolished. The Panel does not consider that this is an overly onerous requirement.
HO180
HO180 relates to Dee Cottage that is located within the PMC land. The Allom Lovell assessment agrees with the statement of significance in the Heritage Review and concludes that the overlay over the cottage site should remain. The draft Yarraville Riverfront Port and Industrial Framework Plan prepared for the PMC also supports retention of Dee Cottage.
The Panel notes that application of the overlay to this site is generally accepted by the PMC and the Panel supports retention of the overlay.
HO181
HO 181 relates to the former Miller’s Ropeworks workshop within the PMC land. Mr Vines, in his evidence commented that whist the workshop does not demonstrate the operation of the ropeworks, it is of significance in terms of its rarity as a timber framed industrial workshop. The Council also recommended retention of the overlay over this building.
The Allom Lovell assessment, on the other hand found that: This shed is a utilitarian structure of conventional design and construction. It is not a building which in isolation is of any specific historical interest, other than for the fact that it formed part of the Miller’s Ropeworks and was later used as a general store by Commonwealth Fertilisers. It is a building of little or no architectural or technological interest.
The Panel also is not convinced that the building demonstrates anything about ropemaking and considers that it is typical building of its type. The Panel therefore supports the deletion of HO181 from the overlay. The Panel recommends that: HO179 be extended to include the whole of the administrative building complex; HO180 be applied as exhibited; HO181 be deleted from the Heritage Overlay; an archaeological assessment be carried out as a matter of urgency and that any significant archaeological remnant found should be identified in the statement of significance for the site; an incorporated plan be developed, in consultation with PMC, for inclusion in the planning scheme as part of Amendment C31; that the incorporated plan generally follow the form of the draft incorporated plan prepared for the former Mt Lyell site, with the amendments recommended by the Panel, but exclude from the permit exemption provisions the following: - the administrative complex comprising the two storey office, laboratory buildings, former stables and electricity substation. - shed 4-6 and that part of shed 7 that provides structural support to shed 4-6. - the foundations and possible sub-floor deposits relating to McMeiken’s Bone Mills, unless an archaeological assessment has been carried out and the
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 100
remains found to be of no significance or the assessment has identified significant archaeological remains and the site has been included on the Heritage Inventory.
14.2.11 HO183, CSR, 265 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 40)
Part of the CSR land is already included in the Heritage Overlay (HO75) and is included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR 1311). The amendment proposes to extend the overlay to cover a more extensive part of the site (HO183).
The Panel was informed at the directions hearing that an application was being prepared for submission to Heritage Victoria to alter the extent of the heritage registration to coincide with the area proposed to be covered by the extended overlay. In her submission to the Panel hearing Ms Quigley concluded that in view of the application to Heritage Victoria it would be appropriate that the Panel recommend: (a) That if the Heritage Council of Victoria resolves to extend the VHR registration area to broadly accord with the proposed Amendment C31 Heritage Overlay area: (j) HO75 should be amended so that it accords with the revised extent of registration (i) HO183 should be deleted. (d) That if the Heritage Council of Victoria resolves not to support the extended VHR registration area: (i) HO183 should be pursued subject to modifications to the Heritage Overlay boundary (as per the Council report dated 15 December 2003 and confirmed by Mr Lovell). (ii) The Heritage Overlay Schedule at Clause 43.01 of the Planning Scheme should be modified to include an ‘Incorporated Plan’ within the relevant corresponding column for HO 183 entitled ‘Sugar Australia Complex, Whitehall Street Yarraville Incorporated Plan’ and listed in Clause 81.
The CSR site is clearly of heritage significance and there is general agreement by all parties with that position. Since the original assessment of the site as part of the Heritage Review, Mr Vines has been given further access to the site and has redrafted an amended statement of significance and other material in the Heritage Review. The proposed amended statement of significance states that: CSR is of National historic and architectural significance as a unique example of the high point of late nineteenth century industrial design, and one of the largest factories of the second half of the nineteenth century left in Australia. It is the oldest surviving sugar refinery, and the last intact of a series built in the period 1870 to 1890.
A Conservation Analysis was prepared for the CSR site by Allom Lovell & Associates in August 1992, and that includes a detailed assessment of each building on the site.
Ms Quigley referred in her submission to operational difficulties on the site, including the need to respond to: Occupational health and safety, product quality and reliability, requirements to meet current regulations as to process and public health, contamination, structural safety and adaptation of the building fabric and plant.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 101
She submitted that should the extended heritage registration not proceed, there is a need for greater certainty in relation to permit applications made under the Heritage Overlay. She referred to the need for an industrial heritage policy in the LPPF that would guide decision making in relation to complex industrial sites, such as her client’s. A draft industrial heritage policy was provided to the Panel and the Panel discusses this in Section 10. Ms Quigley also recommended use of an incorporated plan as a means of providing greater certainty to Sugar Australia about future development of the site. A draft incorporated plan was also provided to the Panel, and the Panel discusses that in Section 11.
The draft incorporated plan relates to the area covered by HO183, and includes as table 1 a list of buildings to which the permit exemptions would not apply. The following table lists the buildings of primary or contributory significance listed in the amended citation in the Heritage Review, and identifies those buildings currently on the Victorian Heritage Register and those buildings included in table 1 in the draft incorporated plan:
Included in Victorian Heritage Included in Table 1 in draft Building Register (VHR 1311). incorporated plan 1 Drier Station 2 North Char End * 3 Pan House * 4 South Char End * 5 Cistern House * 6 Refined Sugar Store * 7 Retail Packing Station * 9 Raw Sugar Store * 11 Boiler Station/Chimney Stack * 13 Workshop * 14 Bag Store * 16 Engineer’s Store * 17 Former Melt House * 18 Carbonation Station
19 (21?) Refined Sugar Store 22 Golden Syrup and Treacle * Packing Store 25 Former Power house * 26 Transporters 27 Raw Sugar Store * 33 Truck Area
43 Meeting Room 46 Conveyor System/Travelling * Crane
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 102
All but the Drier Station, Carbonation Station, Transporters (on PMC land), Truck Area and Meeting Room are included on the VHR or are included in table 1 of the draft incorporated plan. The Allom Lovell Conservation Analysis identified the area of significance by a straight line west of the Workshop building (building 13) that passes through the Refined Sugar Store (building 21).
The Council’s recommendation is that HO183 should be modified to apply to the significant components of the site according to the 1992 Allom Lovell & Associates Conservation Analysis. However, Mr Vines in his statement of evidence recommended that the overlay should remain as exhibited, and commented that a reduction of the overlay to the significant components of the site ‘would cause greater confusion in the management of the overlay’.
The Panel agrees with Mr Vines that the boundary of the overlay should be defined in a way that ensures that there is clear understanding about which buildings are in or out of the overlay, and that boundaries that pass through the middle of buildings is undesirable. Should the heritage registration not proceed, the Panel considers that the exhibited boundary should be adopted, but that an incorporated plan should be included in the adopted amendment, generally along the lines of the draft document submitted on behalf of Sugar Australia. Table 1 in the incorporated plan will clearly identify the significant buildings on the site that are not exempt from the permit requirements of the overlay. However, if an extended area of the refinery is included on the Victorian Heritage Register, the Panel considers that the overlay boundary should match the area covered by the Heritage Victoria registration.
Whilst some of the buildings that are not included in the area covered by VHR 1311, or the table in the draft incorporated plan are identified as not significant in the Conservation Analysis, the assessment in relation to the Drier Station (building 1) is ‘retain and conserve externally’, and in relation to the Carbonation Station (building18) is ‘retention desirable, record prior to demolition’. Should these buildings still remain, the Panel considers that they should be included in Table 1 of the incorporated plan. The Panel has discussed other aspects of the incorporated plan in Section 11.2 and made recommendations in relation minor changes in wording.
The Panel also agrees with Ms Quigley, that should the extended heritage registration proceed, that HO75 and HO183 should be combined as a more extensive HO75 that matches the extent of the Heritage Victoria registration. The Panel recommends that: HO183 be applied to the site as exhibited; should the larger part of the CSR site be included on the Victorian Heritage Register prior to adoption of the planning scheme amendment, the overlay be amended by deleting HO183 and extending HO75 to match the area covered by the Heritage Victoria registration; should the area covered by HO183 not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register, an incorporated plan be developed for the site, in consultation with Sugar Australia, as discussed in Section 11, and included in the adopted amendment.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 103
14.2.12 HO184, ORICA AUSTRALIA, 295 WHITEHALL STREET, YARRAVILLE (SUBMISSION 41)
The proposed Heritage Overlay relates to only part of the former Mt Lyell site. Buildings included in the overlay area include: Engineering Workshop Salt Store No 2 Storage Shed South Rock Shed Rock Mill Brine Cell Plant Mount Lyell Caustic Storage Tanks Wharf Crane Workshop.
The site is currently owned by Orica Australia, and the Panel was informed that Orica has now moved its operation to a new site; that the subject site is to be sold; and extensive decommissioning works are currently being carried out on the site. Mr Lovell in his expert evidence also stated that the Brine Cell Plant, the Mount Lyell Caustic Storage Tanks and the Wharf Crane Workshop are currently the subject of a demolition application to the City of Maribyrnong.
The Council’s heritage consultants were unable to gain access to the site during the heritage review process and the assessment was confined to the elements visible from public roads, and through using historical documents, plans and photographs. Thus the Heritage Overlay proposed by Amendment C31 is confined to the more visible northern part of the site adjacent to Lyell Street. However, the amended citation for the site states that: Comparison of aerial photographs suggest potentially significant buildings of early 20th century date may survive in the area near Whitehall Street south of the engineering workshop. However, site inspection has not been possible to confirm this.
The Panel noted, during its site inspection buildings in this area that may warrant further assessment.
Following exhibition of the amendment and prior to the Panel hearing Orica engaged Allom Lovell & Associates to carry out a heritage assessment of the site. The assessment was however, confined to the area proposed to be included in the Heritage Overlay and did not assess the remainder of the site.
The citation in the Heritage Review refers to the Mt. Lyell complex as: One of a group of large bulk processing factories located along the waterfront at Yarraville, including CSR, the former Cuming Smith fertiliser works and the Mobil oil terminal, each of which has been dependent on river wharves for delivery of bulk raw materials.
The citation refers in particular to the Engineering Workshop, the Salt Store, and No 2 Storage Shed as buildings of significance. The storage sheds are referred to as function oriented buildings ‘that gain a degree of architectural distinction from their functional form’, and the engineering workshop as continuing ‘the shape of the other buildings but presents a more sophisticated facade’. The site is assessed as being of:
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 104
..... historical and architectural significance as a distinctive group of industrial building forms and a highly industrial landscape with the fertiliser cranes on the wharf a local landmark.
Mr Lovell in his description of the site noted that: ..... many early structures associated with the site have been demolished, or have been modifies and converted to different uses (and in some cases are reduced to remnant external walls). Plant has also been removed from the site and buildings, as part of the decommissioning process. Large areas of vacant land are located on the eastern half of the site, where a number of substantial older buildings were previously located. Some remnant bluestone paving is also found on the north of the site (including between the Engineering Workshop and the Salt Store), together with remnant stone retaining walls, the latter possibly associated with the demolished Rock Storage Shed on the north-east of the complex.
The Allom Lovell assessments of the three significant buildings within the overlay are set out below: Engineering workshop The former Engineering Workshop is of local historical, technological and architectural significance. It is one of the earliest remaining structures of the former Mt Lyell site, and as a purpose-built workshop (a function it retained until relatively recently), the structure played a key role in the operation of the site...... Due to its distinctive gabled form and roof lantern, and its prominent location on Whitehall Street near the entrance to the subject site, the Engineering Workshop is also a highly visible element, and makes a contribution to the historical industrial character of this area of Whitehall Street. Salt Store The Salt Store is of local historical, technological and architectural significance. Although altered and a generally utilitarian structure, the Salt Store is one of the earliest remaining buildings at the site, and was for a long time functionally related to the No 2 Storage Shed to its east. The Salt Store additionally derives some significance through being one of the large and prominent buildings that have defined the northern boundary of the former Mt Lyell landholding. The assessment also comments that: The portal frame is unusual in that the whole frame is trussed rather than just rafters. No 2 Storage Shed No 2 Storage Shed is of local historical, technological and architectural significance, As with the Engineering Workshop and Salt Store, it is one of the earliest remaining structures on the site, and the largest surviving superphosphate storage shed...... The shed structure comprises an unusual system of trussed arch frames set on concrete pads, with uncommonly long (Oregon) timber sections, the ends of which are embedded in the ground.
Mr Lovell recommended a reduced overlay that covered these three buildings, plus a 3 metre curtilage area around the building group. However, whilst Mr Vines agreed that a reduced overlay might be appropriate he expressed the view that an assessment of the entire site should be carried out to establish whether there are any other significant structures on the site. Mr Vines also suggested that a Conservation Management Plan should be prepared for the site.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 105
Mr Lovell further recommended that an incorporated plan should be prepared for the site. He expressed concern about the current condition of the three buildings proposed to be included in the overlay, their degree of contamination in some cases, and their redundancy and limited potential for reuse or adaptation.
A draft incorporated plan was provided to the Panel as part of the submission on behalf of Orica Australia.
Ms Quigley submitted to the Panel that: - The extent of the Heritage Overlay be reduced to that recommended by the Allom Lovell Statement of Significance - That the citation be amended to more accurately reflect the significance of the place - The local heritage policy be amended by the inclusion of a heritage policy which addresses and manages the industrial heritage sites - The management of the heritage place known as the former Mt Lyell Chemical Works be the subject of an incorporated plan pursuant to Clause 42-01-3 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.
However, the Panel does not agree that the extent of the Heritage Overlay should be further reduced. It considers that application of the Heritage Overlay to a small part of the site reduces the importance of the large industrial site by concentrating the significance on isolated individual buildings rather than the complex as a whole. The Panel considers that the original extent of the Heritage Overlay proposed in the amendment is a better approach, with the addition of an Incorporated Plan to manage the site and identify the important features. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 13, the Panel considers that this whole industrial area should be part of an industrial heritage precinct with appropriate Incorporated Plans to provide permit exemptions.
The Panel however, does accept Ms Quigley’s submission that an incorporated plan should be applied to the site and that an Industrial Heritage Policy should be included in the planning scheme that provides guidance in relation to the complex issues facing industrial heritage sites. The Panel has discussed the issue of an incorporated plan being applied to the Mt Lyell site in Section 11.2, and the need for an Industrial heritage Policy in Section10.
In view of the lack of assessment of the site as a whole, the Panel also agrees with Mr Vines that an assessment of the entire site should be carried out to establish whether there are any other significant structures on the site. This assessment would provide background to creation of an industrial heritage precinct along this part of the Maribyrnong River. However, the Panel does not agree that a Conservation Management Plan needs to be prepared for the site. The Panel recommends that: HO184 be applied to the site as exhibited that an incorporated plan as discussed by the Panel in Section 11 be included in the planning scheme as part of Amendment C31.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 106
14.2.13 HO134, FORMER RALPH MCKAY FACTORY, 44-56 HAMPSTEAD ROAD, MAIDSTONE (SUBMISSION 55)
Just prior to the hearings a letter was forwarded to the Panel Capital Properties Pty Ltd, the current owners of the former Ralph McKay factory, to advise that they would not be making a submission to the Panel hearing. They advised that they had made a submission to the Council and that Council had resolved ‘not to pursue the overlay as part of the Panel hearing process’. The Panel has since been advised by Council that a permit has been issued for demolition of the factory buildings.
At the hearings the Panel was advised by Ms Gallant that the property owner has presented a strong case for demolition of the building on the grounds of contamination, poor structural condition of the building and the limited extent of the original building fabric. The owner of the property has commissioned Allom Lovell & Associates to prepare a documented historical record of the building and supplementary photographic recording of the site. The Panel recommends that HO134 relating to the former Ralph McKay factory site be deleted from the Heritage Overlay.
14.3 SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO OTHER INDIVIDUAL SITES
14.3.1 HO3, HO11 AND PART HO88, STREET TREE AVENUES (SUBMISSION 1)
HO3 relates to the Footscray commercial heritage area, and crosses Geelong Road to take in the building on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street.
HO11 relates to the Upper Footscray residential heritage area, and extends to the centre line of Geelong Road where it adjoins the road.
HO88 relates to an avenue of Elm trees in Ballarat Road.
VicRoads has expressed concern about the effect of the overlay, and in particular the permit requirement on their routine maintenance works in these two roads. Routine maintenance may include asphalt overlays, line marking and replacement of damaged kerbs.
Whilst Clause 62.02 of the planning scheme provides a permit exemption for roadworks, the clause states that the exemption does not apply ‘if a permit is specifically required for any of these matters’. And the permit requirement of the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01-1 specifically states that ‘the construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works includes ..... roadworks’. Clause 43.01-2, however, does provide a permit exemption for: Repairs or routine maintenance which do not change the appearance of a heritage place. The repairs must be undertaken to the same details, specifications and materials. Anything done in accordance with an incorporated plan specified in a schedule to this overlay.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 107
The Council, in response to VicRoads' submission has suggested that: HO3 could be redrawn to delete the overlay from the intersection of Geelong Road and Barkly Street. However, VicRoads have suggested in their submission that a separate overlay should be created for the isolated building on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street. The Panel agrees with VicRoads. This building is separated from the rest of the precinct by the width of Geelong Road and the Panel considers that it cannot be considered as part of the Footscray commercial precinct. Furthermore, the Green’s Buildings on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street is a significant landmark building and the Panel considers that it warrants an overlay as an individual site. HO11 could be redrawn to affect only the service road in Geelong Road. VicRoads have indicated in their submission that this amendment would address their concerns.
However, the issue of the Elm trees in Ballarat Road is not so easily resolved. The Elm trees are located only a metre from the road pavement and the canopy of the trees extends over the road. The schedule defines the extent of the overlay in relation to HO88 as: ..... the land within the road reserve beneath the canopy of the tree for a distance of one metre beyond the drip line, root zone or canopy perimeter, whichever is the greater.
VicRoads has suggested that the overlay should apply only to the back of kerb and acknowledges that this approach would require two narrow overlay strips, one on each side of the road. The Council has suggested that the permit exemption relating to repairs and routine maintenance in Clause 43.01-2 would apply to surface repairs and linemarking ‘provided no excavation work was carried out’, and further comments that: However, works such as replacing damaged kerbing under the canopy of any of the elms is likely to have a direct impact on the health of the tree. A town planning permit would therefore be required for the replacement of damaged kerbing.
The Panel is perplexed by the Council’s interpretation of application of Clause 43.01-2. The Panel cannot see why the clause would not apply to replacement of damaged kerbing or excavation associated with maintenance work, provided the completed work did ‘not change the appearance’ of the road.
The Panel is concerned about the Council’s possible interpretation of the Heritage Overlay provisions and the possible permit requirement by Council for routine maintenance works by VicRoads. However, the Panel also shares Council’s concerns that maintenance works should be carried out in a way that ensures that impacts on the root mass of the trees (and other damage) is minimised.
For these reasons, the Panel considers that this is a circumstance where use of an incorporated plan is appropriate. The incorporated plan could provide certainty about the extent of permit exemptions for routine maintenance and repair work by VicRoads and could also provide guidelines about necessary measures to protect the health of the trees.
The Panel notes that the description of HO88 refers to land one metre beyond the root zone of the trees. The root zone of trees can be difficult to determine and can extend for very
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 108
considerable distances. For example, roots may extend to 3 times the canopy spread or more or may extend to the height of the tree.
The Panel considers that the Council should seek arboricultural advice about the likely critical root zone of the trees and recommended measures to provide for their protection. The Panel recommends that: HO3 be amended to remove the overlay from Geelong Road and the building on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street; The Green’s Buildings on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street be identified as an individual place of heritage interest; HO11 be redrawn to limit the overlay on Geelong Road to just the service road; HO88 in its present form be retained but that an incorporated plan be prepared in consultation with VicRoads that provides permit exemptions for maintenance and repair work by VicRoads, and guidelines about necessary measures to protect the health of the avenue of Elm trees; The description of the extent of HO88 in the schedule to the overlay be amended to refer to the ‘critical root zone’ of the trees.
14.3.2 HO99 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, 8-9 BELVEDERE CLOSE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 4)
HO99 is described in the overlay schedule as a bluestone cistern (archaeological site). The Archaeological Management Plan refers to the fact that Gary Vines observed a bluestone cistern on the site during construction of the present houses and that there are possibly remains of this and other features associated with Raleigh’s Castle.
Mr Kevin McManus, architect for the existing houses on the sites provided a written statement and supporting photographs and soil test on behalf of the submittors. He stated that very considerable excavation was carried out on the sites during construction of the houses and no bluestone cistern or any other bluestone was encountered.
The Council’s submission reports that: The proposed Heritage Overlay was reviewed with the assistance of Heritage Victoria. It was determined that there is no basis for the overlay as the evidence shows that the archaeological potential of the site is much lower than first thought. Council has decided to delete the proposed Heritage Overlay HO99 on 8 and 9 Belvedere Close Maribyrnong from Amendment C31.
The Panel agrees that these sites now have limited archaeological potential and that the overlay should not be applied to the sites. The Panel recommends that HO99 be deleted from the Heritage Overlay.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 109
14.3.3 HO116, FOOTSCRAY FIRE STATION, 69-71 DROOP STREET, FOOTSCRAY (SUBMISSION 7)
A submission was made on behalf of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board by Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd. The Board does not oppose application of a heritage overlay to the fire station site, but requests some changes to the schedule and citation to reflect existing conditions and to provide for the operational requirements of the Board.
The initial submission requested: inclusion of the following description of HO116 in the overlay schedule: The heritage place comprises the front two-storey component of the building facing Droop Street. The rear flats are non-contributory. amendment to the citation in volume 7 of the Heritage Review to delete reference to a palm tree.
Ms Murphy informed the Panel that the fire station was constructed in 1941-2 and that the station layout and facilities constrain the Board’s current operations. Fire appliances are now much larger and the Board is also seeking to upgrade all fire stations to allow a single ‘drive through’ movement for appliances in order to reduce response times.
Since making its original submission the Board’s consultants have had discussions with Council officers about proposals to upgrade the fire station building. In order to provide for the single ‘drive through’ movement the Board now proposes to demolish only one of the firemen’s flats at the rear of the existing fire station building and demolish part of a small single storey building on the north side of the fire station adjacent to a right-of-way. Plans for upgrade of the site also include rebuilding of the later 1984 appliance bay.
The Board now proposes that the description of HO116 in the overlay schedule state that: The heritage place comprises the original (circa 1941) component of the fire station complex facing Droop Street.
Ms Murphy submitted that: While the description would apply to the circa 1941 components of the complex only, it would remain necessary to seek planning approval for any buildings and works on the complex site (including demolition of any later additions). This would provide Council with the necessary planning control relating to heritage issues.
The Council’s response to the submission was based around the original submission, and commented that: ..... Council officers do not concur that limiting the extent of the heritage place to ‘the front two-storey component of the building facing Droop Street’ is justified...... It is understood that the continued use of the station requires an upgrading of the complex which will necessitate demolition of parts of the building. This process should be dealt with at the planning approval stage where the development requirements can be balanced with the heritage significance. The view of Council is that the Heritage Overlay can be minimised to cover the station complex buildings and curtilage only rather than extend over the whole site, but that the overlay should remain on the residential wings of the fire station.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 110
The overlay plan suggested by Council deletes from the overlay the rear yard of the fire station and the 1984 appliance bay.
It seems to the Panel that the Council and the Board’s consultants are proposing much the same extent of control over the fire station site, but are taking two different approaches.
The Panel prefers the approach suggested by the Board’s consultants, which includes the whole of the fire station site in the overlay, but refers in the schedule to the significant elements of the site. This approach should ensure that misunderstandings do not occur due to limitations in the overlay mapping.
The amendment suggested to the citation relates to a palm tree that was removed some years ago. The Council supports this amendment and Mr Butler provided an amended version of the citation that deletes reference to the palm tree and the landscape setting of the building. The Panel supports that amendment. The Panel recommends that: the description of HO116 in the Heritage Overlay Schedule be amended to include the following: The heritage place comprises the original (circa 1941) component of the fire station complex facing Droop Street. the citation for the Footscray Fire Station Complex in volume 7 of the Heritage Review be replaced with the version prepared by Mr Butler in his expert witness report.
14.3.4 HO165, 40-42 THE ESPLANADE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 34)
This submission relates to a parcel of land comprising four allotments on the north west corner of The Esplanade and Plantation Street, Maribyrnong. The land contains a timber cottage built around the 1920s and seven corrugated iron sheds that were used to stable horses in the 1950s. The land is owned by Mrs Parker and her son, and was formerly owned for several generations by the Dale family. Mrs Parker was Ms Dale before her marriage.
Adjoining the land to the north is a Council owned property that was formerly part of the Dale land holding. This land contains a more elaborate stable building that was built for Mrs Parker by her father when she was a child. HO153 applies to this land.
Both the Parker land and the Council owned land contain a number of mature Peppercorn trees and other trees. The land is adjoined by a small open space reserve to the west, and the land falls quite steeply to Chifley Drive and the Maribyrnong River. A high voltage transmission line and 24 metre wide easement pass through the land and around 50% of the land is flood prone.
The open character of the land and mature tree cover contrasts quite strongly with the surrounding suburban development.
Mrs Parker and Mr Parker appeared before the Panel in support of their submission, and were accompanied by Mr Raworth, heritage consultant, who had prepared a brief report on the significance of their property.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 111
The citation in volume 4 of the Heritage Review describes the dwelling as an Edwardian-era cottage that probably started as a simple double-fronted gabled cottage, and that the projecting wing and front verandah were probably added in the 1920s. The stables are described as corrugated iron clad multi-stall structures.
The statement of significance describes the Dale house as historically significant to the city because: it is well preserved to the Dale occupation of the property and thus expresses well, with the adjoining stable block and the mature landscape, the link with the Dale family’s activities as butchers and cartage contractors in the Maribyrnong area (Criterion H1); the house is closely associated with the Dale family who were Maribyrnong pioneers while Mrs Dale was also one of the local midwives )Criterion H1); the house is an example of early development in the Maribyrnong township (Criterion A4); its early date makes it uncommon in this part of the city (Criterion B2); the house and stable block and the activity they express are now rare in an area which has been built up for suburban living (Criterion B2); and the house and stable block are evocative of an early industry in the area which was once known (with Kensington, Flemington and Ascot Vale) for its stable blocks and horse related activities (Criterion A4).
Mr Raworth commented that: It is in fact the stables and the landscaping that are of interest, not the house, which in my view would not warrant listing in the absence of these adjoining elements.
Mrs Parker told the Panel that the corrugated iron stables were erected by her brothers during the 1950s and were shelter for horses that were agisted on the land. The stables are rough constructions, with posts set in or resting on the ground. These buildings have now fallen into disrepair. The Panel during its site inspection noted the poor condition of the buildings.
Mr Raworth commented that he broadly concurs with the citation with regard to the description of the stables and their historical significance. However, he considers that the buildings are coming to the end of their life and reuse of the buildings would require a substantial rebuild. He argued that the historical interest of the buildings would be best recognised: ..... by means of the research undertaken to date by Council and by the preparation of a professional quality archival photographic survey of the site.
It is Mr Raworth’s assessment that neither the stables nor the house warrant a Heritage Overlay. However, if the buildings were to be included in the overlay he suggested that the overlay could serve to ensure appropriate recording of the site prior to demolition, rather than to conserve the fabric per se. However, Mr Raworth clearly had concerns that application of a Heritage Overlay to the site may imply that the buildings are more significant than they really are.
The Council submission agreed with the submittors that the stables have limited potential for adaptation due to: the dilapidated condition of the structures; the flood prone nature of the land.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 112
The Panel was advised that a preliminary application for re-subdivision of the land has been made and that: If the boundary issues, flooding problems and other planning requirements are resolved Council is likely to support a planning permit for the subdivision and demolition of the stables buildings, subject to the recording of the elements of historic significance. In the interim it is Council’s view that the Heritage Overlay should be retained on the existing house at 44 The Esplanade and that the overlay on the stable yards should be minimised to apply to the stables buildings and the trees at 40-42 The Esplanade.
Although the Panel accepts that the house and shedding (and the activity they express) are now rare in the area and are a remnant of the municipality’s more rural past, the Panel found that neither the house nor the corrugated iron sheds are of sufficient interest to the municipality to warrant a Heritage Overlay. However, the Panel considers that the existing mature trees on the land (Monterey Cypress and Peppercorns) appear to be of interest. The schedule currently proposes tree controls in relation to the Monterey Cypress.
The Panel considers that the Heritage Overlay over the Parker property should be retained in relation the Monterey Cypress and that the Peppercorn trees should also be assessed for their interest.
The Panel also notes the poor condition of the stable building on the adjoining Council owned land and considers that action should be taken by Council to ensure that this significant building is appropriately protected. The Panel recommends that: the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay be amended by describing HO165 as applying to the Monterey Cypress and their critical root zone; the Peppercorn trees on the land should be assessed and if appropriate included in the description of the heritage place in the schedule.
14.3.5 HO166, 76 THE ESPLANADE, MARIBYRNONG (SUBMISSION 35)
Submission 35 relates to a Moderne style stucco and brick dwelling in The Esplanade, Maribyrnong, built around 1946. The property runs between The Esplanade and Chifley Drive. The dwelling is located close to The Esplanade, and the land then drops steeply towards Chifley Drive and the Maribyrnong River. Whilst the front part of the house appears to be well–preserved, some changes have been made, a car port has been added at the side of the dwelling, and some later alterations/extensions have been carried out at the rear of the dwelling.
Mr and Mrs Airo-Farulla, in their original submission identified inaccuracies in the citation in volume 4 of the Heritage Review. Mr Butler in his expert evidence provided an amended version of the citation that corrected minor errors and provided a more detailed history of the dwelling and statement of its significance.
The amended statement of significance describes the house as historically and aesthetically significant to the city because: it is a well executed, if relatively late example of the Moderne style as applied to a medium sized suburban house, with the original fence and typical elements of the style such as curved forms, corner steel-framed windows and distinctive brick patterns (Criterion E1);
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 113
medium sized house examples of the inter-war Moderne style are uncommon in the City (Criterion B2); the house is a relatively externally well preserved example of immediate post WW2 housing in its garden setting (Criterion C2); as an indication of the relatively sophisticated design choice of a Maribyrnong businessman, Frederick Hardiman, whose brother has commissioned the noted Moderne style Hardiman’s Hotel in Kensington (Criterion E1) and of Frederick Hardiman’s link with the important local historic theme of equestrian industry in Maribyrnong (Criterion A4).
Mr and Mrs Airo-Farulla submit that the dwelling has been substantially altered, that the garden setting referred to in the citation was constructed by them, and the dwelling was not built by Frederick Hardiman as claimed. They are opposed to application of a Heritage Overlay to their property because they believe the overlay will devalue the property.
Mr Butler in his evidence commented that: ..... all of the elements cited in the statement of significance that make it significant for its type and style are in tact. The changed areas are either additive or similar to the original.
The Council submission proposed that the overlay be amended to cover the front part of the property that contains the dwelling, and that the rear portion of the land below the escarpment be deleted from the overlay.
The submission by Mr Testro, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Airo-Farulla, placed considerable emphasis on the association with Hardiman referred to in the citation. The Panel agrees with submissions that Hardiman was not a person of particular importance to the municipality, that his role in construction of the dwelling is unclear and that his association with the local equestrian industry is also unclear. However, Mr Butler in response to submissions made by Mr Testro commented that it is the architectural significance of the dwelling that ‘gets it over the line’, and that the association with Hardiman is only a matter of additional interest.
In view of the fact that the association with Hardiman is not crucial to the significance of the place and that the association with Hardiman is unclear, the Panel considers that the reference to Hardiman should be deleted from the statement of significance in the citation.
The significance of the dwelling rests with its role as an example of the Moderne style. The essential matters of significance that need to be considered by the Panel are the architectural style of the dwelling, the quality of its representation of that style, its rarity, and its significance to the cultural heritage of the City of Maribyrnong. The AHC criteria that are relevant to these aspects of the dwelling are: B2 Importance in demonstrating a distinctive ..... design no longer practised, in danger of being lost, or of exceptional interest. C2 Important for information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of human occupation of Australia (Maribyrnong). E1 Importance for a community for aesthetic characteristics held in high esteem or otherwise valued by the community.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 114
In relation to AHC criterion B2, the citation states that the dwelling ‘is a good example of the Moderne style which is uncommon in the City applied to a medium sized house.’
In response to this assessment Mr Briggs submitted that: Whilst rarity of a period building within a large catchment of state, regional or metropolitan size may result in heritage significance it does not follow that a particular building type being uncommon within a local area makes a building of the type significant to the heritage of that local area ..... it must also be linked to an aspect of the local cultural history to be of heritage value.
The Panel, in considering this criterion has referred back to the AHC head criterion B, which is: Its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s (Maribyrnong’s) ..... cultural history.
The Panel considers that criterion B makes it clear that the heritage value of the building must be considered in the context of the cultural history of the municipality, and that Mr Briggs’ submission that the building must be linked to an aspect of the local cultural history is correct. Whilst this Moderne style dwelling is an example of a building style that is rare in the Maribyrnong area, the Panel was not persuaded that the building contributed to the social history of the municipality by virtue of its association with individuals or as a prevalent style or as contribution to interwar housing. The Panel did however accept that the building is of architectural interest demonstrating the attributes of the Moderne style. The Panel recommends that HO166 remain in the Heritage Overlay.
14.3.6 HO98, PEPPERCORN TREES IN THE RAILWAY RESERVE AT SEDDON (SUBMISSION 50)
VicTrack has raised concern that the overlay, where it covers railway land, may inhibit use of railway land. HO98 is described in the Schedule to the overlay as: ..... the Pepper Trees and the land within the rail reserve and at 7 Charles Street and 14 Pole Street beneath the canopy of each tree for a distance of one metre beyond the drip line, root zone or canopy perimeter, which ever is the greater.
The planning scheme map appears to show the overlay along section of the railway line and a small triangular extension on the south side of Charles Street.
The Council in response to the submission proposes to exclude the Peppercorn trees within the railway land from the overlay.
The following is the description of the trees contained in volume 6 of the Heritage Review: Small avenues of pepper trees are located within the railway reserve north of Seddon Railway Station. They are visible in surrounding streets.
The statement of significance in the citation refers to the avenues of pepper trees on the Williamstown to Melbourne railway reserve as significant: for their maturity, genus and planting configuration, this combination being rare in the City (Criterion B2);
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 115
as a reflection of the upgrade of the railway and the industrial expansion during the Edwardian-era in the City and the role of the reserve as the major entry point to the area via the railway station (Criterion A4).
The Panel inspected the trees within the railway reserve and agrees that the trees are significant as an example of Edwardian-era landscape treatment at a railway station. This is another example where an incorporated plan could be used to provide permit exemptions for necessary pruning and other maintenance by VicTrack and guidelines about necessary measures to protect the form and health of the Peppercorn trees. The Panel also considers that the description of the extent of the overlay in the schedule should be amended to cover the critical root zone of the trees. The Panel recommends that: HO98 over the peppercorn trees on the railway land be retained; the description of the extent of HO98 in the schedule to the overlay be amended to refer to the ‘critical root zone’ of the trees; an Incorporated Plan be prepared in consultation with VicTrack that provides permit exemptions for necessary pruning and other maintenance work by VicTrack, and guidelines about necessary measures to protect the form and health of the Peppercorn trees.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 116
15. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
As part of its assessment of Amendment C31 the Panel is required to assess the Amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines contained in the General Practice Note on Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. A copy of the General Practice Note is included in Appendix D.
The matters to be considered and the Panel’s response are as follows:
15.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?
Yes. Application of a Heritage Overlay to places of heritage interest in the City of Maribyrnong is necessary to provide for their conservation and cannot be achieved in any other way.
15.2 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION
What is the strategic basis for the amendment?
The strategic basis for the amendment is: Sections 4(1)(d) and 12(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which state cultural heritage conservation is an objective of planning in Victoria and that planning authorities must implement these objectives. Policy 5.4 of Melbourne 2030 which includes as an initiative to ‘ensure that planning schemes reflect the full extent of heritage values in each municipality’. Clause 15.11 of the SPPF which states that planning authorities should ‘identify, conserve and protect places of natural and cultural value from inappropriate development’. The objective at Clause 21.04 of the MSS to ‘ensure the preservation of our heritage including buildings, streetscapes, natural areas, significant vegetation and sites of cultural significance’. The strategy at Clause 21.04 of the MSS to undertake ‘a Heritage Study to further develop an understanding of the heritage assets of the City of Maribyrnong’. The Maribyrnong Heritage Review 2002 that identifies places of cultural heritage interest in the City of Maribyrnong. The Maribyrnong Heritage Plan 2002 that refers to major gaps in cultural heritage protection provided by the Heritage Overlay in the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, including ‘industrial complexes, and historic places outside the former City of Footscray’.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 117 15.3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT
Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects?
Environmental effects are not a relevant issue in connection with this amendment.
Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects?
The Panel has referred to issues of impacts on operating industries and high compliance costs for property owners in Sections 9 and 11 in relation to the proposed Cultural Heritage policy and the use of incorporated plans to provide for permit exemptions. The Panel considers that these issues need to be addressed by changes to the proposed policy and by greater use of incorporated plans.
In relation to social impacts the Panel has concerns that gentrification of heritage areas around Seddon, Yarraville and Footscray may raise house prices and reduce affordability of this traditional workers’ housing stock for lower income groups. The Council has recognised this potential problem in its MSS, and proposes to provide support and assistance to owners of properties affected by the overlay. This support and assistance may help low income people, people with language barriers, and other disadvantaged people work through the complex permit application requirements. The Panel has also suggested measures to reduce permit application requirements as a means of helping these people.
Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of Planning Schemes?
Yes. However, the Panel notes that the heritage places listed in the schedule are in alphabetical order by street, rather than numerical order by heritage place. The Panel considers that this is confusing, and that the heritage places should be listed in heritage place numerical order. The Panel recommends that the schedule to the overlay be amended to list the heritage places in numerical order.
Do any other Minister’s Directions apply to the Amendment? If so, have they been complied with?
Minister’s Direction No 9 is considered in Section 15.9. No other Minister’s Directions apply.
Is the Amendment accompanied by all the information required by a Direction?
See comment in relation to Minister’s Direction No 9 in Section 15.9.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 118
15.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
What aspects, if any, of the SPPF are relevant?
Relevant aspects of the SPPF are the cultural heritage objectives at Clause 15.11, the need to balance competing objectives as referred to in Clause 11.03, the urban consolidation objectives at Clause 14.01, the need to facilitate industrial development as referred to in Clause 17.03, and the need to facilitate efficient operation of port-related uses as referred to in Clause 18.05.
Does the amendment or proposal support or give effect to the SPPF?
An assessment of the amendment against the objectives of the SPPF is provided in Section 9.
15.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
15.5.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT
How does the Amendment seek to implement and or support the MSS?
What is the strategic basis for any change to the MSS?
Has there been any community consultation with respect to proposed changes to the MSS? What have been the outcomes?
Does the change to the MSS address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note Format of Municipal Strategic Statements?
The amendment is consistent with the existing MSS, and as discussed in Sections 6 and 9 proposed changes to the MSS to introduce specific sections relating to cultural heritage will provide greater strategic support for the overlay and the Cultural Heritage policy.
Consistency with other strategic directions in the MSS is discussed in Section 9, and changes to the MSS and Cultural heritage policy are recommended to provide an appropriate decision making framework.
The Panel is satisfied that the changes to the proposed by the amendment do generally address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note. However the Panel has recommended some minor changes in Section 9.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 119
15.5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
What local planning policies will the amendment affect or be affected by?
Are the proposed changes to local planning policy necessary?
What is the strategic basis for any new or changed local planning policy?
Has the VPP Practice Note Writing a Local Planning Policy been followed?
The amendment proposes to introduce a new Cultural Heritage policy into the planning scheme. The Panel considers that the local planning policy is necessary to guide decision making in relation to permit applications made under the Heritage Overlay provisions. In particular, the Panel considers that the policy is necessary to ensure that competing strategic objectives contained in the SPPF and MSS are appropriately balanced ‘in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development’. This is discussed in Sections 8 and 9.
However, the Panel considers that the Cultural Heritage policy proposed fails to provide the necessary guidance on balancing competing objectives, and fails to address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note on Writing a Local Planning Policy. The Panel has recommended redrafting of the policy, and has provided guidance on the issues that should be addressed in the policy. The Panel has also recommended inclusion of industrial heritage policies in the LPPF.
15.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES
Does the Amendment use the most appropriate VPP tools?
Yes.
To what extent do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach?
What Planning Practice Notes are relevant?
Is the amendment in accordance with any relevant Planning Practice Notes?
The relevant Planning Practice Notes are: Applying the Heritage Overlay; Format of Municipal Strategic Statements; Writing a local planning policy.
The Panel considers that the amendment is in accordance with the practice notes on applying the Heritage Overlay and the format of MSS. However, the Panel considers that the proposed Cultural Heritage policy is not in accordance with the practice note on writing a local planning policy and has made recommendations in relation to this.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 120 15.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES
Does the Amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements?
No.
15.8 OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT
What is the cumulative effect of this amendment on the strategic directions of the planning scheme?
This issues is discussed in Section 9.
Are the amendments and the desired outcomes clear?
Yes.
15.9 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY
The explanatory report includes reference to the policy of the Metropolitan Strategy to protect heritage places and values, but includes only minimal discussion about how the amendment addresses the matters set out in Minister’s Direction 9. However, the Panel notes that the Minister’s Direction is dated 8 October 2002, and the Amendment was placed on exhibition on 21 November 2002 – only shortly after the release of the strategy. The Panel accepts that the amendment was exhibited during the initial teething period after the release of the Metropolitan Strategy. Furthermore, the Panel accepts that the amendment supports Policy 5.4 of the Metropolitan Strategy and does not compromise implementation of other policies in the strategy.
The Panel does not consider that the failure of the planning authority to provide a comprehensive discussion of the matters set out in the Minister’s Direction is a fatal flaw in the amendment.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 121
16. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
16.1 CONCLUSIONS
The Panel has considered all the submissions referred to it and all the material presented at the hearings and has concluded that part 1 of the amendment that includes the changes to planning scheme maps and Heritage Overlay schedule, and incorporation of the Historical Archaeological Management Plan should be adopted by the Council with the modifications recommended throughout the report and set out below.
The Panel has also concluded that a modified version of part 2 of the amendment should be adopted by Council. The modified amendment should include changes to the MSS substantially as exhibited, but with the modifications recommended by the Panel, and substitute the exhibited Cultural Heritage Policy with a temporary simplified version.
The Panel has also recommended that a new Cultural Heritage Policy should be prepared for inclusion in a later amendment, that an Industrial Heritage Policy should be prepared, and that incorporated plans should be developed for a number of sites in consultation with the owners of the land.
16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following recommendations to the planning authority: Amendment C31 That Amendment C31, Part 1 to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme be adopted by the Council, subject to the following modifications: Heritage Overlay Maps
That 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Geelong Road, Footscray and 2 David Street, Footscray be deleted from heritage area HO2.
That 56-60 and 55-61 Nicholson Street, Footscray be deleted from heritage area HO4.
That the Heritage Overlay be deleted from the railway land in HO9 and HO14.
That 69-79 Stephen Street be deleted from heritage area HO15.
That the extent of HO90 relating to the Kinnears Ropeworks at 130 Geelong Road, Footscray match the extent of the proposed Heritage Victoria registration.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 122
That HO130 be amended to cover the whole of the Yarraville Terminal Station site at 3 Globe Street and 306 Hyde Street, Yarraville.
That HO162 relating to the Olex Cable site be applied to Lots 2 and 7, P/S 439958F that contains the late 1950s factory buildings.
That HO179 relating to the former Pivot site in Whitehall Street< Yarraville be extended to include the whole of the administrative building complex.
That heritage area HO3 be amended by removing the overlay from Geelong Road and the building on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street.
That heritage area HO11 be redrawn to limit the overlay on Geelong Road to the service road.
That should the Heritage Council have agreed to extend the area of registration of the CSR site at 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville, that HO75 be extended to match the area covered by the Heritage Victoria registration.
Schedule to the Heritage Overlay
That the schedule to the overlay be amended to list the heritage places in numerical order.
That the changes and corrections to the existing Heritage Overlay schedule listed in the Council submission be made to the schedule.
That the description of the extent of HO88 (Elm tree avenue, Ballarat Road, Maidstone) be amended to refer to the ‘critical root zone’ of the trees rather than ‘the land within the road reserve beneath the canopy of the tree for a distance of one metre beyond the drip line, root zone or canopy perimeter, whichever is the greater’.
That the description of the extent of HO98 (Peppercorn trees on railway land) be amended to refer to the ‘critical root zone’ of the trees;
That the description of HO116 (Footscray Fire Station Complex, 67-71 Droop Street, Footscray) be amended to state that ‘The heritage place comprises the original (circa 1941) component of the fire station complex facing Droop Street’.
That the internal alterations controls in relation to HO130 (Yarraville Terminal Station, 3 Globe Street and 306 Hyde Street, Yarraville) be amended to refer to ‘the switch gear control panels and original crane’.
That the description of heritage place HO131 (Ammunition Factory, 1 Gordon Street, Footscray) be amended to clearly identify the significant elements of the place as ‘the former administration and amenities buildings of the Australian Defence Industries’.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 123
That the description of HO165 (44 The Esplanade, Maribyrnong) be amended to refer to the row of Monterey Cypress and their critical root zone, and that the Peppercorn trees on the land be assessed and if appropriate included in the description of the heritage place in the schedule.
That the schedule be amended against HO184 to list ‘Former Mt Lyell site, 295 Whitehall Street Yarraville Incorporated Plan’ in the relevant column.
That should the Heritage Council not have agreed to extend the area of registration of the CSR site at 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville, that the schedule be amended against HO183 to list ‘Sugar Australia complex, Whitehall Street Yarraville Incorporated Plan’ in the relevant column.
Individual Heritage places
That the following places be deleted from the overlay: - HO99 relating to the bluestone cistern at 8-9 Belvedere Close, Maribyrnong; - HO118 relating to the Pridham’s Peerless Holdings site at 19-21 Evans Street, Braybrook; - HO134 relating to the former Ralph McKay factory site at 44 Hampstead Road, Maidstone; - HO168 relating to the Ryco factory site in Whitehall Street and Moreland Street, Footscray; - HO181 relating to the Miller’s Ropeworks workshop at the southern part of 221A Whitehall Street, Yarraville.
That a new individual heritage place be applied to the Green’s Buildings on the south west corner of Geelong Road and Barkly Street.
That should the Heritage Council not have agreed to extend the area of registration of the CSR site at 265 Whitehall Street, Yarraville, that HO183 be deleted from the overlay.
Incorporated plans
That Council prepare an incorporated plan relating to the proposed heritage areas that provides permit exemptions for minor buildings and works that comply with specified guidelines. The incorporated plan should: - adopt a similar format to that used in the incorporated plan proposed by Amendment C58 to the Ballarat Planning Scheme; - include additional exemptions for buildings and works that comply with specific guidelines, if that is appropriate; - include a permit exemption for fences that comply with the policy requirements for the heritage areas; - include a permit exemption for demolition of non-contributory buildings.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 124
That an incorporated plan be developed in relation to the area covered by HO184, in consultation with Orica Australia, and included in the amendment. The incorporated plan should be generally in accordance with draft submitted to the Panel hearing, and incorporate the changes recommended by the Panel in Section 11.
That should the part of the Sugar Australia site covered by HO183 not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register, an incorporated plan be developed in consultation with Sugar Australia and included in the amendment. The incorporated plan should be generally in accordance with draft submitted to the Panel hearing, and incorporate the changes recommended by the Panel in Section 11.
That an incorporated plan be developed in relation to the area covered by HO179, in consultation with the Port of Melbourne Corporation, and included in the amendment. The incorporated plan should be generally in accordance with draft prepared for the former Mt Lyell sire, and with changes recommended by the Panel in Section 11, and exclude from the permit exemption provisions the following: - the administrative complex comprising the two storey office, laboratory buildings, former stables and electricity substation. - shed 4-6 and that part of shed 7 that provides structural support to shed 4-6. - the foundations and possible sub-floor deposits relating to McMeiken’s Bone Mills, unless an archaeological assessment has been carried out and the remains found to be of no significance or the assessment has identified significant archaeological remains and the site has been included on the Heritage Inventory.
That Amendment C31, Part 2 to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme should be adopted by the Council, subject to the following modifications:
MSS
The MSS clearly state that the change in emphasis along the Maribyrnong River from industrial to other uses applies to the area north of Lyons Street, and not to the core industrial area.
Clause 21.04-9 be amended by: - including policies in the Cultural Heritage policy - deleting unnecessary policies - including the second listed strategy is an objective.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 125
Cultural Heritage Policy
Deletion of the exhibited Cultural Heritage Policy.
Inclusion of an amended Cultural Heritage Policy that - states that the policy applies to heritage places other than industrial sites; - includes as a policy ‘It is policy to apply the incorporated Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications when considering applications under the Heritage Overlay’; - includes amended sub-policies relating to heritage areas that delete reference to fence styles and relocate the description of the design characteristics of existing contributory buildings in the Policy basis section.
Other
That the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications be included as an incorporated document in the Schedule to Clause 81.
That the list of contributory buildings in Volume 5 of the Heritage Review be checked for accuracy, and that the corrected list included as an incorporated document in the Schedule to Clause 81.
That an archaeological assessment be carried out on the former Pivot site in Whitehall Street, Yarraville as a matter of urgency and that any significant archaeological remnant found should be identified in the statement of significance for the site.
Heritage Review
That the following properties be deleted from the list of contributory buildings in volume 5 of the Heritage Review: - 38 Coronation Street, Kingsville; - 39 and 41 Moore Street, Footscray; - 40 Princess Street, Seddon
That the citation for the Footscray Fire Station Complex in volume 7 of the Heritage Review be replaced with the version prepared by Mr Butler in his expert witness report.
That other amendments to citations proposed by Mr Butler and Mr Vines be included in the Heritage Review.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 126
Further work by Council
Heritage Overlay
That the area bounded by Francis St to the South, the River to the East, Whitehall St (to Lyons St.) and Moreland St. in the West, and Napier St to the North, be reassessed by the Council with a view to defining a Yarraville Industrial Heritage Precinct that identifies: - contributory buildings; - non contributory buildings; - historical sites; - archaeological sites; - building remnants; - internal roads; - industrial installations and infrastructure works; and - landscape features.
That a further assessment be carried out of the canteen building on the Bradmill site at 341-351 Francis Street, Yarraville (HO125) for possible identification as a significant building in the incorporated plan relating to the site.
MSS
If necessary, strategies for balancing the competing objectives of VUT’s expansion requirements and protection of identified heritage places should be included in the MSS.
Strategies in relation to industrial heritage sites should be included in the MSS that indicate the approach that will be taken by the Council to balance the potentially competing objectives of conserving industrial heritage and encouraging and facilitating industrial viability, redevelopment and expansion.
Policies
That the exhibited General Cultural Heritage Policy be redrafted as a clear, simple document that: - gives local expression to the conservation purposes of the Heritage Overlay; - implements the objectives and strategies of the MSS; - provides guidance on the way in which competing strategic objectives of the planning scheme should be balanced in the decision making process; - refers to the Draft Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications; - follows the guidelines in the VPP Practice Note on Writing a Local Planning Policy.
That the priority actions 2.1, 2.4 and 2.8 of the Heritage Plan be implemented and used as background to development of the redrafted heritage policy.
That the redrafted General Cultural Heritage Policy be introduced into the planning scheme in a later amendment.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 127
That the Council include an Industrial Heritage policy in the LPPF, and that the draft Industrial Heritage policy submitted on behalf of PMC and amended by the Panel be used as a basis for the development of a policy.
That once an Industrial Heritage policy is included in a planning scheme amendment, deletion of the redundant policy objectives and decision guidelines in the Pivot site, Mt Lyell site and Sugar Australia site incorporated plans should also be included in the amendment.
That the policy at Clause 22.02-1 should be reviewed, and if appropriate amended to include a policy relating to preservation of period buildings.
Incorporated Plans
That should the Kinnear’s Rope Works site at 130 Ballarat Road (HO90) not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register, that an incorporated plan be prepared for the site, in consultation with the owners of the land, that provides permit exemptions for alterations to and demolition of the non-significant parts of the site.
That an incorporated plan be developed for the Bradmill site at 341-351 Francis Street, Yarraville (HO125), in consultation with the owners of the site, that provides permit exemptions for the non-significant buildings and works on the site and provides clear identification of the significant buildings as the boiler house, elevator and associated buildings, and dye house.
That an incorporated plan be developed in relation to the Graham Campbell Ferrum site at 260 Geelong Road, Footscray (HO128), in consultation with the owners of the land, that includes: - permit exemptions for minor buildings and works and demolition of non- significant structures, and - clear identification of the significant buildings as the office building and the foundry shed.
That an incorporated plan be developed in relation to the Yarraville Terminal Station at 3 Globe St and 306 Hyde St, Yarraville (HO130), in consultation with SPI Powernet, that includes: - clear identification of the significant parts of the site. - a permit exemption for demolition of, and alterations to non-significant buildings and works, and - a permit exemption for works on the components covered by internal controls other than a major upgrade, demolition or removal of the control panels and crane.
That an incorporated plan be prepared in relation to the Elm tree avenue in Ballarat Road, Maidstone (HO88), in consultation with VicRoads, that provides permit exemptions for maintenance and repair work by VicRoads, and guidelines about necessary measures to protect the health of the avenue of Elm trees.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 128
That an incorporated plan be prepared in relation to the Peppercorn trees on the railway reserve at Seddon (HO98), in consultation with VicTrack, that provides permit exemptions for necessary pruning and other maintenance work by VicTrack, and guidelines about necessary measures to protect the form and health of the Peppercorn trees.
Other
That a DDO be applied to the former Embling factory site on the west side of Stephen Street Yarraville in a later planning scheme amendment that relates to the compatibility of new development on the site with the heritage character of adjoining properties, and that the Heritage Overlay be retained over the site until the amendment to the planning scheme is approved.
DSE
That DSE give consideration to removing reference to permit applications for buildings and works on land affected by a Heritage Overlay in Clause 54 of the VPPs.
That DSE finalise the Guidelines for the Assessment of Heritage Planning Applications and include them in the schedule to Clause 81 as an incorporated document in all planning schemes.
That Heritage Victoria continue its program of state-wide typological studies, particularly in relation to different industrial uses and industrial building types.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 129
A. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
(4) VicRoads (5) Allom Lovell and Associates on behalf of Riverise (6) Mr A Davey and Ms M Davey (7) Mr B McManus (8) Ms N McAllion on behalf of Ms V O’Halloran (9) Mr M Dressler (10) Urban Edge Consultants on behalf of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (11) Clayton Utz on behalf of Peerless Holdings (12) Denim Connections and Allom Lovell and Associates (13) Victoria University of Technology, Footscray Park Campus (14) Powerhouse Projects on behalf of Graham Campbell Ferum Co Pty Ltd (15) Powerhouse Projects on behalf of Apex Belting Ltd (16) Urbis on behalf of Comland Ltd/Delfin Lend Lease Joint Venture (17) Ms S Proudfoot (18) SPI Powernet and AGL Electricity Ltd (19) Nhu Tam Dao (20) Ms S Lee and Mr H Lau (21) Mr N Tan and Chung Ngoc Anh (22) Mr G Ventrice (23) Mr H Lloyd (24) Ms B Hutchins (25) Mr I Stanley (26) Drs R and S Benson (27) Ms J Taylor (28) Ms K Kingdom (29) Mr A Aird (30) Ms M Bruzzaniti (31) Ms J Magnusson
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 130
(32) Ms J Waterhouse (33) Mr G and Ms J McMaster (34) Mr W Chapman (35) Ms M and R and Mr A and I Salazar (36) Olex Cables (37) Tolhurst Druce and Emmerson on behalf of Ms Parker and Mr S Parker (38) Mr L and Ms A Airo-Farulla (39) Mr G Koroneos (40) Mr N Gouliarmis (41) Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd (42) Melbourne Port Corporation (43) Allom Lovell and Associates on behalf of Sugar Australia (44) Stokes Planning Pty Ltd on behalf of Orica Australia (45) Galeandro, Guastalegname and Co on behalf of R and A Aloneftis (46) Ms F Proudfoot (47) Ms M Davey and Ms L Gardner, and 86 petitioners (48) Mr H Basset and Ms I Lobaza (49) Inner West Branch, National Trust of Australia (Vic) (50) Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West Inc. (51) Footscray Historical Society (52) City West Water (53) VicTrack (54) Ms C Hutchins (55) A and L Metcalf (56) Mr J Pawlus (57) D Dee (58) D Fedelle and Allom Lovell and Associates on behalf of Capital Properties Pty Ltd and Hooker Cockram Holdings (59) Mr E Johnson and Ms L Mannton (60) Mr A Fraser on behalf of Ms T Fraser (61) Cr J Cutri
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 131
B. BALLARAT C58 INCORPORATED PLAN
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 132
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 133
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 134
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 135
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 136
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 137
C. DRAFT INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE POLICY
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 138
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 139
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 140
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 141
D. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
General Practice Note STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES For Planning Scheme Amendments
The purpose of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines is to provide a consistent framework for the evaluation of a proposed planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.
The guidelines should be used by: proponents (including councils) when formulating a proposal the planning authority when considering a request to prepare an amendment any planning panel and advisory committee when considering an amendment the planning authority when considering the final construction and adoption of an amendment the Department of Sustainability and Environment when considering an amendment submitted to the Minister for approval.
PRINCIPLES APPLYING TO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS
Key objectives for Victoria’s planning scheme are to: make planning more strategic and policy based make the reasons for planning policies and requirements and planning decisions more transparent ensure planning schemes are clear and useable.
These objectives equally apply to planning schemes amendments.
Make planning more strategic and policy based
The strategic foundation of each scheme is made up of two components – the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Policy Framework.
If the strategic focus of new schemes is to be maintained, it is essential that subsequent amendments do not undermine or ignore the planning policy framework in the scheme.
For this reason, an amendment should seek to implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework of the planning scheme. Any specific proposal should support the policy framework.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 142
Make the reasons for planning policies and requirements and planning decisions more transparent
The strategic directions that have been developed for the State or a municipality should guide the application of appropriate planning tools from the Victoria Planning Provisions. As Section 12A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires controls on the use and development of land in a planning scheme relate to the objectives and strategies set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement for the municipality. It is therefore important when preparing an amendment to a planning scheme to ensure that there are clear linkages between the Municipal Strategic Statement and the application of zones, overlays, schedules and policies, and that links to the Council’s Corporate Plan are apparent.
Ensure planning schemes are clear and useable
The Victoria Planning Provisions provide clarity and consistency for users of planning schemes through the use of standard planning provisions, which ensure that consistent provisions for various matters are maintained across Victoria.
To ensure planning schemes are clear and useable, a series of Planning Practice Notes has been prepared on the use of the Victoria Planning Provisions. Planning Practice Notes provide best practice guidance about the use and application of many Victoria Planning Provisions tools, explanation and guidance about statutory processes and recommended structure and wording of statutory documents.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED
The broad issues to be considered in preparing and assessing an amendment or proposal are: Is an amendment required? What is the strategic basis for the amendment or proposal? Have the requirements of the Act been considered? Does the amendment or proposal support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework? What consequences will any proposed or necessary changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement or local planning policies have for other aspects of the policy framework? Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions? What is the outcome of the amendment or proposal in terms of the planning scheme’s strategic directions, useability and transparency?
Planning Panels and Advisory Committees will report on these matters when considering an amendment or proposal. The Department of Sustainability and Environment will also address these matters when considering any amendment submitted to the Minister for approval.
In the context of evaluating these matters, the following issues should be addressed. If any issue is not relevant, this should be stated giving the reason why.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 143
IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?
Before starting to prepare an amendment, consider whether an amendment is necessary. Does the amendment repeat provisions already in the scheme? If so, what additional value will the amendment to the scheme provide? Is an amendment necessary? Are there other ways of achieving the desired outcome? (For example, can the matter be dealt by other available council mechanisms such as a local law or with as a planning permit application?) If so, why is an amendment to the scheme the preferred approach?
STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION
Every amendment should be strategically supported and should maintain or develop the strategic focus of the planning scheme. What is the strategic basis for the amendment?
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT ACT
Every amendment must meet the requirements of the Act including any Ministerial Directions under Section 7 and Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects? Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects? Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes? Do any other Minister’s Directions apply to the amendment? If so, have they been complied with? Is the amendment accompanied by all of the information required by a Direction?
STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
To ensure planning schemes further the objectives of planning in Victoria, planning authorities must take into account and give effect to the general principles and specific policies contained in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF). What aspects, if any, of the SPPF are relevant? Does the amendment or proposal support or give effect to the SPPF?
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) sets a local and regional strategic policy context for a municipality. It comprises the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and specific local planning policies.
If an amendment or proposal is at odds with the existing policy framework of the planning scheme, then the policy framework itself may require re-assessment. If this leads to the conclusion that the LPPF itself needs amendment, then the implications of the change for the rest of the planning scheme will need to be considered.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 144
It is not necessary to include references to specific proposals in the LPPF. The LPPF does not need to identify every project, but rather sets the policies and strategic objectives against which individual projects will be addressed.
Municipal Strategic Statement
The MSS contains the strategic planning objectives of the council and the strategies employed to achieve them. As such, there should be a clear link between the objectives and outcomes sought by the MSS and the requirements applied in the scheme. When preparing an amendment to the planning scheme, the planning authority must take the MSS into account. How does the amendment or proposal seek to implement and or support the MSS? If the amendment or proposal does not support or implement the MSS, are any changes to the MSS proposed or necessary? What is the strategic basis for any change to the MSS? What effect will any change to the MSS have on the rest of the MSS: - Is the amendment consistent/inconsistent with strategic directions elsewhere in the MSS? - What is the cumulative effect of this amendment and other amendments/proposals on the strategic directions in the MSS? Has there been any community consultation with respect to proposed changes to the MSS? What have been the outcomes? Does the change to the MSS address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note Format of Municipal Strategic Statements?
Local Planning Policy
A Local Planning Policy is one of the tools available for implementing objectives and strategies in the MSS. A local planning policy is a tool for day-to-day decision making in relation to a specific discretion in the planning scheme. It helps the responsible authority and other users of the scheme to understand how a particular discretion is likely to be exercised. When preparing amendments to the scheme, a planning authority must take the content of relevant local planning policies into account. What local planning policies will the amendment or proposal affect or be affected by? If the amendment introduces or changes a local planning policy, is this necessary? Or is the issue adequately covered by another planning tool or decision guideline? What is the strategic basis for any new or changed local planning policy? If the amendment introduces or changes a local planning policy, has the VPP Practice Note Writing a Local Planning Policy been followed? In particular does the local planning policy: - respond to a demonstrated need? - implement an objective or strategy in the MSS? - relate to a specific discretion or group of discretions in the scheme? - assist the responsible authority to make a decision? - assist any other person to understand whether a proposal is likely to be supported or not? - add to the other planning tools in the scheme, especially the relevant zone or overlay?
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004 Page 145
- address the format, content and language guidance this practice note?
ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES
Zones and overlays are used to implement the State and local strategic directions identified in the SPPF and LPPF and the application of requirements such as zones, overlays and local provisions must have a readily discernible basis in the SPPF or LPPF.
In deciding the most appropriate VPP tool to best implement the strategic outcomes of an amendment, consideration should be given to the series of Planning Practice Notes that have been prepared on the use of the Victoria Planning Provisions. Practice Notes should be used where relevant to ensure consistency and best practice methodology in every amendment. Does the amendment use the most appropriate VPP tool to achieve the strategic objective of the scheme? (For example, is the right zone or overlay used?). To what extent do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach? What Planning Practice Notes are relevant? Is the amendment in accordance with any relevant Planning Practice Notes?
REFERRAL AUTHORITIES
The creation of a new referral authority must be justified and consideration should be given to the need for new formal or informal referrals of planning applications. Does the amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements? If so, does the referral authority support these requirements? What is the purpose of the referral? Are the referral arrangements performance based? Can this purpose be served by other means, for example mandatory notice under Section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or a mandatory condition on every permit under Section 62(1)(a)?
OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT What is the cumulative effect of this amendment and other amendments on the strategic directions of the planning scheme and on the useability and transparency of the planning scheme? Are the amendment and the desired outcomes clear?
An up-to-date list of Planning Practice Notes and Ministerial Directions can be found at www.dse.vic.gov.au/planning
This is a text version of the current approved Practice Note, correct as of the date of issue of this report.
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME, AMENDMENT C31 PANEL REPORT: AUGUST 2004