Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019

4 February 2020

Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 4 February 2020

Tim Hellsten, Chair Ray Tonkin, Member

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Contents Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 2 1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions ...... 3 1.4 Procedural or other issues ...... 4 1.5 The Panel’s approach ...... 5 2 Planning context ...... 7 2.1 Planning Policy Framework ...... 7 2.2 Planning scheme provisions ...... 7 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 8 2.4 Amendment VC148 ...... 10 3 Strategic justification ...... 11 3.1 Heritage Study methodology ...... 11 3.2 Policy support ...... 13 3.3 Conclusions ...... 14 4 Common issues ...... 15 4.1 Property value and financial implications ...... 15 4.2 Building condition, development opportunity, building alterations and maintenance ...... 16 5 Precincts and group listings ...... 18 5.1 Kialla Village Settlement (HO276) ...... 18 5.2 Nixon Street Group, Shepparton (134 and 142 Nixon Street) (HO174) ...... 23 5.3 32 Orr Street, Shepparton (HO140) ...... 28 6 Individual places ...... 31 6.1 170 Ardmona Road, Ardmona (former Ardmona Grammar School) (HO231) ...... 31 6.2 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha (Maneroo Homestead) (HO240) ...... 33 6.3 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma (Homestead and Log structures) (HO247 and HO142) ...... 35 6.4 1065 Murchison-Tatura Road, Dhurringile (Homestead) (HO254) ...... 39 6.5 75 Quarry Road, Dookie (Magennis Cottage) (HO260) ...... 41 6.6 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale (Harris House) (HO263) ...... 43 6.7 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains (Boorinda Homestead) (HO281) ...... 45 6.8 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) (HO286) ...... 47 6.9 13 Pearce Street, Merrigum (Dutch House) (HO290) ...... 50 6.10 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum (Blacksmith and Motor Garage) (HO287) ...... 52

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.11 16 Alexandra Street, Mooroopna (former Parsonage) (HO302) ...... 54 6.12 209-231 McLennan Street, Mooroopna (Turkish Mosque) (HO385) ...... 56 6.13 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna (Ardmona Cannery) (HO321) ...... 59 6.14 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison (Waranga Park) (HO328) ...... 62 6.15 325 Poplar Avenue, Orrvale (former Methodist Church) (HO342) ...... 64 6.16 9 and 9A Edward Street, Shepparton (House) (HO352) ...... 66 6.17 61 Maude Street, Shepparton (House) (HO186) ...... 68 6.18 31 Welsford Street, Shepparton (House) (HO364) ...... 70 6.19 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East (former Shepparton East Hall) (HO368) ...... 72 6.20 110 Craven Road, Tatura (Gladfield HO375 and Nimitybelle HO376) ...... 75 6.21 201 Hogan Street, Tatura (Shop) (HO218) ...... 78 6.22 1340 Murchison-Tatura Road, Tatura (Homestead) (HO385) ...... 80 6.23 575 Toolamba-Rushworth Road, Toolamba West (former Uniting Church) (HO124) ...... 82 6.24 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust (former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall) (HO104) ...... 84 6.25 210 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust (former Gribben log building) (HO404) ...... 86 6.26 Various sites (DELWP submission) ...... 88 7 Form and content of Amendment ...... 90 7.1 Tree controls ...... 90 7.2 Internal controls ...... 92 7.3 Paint controls...... 93 7.4 Double listings ...... 95 7.5 Heritage Overlay Schedule notations of incorporated plans ...... 97 7.6 Clause 21.05-4 ...... 97 7.7 Other post-exhibition changes ...... 98

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing Appendix C Document list

List of Tables Page Table 1 Chronology of events ...... 2

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

List of Figures Page Figure 1 Kialla Village Settlement Heritage Overlay extent ...... 19 Figure 2 Shepparton Residential Precinct North ...... 28 Figure 3 Council proposed post-exhibition changes for HO286 curtilage ...... 49 Figure 4 Council proposed post-exhibition changes for HO287 curtilage ...... 53 Figure 5 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO321 curtilage ...... 60 Figure 6 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO321 curtilage ...... 63 Figure 7 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO368 curtilage ...... 73 Figure 8 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO404 curtilage ...... 87

Glossary and abbreviations

Act Planning and Environment Act 1987 Council Greater Shepparton City Council DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Heritage Study Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 Planning Scheme Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme PPN01 Planning Practice Note 1 Applying the Heritage Overlay, August 2018 PPN46 Planning Practice Note 46 Strategic Assessment Guidelines, August 2018 the Amendment Amendment C205 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Overview

Amendment summary The Amendment Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 Common name Greater Shepparton Heritage Review 2019 Brief description Implement the Greater Shepparton Heritage Study II 2019 by applying the Heritage Overlay to 178 individual places on a permanent basis, amending Clause 21.05, the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and amending or introducing three incorporated documents. Subject land All land within an interim or permanent Heritage Overlay within the City of Greater Shepparton including various properties and places in Arcadia, Ardmona, Boxwood, Bunbartha, Byrneside, Caniambo, Congupna, Cooma, Cosgrove and Cosgrove South, Dhurringle, Dookie and Dookie College, Girgarre East, Grahamvale, Harston, Karramomus, Katandra and Katandra West, Kialla, Kialla East and Kialla West, Kyabram, Lemnos, Major Plains, Merrigum, Moorilim, Mooroopna, Mooroopna North and Mooroopna North West, Mount Major, Murchison, Murchison East and Murchison North, Nalinga, Orrvale, Pine Lodge, Shepparton, Shepparton East, Tallygaroopna, Tatura, Toolamba and Toolamba West, Undera and Zeerust. The Proponent Greater Shepparton City Council Planning Authority Greater Shepparton City Council Authorisation 21 June 2018 Exhibition 13 June – 26 August 2019 Submissions Number of Submissions: 43 Opposed or seeking changes: 39 Refer Appendix A

Panel process The Panel Tim Hellsten (Chair) and Ray Tonkin Directions Hearing Council Offices, Shepparton, 18 October 2019 Panel Hearing La Trobe University, Shepparton, 2 and 3 December 2019 Site inspections Unaccompanied, 3 and 4 December 2019 Accompanied, 3 December 2019, Goulburn Valley Water Wastewater Management Facility, Tatura Appearances Refer Appendix B Citation Greater Shepparton PSA C205 [2020] PPV Date of this Report 4 February 2020

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Executive summary Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 (the Amendment) seeks to implement the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 (the Heritage Study). The Heritage Study consolidates and updates the content and recommendations of previous heritage studies and panel reports into a single document. The Amendment implements the Heritage Study through the application of the Heritage Overlay to 178 places on a permanent basis and to additional sites in Shepparton, Tatura and the Kialla Village Settlement and 30 places within existing heritage precincts. In addition, the Amendment makes changes to Clause 21.05-4 and the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and amends or introduces three incorporated documents. A total of 43 submissions were received in response to exhibition of the Amendment including three late submissions and were referred to the Panel. The key issues raised in submissions opposing the Amendment included: • requests for properties to be removed from the Heritage Overlay given alterations or a purported lack of heritage significance • requests to change citations • requests to change the extent of the Heritage Overlay • the extent of internal alteration, tree removal, external painting and outbuilding and fences controls • impact on property values and restrictions in undertaking maintenance and additions • lack of community benefit. The Panel considers that the Heritage Study is robust and has been prepared in a manner consistent with Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay using an appropriate methodology and level of analysis for an assessment of this scale. The Panel congratulates Council in undertaking such a comprehensive and wide scale assessment of its heritage assets. The Panel finds that the application of the Heritage Overlay and other changes proposed to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme is strategically justified and supported by Council’s commitment to providing access to its heritage advisory services to assist permit applicants and a heritage grants program. Overall, the Amendment will deliver a net community benefit by protecting important elements of the municipality’s cultural heritage. Council identified extensive post-exhibition changes to the Amendment in response to submissions and other informal discussions with landowners resulting in a number of places proposed to be removed from the Amendment or have their Heritage Overlay curtilage reduced and the extent of internal alterations, tree and outbuilding controls refined. The Panel considers that Council has applied a pragmatic approach to dealing with submissions and demonstrated a willingness to refine the Amendment and reduce its potential impact. The Panel supports most of Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes and its recommendations are largely based on those identified changes. It is satisfied that

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

no further notification of these changes was required because they did not have the capacity to cause detriment to any land owners or submitters. The Panel has made a number of recommendations and observations in Chapter 7 for Council’s consideration relating to group listings, external paint controls and the wording of the proposed demolition policy. The Panel considers that there is a need for further strategic work following the consideration of the Amendment by Council, including a review of the Nixon Street Group (HO174) in line with the recommendation of the Panel for Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C110 and a review of the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan 2019 to provide guidance for external paint colours particularly for homesteads. Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205 be adopted as exhibited adopted as exhibited subject to the following: No longer apply: a) HO247 to 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma. b) HO260 to 75 Quarry Road, Dookie. c) HO263 to 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale. d) HO218 to 201 Hogan Street, Tatura. Amend the curtilage of: a) HO286 (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore, 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). b) HO321 (Ardmona Cannery, 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). c) HO287 to remove the dwelling at 101 Morrissey Street, Merrigum as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes Council’s Part C submission. d) HO328 (‘Waranga Park’, 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison) to include the homestead and avenue of peppercorn trees and exclude the western paddock as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). e) HO368 (former Shepparton East Hall, 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). f) HO404 (former Gribben log Building, 210 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: a) Amend the description of HO142 to apply to the ‘Homestead and log structures’ at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and insert ‘Yes’ under the ‘Tree controls apply?’ and ‘Outbuildings or fences not exempt’ columns and

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

identify the log structures under the ‘Internal alteration controls apply? Column. b) Limit the extent of internal controls to the 1920s cork lined cool rooms along with all former external face brick walls and signage in the ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ column for HO321 (Ardmona Cannery, 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). c) Insert ‘No’ under ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ for HO342 (former Methodist Church, 325 Poplar Avenue, Orrvale). d) Insert ‘No’ under the ‘Outbuildings or fence not exempt’ apply for HO186 (61 Maude Street, Shepparton). e) Insert ‘No’ under ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ for HO368 (former Shepparton East Hall, 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). f) Insert ‘& toilet block’ under ‘Outbuildings or fences not exempt’ for HO104 (former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall at 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). g) Amend the content of ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ columns as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan March 2019 to: a) Under ‘2. Purpose’ delete the last paragraph relating to the Heritage Act 2017. b) Delete Appendix 2 and associated Heritage Act 2017 Section references. Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: a) Include the historical place information for 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha as identified in Council’s post-exhibition changes included in its Part A submission (Document 1) and Ms Kemp’s evidence. b) Delete the 75 Quarry Road, Dookie Statement of Significance. c) Delete the 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale Statement of Significance. d) Delete the 201 Hogan Street, Shepparton Statement of Significance. e) Consolidate the Statements of Significance for the Homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and remove reference to the demolished mud structure. f) Note that the later additions to the coolstore at 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) are not significant. g) Remove reference to the fence and correct the formatting under ‘Why is it Significant?’ for 61 Maude Street, Shepparton. h) Include details on ‘What is Significant?’ and ‘How is it Significant?’ and identify the relevant Hercon Criterion for the former Uniting Church at 575 Toolamba-Rushworth Road, Toolamba West. i) Include details on ‘What is Significant?’ and ‘How is it Significant?’ and identify the relevant Hercon Criterion and identify the significance of the toilet structure for the former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall at 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust.

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

j) Include additional detail about significant trees as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). k) Include detail about the application of internal controls as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). l) Include a definition of lopping as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: a) Amend the citation for 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha to include the historical place information identified in Council’s post-exhibition changes included in its Part A submission (Document 1) and Ms Kemp’s evidence. b) Consolidate the citations for the Homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and remove reference to the demolished mud structure. c) Amend the citation for 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) to note that the later additions to the coolstore are not significant. d) Amend the citation for 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna (Ardmona Cannery) to reflect changes to the Heritage Overlay Curtilage and extent of internal significance as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). e) Amend the citation for Waranga Park, 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison to identify the significance of mature trees as identified in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). f) Amend the citation for 61 Maude Street, Shepparton to remove reference to the fence. The Panel further recommends: Council undertake further strategic work to review the Nixon Street Group (HO174) in line with the recommendation of the Panel for Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C110. Council undertake further strategic work to review the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan 2019 to provide guidance in the form of a range of appropriate external paint colours.

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

(i) Amendment description The purpose of the Amendment C205 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme (the Amendment) is to implement the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 (the Heritage Study). The Heritage Study consolidates and updates the recommendations of the Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II 2007, the Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIB 2013 and the Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC 2017 into one document. The Amendment further implements recommendation 36 of the Panel’s report for Amendment C1101 which recommended that a new incorporated plan be prepared to include all of the Statements of Significance for places in the Heritage Overlay to strengthen the level of protection afforded to these places. The Amendment implements the Heritage Study through the application of the Heritage Overly, amending Clause 21.05 and the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and amending or introducing three incorporated documents. Specifically, the Amendment: • applies the Heritage Overlay to 178 individual places on a permanent basis and to three additional places (36 Welsford Street, Shepparton, 18 and 20 Thomson Street, Tatura) and additional sites within the Kialla Village Settlement and applies the Heritage Overlay to 30 individually significant places within existing precincts. • amends Clause 21.05 Environment to remove the seven existing statements of significance for the heritage precincts, revise the demolition policy and update the strategic work program • amends Clause 21.09 Reference Documents to consolidate all previous heritage studies into the one Heritage Study reference document • amends the Schedule to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Heritage Study by revising the internal, tree and outbuilding controls and the application of incorporated plans for places in the Heritage Overlay • amends the Schedule to Clause 72.04 Schedule to the Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme to include the: - revised Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019 - Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019

1 Greater Shepparton C110 (PSA) [2013] PPV 37 (26 April 2013).

Page 1 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

- Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan April 2019.

(ii) The subject land The Amendment applies to all land within a Heritage Overlay in the municipality including in the following locations - Arcadia, Ardmona, Boxwood, Bunbartha, Byrneside, Caniambo, Congupna, Cooma, Cosgrove and Cosgrove South, Dhurringle, Dookie and Dookie College, Girgarre East, Grahamvale, Harston, Karramomus, Katandra and Katandra West, Kialla, Kialla East and Kialla West, Kyabram, Lemnos, Major Plains, Merrigum, Moorilim, Mooroopna, Mooroopna North and Mooroopna North West, Mount Major, Murchison, Murchison East and Murchison North, Nalinga, Orrvale, Pine Lodge, Shepparton, Shepparton East, Tallygaroopna, Tatura, Toolamba and Toolamba West, Undera and Zeerust.

1.2 Background

(i) Chronology of events Council’s Part A submission (Document 1) identified a chronology of events leading to the preparation of the Heritage Study and the Amendment including previous heritage studies and amendments to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme (the Planning Scheme) as summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Chronology of events Date Event 2001 City of Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage I undertaken by SOMA Design Partnership Pty Ltd in 2001 and 2002. 135 places of cultural heritage significance were identified 2004 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II undertaken by Allom Lovell and Associates Pty Ltd. Included a revised thematic history and comprehensive review of previously identified significant places and recommended an additional 135 places, including two residential precincts (HO140 & HO141), to be included within the Heritage Overlay and 90 additional places be investigated as part of a future study 23 December 2004 Recommendations of Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II implemented on an interim basis through Amendment C49 27 September 2007 Amendment C50 permanently applied the Heritage Overlay recommendations of Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II 2009 and 2010 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIB undertaken by Heritage Concepts Pty Ltd. Identified gaps in previous studies and made recommendations for the conservation of places of post-European contact cultural heritage significance. Adopted by Council on 21 September 2010 23 October 2013 Amendment C110 applied the Heritage Overlay to 51 places and 3 precincts (including 118 properties) and introduced the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan 2016 – 2017 Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC prepared with a focus on

Page 2 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

rural areas. It identified 180 individually significant places and recommended the application of the Heritage Overlay. Council endorsed the study on 18 July 2017 releasing it for comment with 57 submissions received. Council adopted the study on 10 December 2017 and resolved to prepare and exhibit an amendment (with the inclusion of outstanding recommendations from the Panel report for Amendment C110) Early to Mid-2018 After discussions with Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Council prepared the Amendment documentation for Amendment C204 (Interim Heritage Controls) 21 June 2018 Amendment C205 authorised 20 November 2018 Amendment C204 approved by Minister, applying interim heritage controls to 178 places including 5 precincts in Dookie and Murchison. 2 May 2019 Amendment C216 approved by Minister, extending the expiry date of interim heritage controls until 1 May 2020 11 June 2019 Land owners, occupiers, referral authorities and relevant Ministers notified of exhibition of Amendment C205 13 June - 26 August 2019 Exhibition of Amendment C205 24 September 2019 Council requests an independent planning panel to consider submissions to the Amendment

(ii) Interim controls Amendment C204 to the Planning Scheme applied the Heritage Overlay on an interim basis to 178 of the 180 places identified in Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC. Amendment C216 extended the expiry of the interim controls to 1 May 2020 to enable Council to prepare the current Amendment. The Amendment if approved will result in the interim controls lapsing or being procedurally removed and replaced by the proposed permanent provisions.

1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions A total of 43 submissions were received in response to exhibition of the Amendment including three late submissions which are discussed at section 1.4 of this Report. Submission 1 (Powercor), Submission 4 (Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority) and Submission 40 (Goulburn-Murray Water) offered no objection to the Amendment. Submission 36 identified a range of suggested corrections to citations and the Heritage Study generally. The remaining submissions opposed the Amendment or sought changes to it, identifying the following issues: • requests for properties to be removed from Heritage Overlay given alterations or a purported lack of heritage significance • requests to change to citations • requests to change the extent of the Heritage Overlay • extent of internal alteration, tree removal, external paint, outbuilding and fences controls

Page 3 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• impact on property values and restrictions in undertaking maintenance and additions • lack of community benefit.

1.4 Procedural or other issues

(i) Post exhibition changes Council proposed the following post-exhibition changes in response to its consideration of submissions: • Remove HO263 from 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale and HO26 from the property at 75 Quarry-Dookie Road which has been demolished • Removing the incorrectly applied HO405 from 235 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust and apply it to 235 Zeerust Road, Zeerust. Council officers sent a letter to the land owner of 235 Zeerust Road, Zeerust on 2 July 2019 stating that Council was proposing a post-exhibition change to the Amendment to apply a Heritage Overlay on the property. To date, no response has been received from the land owner. • Reduce the extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay at: - 210 Zeerust School Road (HO404) - 102 Morrissey St Merrigum (HO287) • Update Heritage Study Citations: - 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha (HO240) - 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust (HO104) - 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains (HO281) - to correct various grammatical or historical errors identified by submitter 36 or other individual submitters • Citation and Heritage Overlay schedule changes for 61 Maude Street Shepparton (HO186) • Amending the Heritage Overlay schedule provisions for: - 16 Alexandra St Mooroopna (HO302) to remove internal controls - 209-231 McLennan St Mooroopna (HO310) to apply outbuilding controls. These changes were further detailed in Council’s Part A and B submissions. Its Part C closing submission included further changes in a consolidated document which is discussed further in this Report.

(ii) Submitter 22 Mr Nawab (for submitter 22) raised a number of preliminary issues regarding dealings with Council officers including potential trespass issues. The Panel was of the view that these issues were not matters for the Panel to deal with and did not impact on the submitters capacity to present their submission to the Panel.

Page 4 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Late submissions Two late submissions (Submissions 41 and 42) were accepted by Council and referred to the Panel by Council on 23 October prior to the Directions Hearing. A further late submission was received during the Hearing from Geoffrey Thompson Holdings Limited (Submission 43 and Document 16) relating to the former Ardmona Cannery (HO321) in Mooroopna. Council accepted the submission and referred it to the Panel on the basis that it had been discussing the curtilage extent of HO321 with the land owner during the Amendment process. The Panel has considered the late submissions in addition to all the other submissions referred to it.

(iv) Site inspections The Panel viewed submission sites (from the road frontage where possible) on 3 December 2019 and 4 December 2019. These site visits were all unaccompanied. The Panel viewed the former homestead located on the Goulburn Valley Water Wastewater Management Facility site at Tatura on 3 December 2019. For health and safety reasons, the Panel members were escorted over the site and through the dwelling by a representative of Goulburn Valley Water who was not involved in the organisation’s submission to Council or presentation of it to the Panel. No other parties were present, and the Panel did not discuss any aspect of the Amendment with that representative.

(v) Additional documents Council provided the Panel with the following documentation after the Hearing: • correspondence regarding 210 Zeerust-School Road, Zeerust (HO404) with revised mapping retracting the extent of HO404 (Document 19) • correspondence regarding revised mapping retracting the extent of the HO321 and citation changes for the former Ardmona Cannery in Mooroopna (Document with 18) • confirmation that the land containing the Flume at Murchison-Goulburn Weir (HO332) was owned by Goulburn-Murray Water who had no objection to the application of the Heritage Overlay to that place • its Part C submission (Document 17) which was provided to submitters and included on Council’s website.

1.5 The Panel’s approach The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme. The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All

Page 5 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. This Report deals with the issues under the following headings: • Planning context • Strategic justification • Common issues • Precincts and group listings • Individual places • Form and content of the Amendment.

Page 6 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

2 Planning context

2.1 Planning Policy Framework The Explanatory Report for the Amendment and Council’s Part A submission identified that the Amendment is supported by various clauses in the Planning Policy Framework, which the Panel has summarised below. Victorian planning objectives The Amendment will assist in implementing the following objectives of planning in Victoria set out in section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act): (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. … (f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. The Amendment is consistent with these objectives by applying the Heritage Overlay to identify and manage places identifies as having heritage significance. Clause 12.05-1S (Environmentally sensitive areas) The Amendment supports Clause 21.05-1S by applying the Heritage Overlay to several parks and reserves of natural heritage significance and ensures that they will not be unsympathetically altered or diminished in value. Clause 15 (Built Environment) The Amendment supports Clause 15 (including Clause 15.03-1S Heritage Conservation) 21.05-1S by documenting places of significance and protecting those places of heritage, architectural, aesthetic and cultural value through the application of the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis to manage and protect those places for the benefit of future generations. Clause 21 (the Municipal Strategic Statement) The Amendment supports the objectives of Clause 21.05-4 (Cultural Heritage) which recognise the value placed on cultural heritage significance by the community and its commitment to the conservation and protection of those places. The Amendment achieves this by ensuring places of cultural heritage significance are conserved or restored, demolition is discouraged and that that the effects of new development are considered carefully.

2.2 Planning scheme provisions The purposes of the Heritage Overlay include: • To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. • To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.

Page 7 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. • To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the heritage place. The Heritage Overlay requires a planning permit to undertake demolition, subdivision, buildings and works. The schedule to the Heritage Overlay can: • identify additional controls for specified trees, external painting (painting previously unpainted surfaces) and internal alterations • allow prohibited uses to be permitted • identify outbuildings and fences which are not exempt from the notice provisions or review rights of the Act for demolition or removal. The Amendment introduces external paint control, internal alteration and outbuilding provisions for many identified places (including for places already within a permanent Heritage Overlay).

2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes The following Ministerial Directions are relevant to the Amendment: • Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments) • Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Act. The Explanatory Report discusses how the Amendment meets these Ministerial Directions. That discussion is not repeated here. The following Planning Practice Notes are relevant to the Amendment: • Planning Practice Note 1 Applying the Heritage Overlay, August 2018 (PPN01) • Planning Practice Note 13 Incorporated and Background Documents, September 2018 (PPN13) • Planning Practice Note 46 Strategic Assessment Guidelines, August 2018 (PPN46).

(i) Planning Practice Note 1 PPN01 provides guidance about using the Heritage Overlay. It states that the Heritage Overlay should be applied to, among other places: Places identified in a local heritage study, provided the significance of the place can be shown to justify the application of the overlay. PPN01 identifies the importance of comparative analysis and provides guidance around content and development of statement of significance, schedule content, use of schedule triggers and mapping. PPN01 specifies that documentation for each heritage place needs to include a statement of significance that clearly establishes the importance of the place and addresses the heritage criteria. It recognises the following model criteria (the Hercon criteria) that have been adopted for assessing the value of a heritage place: Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).

Page 8 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Criterion B: Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity). Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential). Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness). Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance). Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance). Criterion G: Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance). Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history (associative significance). The Panel considers that the exhibited Statements of Significance have been prepared in a manner and form consistent with PPN01.

(ii) Planning Practice Note 13 Incorporated and Background Documents Planning Practice Note 13 explains the role of external documents in planning schemes, the difference between incorporated and background documents and provides guidance on when a document should be incorporated or be a background document. A document must be incorporated if it is essential to the administration or enforcement of the Planning Scheme and is necessary to determine whether or not planning permission is required. The Amendment seeks to update and introduce three (3) incorporated documents (Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019, Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Document 2019 and the Statement of Significance Incorporated Document 2019) and to introduce the Heritage Study as a reference document (which has the same status as a background document). The Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019 and Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Document 2019 are appropriately identified as incorporated plans as they provide exemptions from the need for a planning permit in the Heritage Overlay. The Statement of Significance Incorporated Document 2019 includes all proposed Statements of Significance and is required to be identified as an incorporated document within the Schedule to Clause 43.01. The Statements of Significance provide important information about the significant attributes or elements of a particular place to inform decision making. The Amendment appropriately identifies the Heritage Study as a reference document in Clause 21.09 to consolidate previous heritage studies into one reference document and provide background (including citations) to individual place identification. The Panel considers these documents have generally been prepared in accordance with Planning Practice Note 13. As identified by Council, the documents will ensure the Planning

Page 9 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Scheme functions properly and that decision making regarding heritage matters can be appropriately informed.

(iii) Planning Practice Note 46 PPN46 identifies that in addressing whether an amendment implements the objectives of planning, where applicable: An environmental, social and economic assessment should include an evaluation of the costs and benefits to businesses and the community arising from any requirement of the amendment. PPN46 identifies that: The normal way of assessing the social and economic effects of an amendment is to consider whether or not the amendment results in a net community benefit. Council identified that Amendment would have positive environmental impacts by protecting places of heritage significance by providing a mechanism to protect the richness and diversity of the municipality’s built and natural environment. Council considered the Amendment will have positive social effects through the conservation of places of heritage significance for the benefit of current and future generations. It submitted that the Amendment will not have adverse economic impacts, citing the incorporated documents which seek to minimise permits and access to its heritage advisory services.

2.4 Amendment VC148 Amendment VC148 was gazetted on 31 July 2018 and facilitated substantial changes to the structure and content of the planning policy framework and Planning Scheme, including the format and structure of the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Council advised that the Amendment is consistent with the changes to the Heritage Overlay introduced by Amendment VC148.

Page 10 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

3 Strategic justification

3.1 Heritage Study methodology

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the methodology in developing the Heritage Study is appropriate to support the application of the Heritage Overlay.

(ii) Background The Heritage Study is a consolidation of three heritage studies previously prepared to assess places of post-contact and shared cultural heritage significance within the City of Greater Shepparton: • City of Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II 2007 • Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIB 2013 • Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC 2017. The Heritage Study was prepared in 2018-2019 by Heritage Concepts Pty Ltd with assistance from Council officers and in consultation with Greater Shepparton Heritage Advisory Committee. The Heritage Study comprises: • an introduction and consolidated recommendations including a methodology overview • a thematic environmental history • a Tatura Contextual History • methodologies for previous heritage studies • individual place citations • places of contributory significance within heritage precincts. The Heritage Study includes definitions for: • ‘Individually’ significant places include buildings or surrounds that are of their own intrinsic importance to the City of Greater Shepparton (or the State of Victoria). • Within heritage precincts: - ‘Contributory’ heritage places - buildings and surrounds that are representative places of local cultural heritage significance that contribute to the significance of their respective heritage precinct - ‘Non-contributory’ heritage places - buildings located within a heritage precinct that do not actively contribute to the significance of the heritage precinct. • Group or (serial) listings - places that share a common history or significance, but do not necessarily adjoin each other (for example the Nixon Street Group (HO174)). These collective groups of properties are considered to be one heritage place and often share a common statement of significance. Council explained that the Heritage Study involved:

Page 11 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• amalgamation of previous heritage studies to provide for better usability by locating all relevant information into a single reference document, account for the time periods between the preparation of the various studies and to ensure the Amendment documentation is prepared in accordance with the requirements of Amendment VC148. • revision of numerous Statements of Significance to align with current Heritage Victoria guidelines and to correct erroneous detail • preparation of additional place citation reports for 18 and 20 Thomson Street, Tatura and 36 Welsford Street, Shepparton and places of individual heritage significance within heritage precincts resulting in some places being double listed.

(iii) Evidence and submissions The evidence of Ms Kemp (Document 2) set out the approach taken in the preparation of Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC 2017.2 This included the basis of place selection, the establishment of thresholds of cultural heritage significance (including the use of Hercon criteria), the comparative analysis undertaken and consideration of other factors such as intactness. Ms Kemp identified that comparative analysis particularly for rural places was considered on the extent to which places were representative of historic and aesthetic regional characteristics and achieving a regional spread to reflect the history of settlement and development of rural industries in the municipality. The submission of Goulburn Valley Water (Submission 34) and Submission 7 were critical about the methodology of the Heritage Study including the site selection process and the level of comparative analysis undertaken. Submissions 11, 22 and 27 were critical about the non-inclusion of properties demonstrating similar characteristics. Submissions 24 and 31 questioned the limited content in the Statements of Significance. Council submitted that the Heritage Study and the Amendment were consistent with PPN01. It identified a range of proposed post-exhibition changes in its Part C submission to correct errors or qualify significant vegetation or internal fabric.

(iv) Discussion The Panel considers that the Heritage Study is a robust and comprehensive study of the municipality’s cultural heritage. The Heritage Study broadly follows the methodology of PPN01 and makes an appropriate case for recommending the application of the Heritage Overlay. The Statements of Significance make appropriate use of the Hercon criteria and follow the PPN01 structure in the main. The Panel notes the concerns expressed in submissions about the level of detail in the Statements of Significance and some of the citations and the level of comparative analysis

2 Pages 18-28.

Page 12 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

undertaken. PPN01 provides a clear signal about the importance of a comparative analysis but does not qualify how detailed this must be. The Panel considers this appropriate as the circumstances for applying overlays and the extent of analysis required will vary based on the complexity of the area or sites and geographical extent as well as the resources available. The Panel acknowledges Ms Kemp’s observations that the study survey area was large (over 2,400 square kilometres) and diverse both geographically and in terms of settlements. In this context the Panel considers that the limited level of comparative analysis is reasonable and acknowledges: • the limited number of existing rural homesteads and early log structures within Heritage Overlays in the municipality • the need to ensure that places demonstrated the key historic themes set out in the thematic environmental history • the places are geographically distributed around the Municipality and relatively modest in number • the resources available to Council.

(v) Findings The Panel finds that the methodology in the Heritage Study is sound and that its integrity has not been affected by the exclusion of some properties or by the extent of post-exhibition changes proposed by Council. The Amendment process has in fact enabled a testing of the content of the Heritage Study and Council’s proposed changes to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and benefited from further refinement. However, the Panel found it difficult to navigate through the consolidated Heritage Study to separate its different components with conflicting page numbering, document headings and content pages. The Panel encourages Council to review the format of the final Heritage Study to make it easier for users to read and find the relevant components.

3.2 Policy support

(i) The issue The issue is whether the Amendment supports existing planning policy.

(ii) Submissions Several submissions considered that the application of the Heritage Overlay would compromise major infrastructure operations and result in a community disbenefit (Submission 34) or impact the ability to achieve strategic housing or commercial outcomes (Submissions 32, 22 and 27). Submissions 14, 15, 18, 19 and 38 considered that the Amendment would provide no benefit to the community. Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with or was supported by the Planning Policy Framework.

Page 13 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The relevant planning provisions are summarised in Chapter 2 of this Report. The Panel notes that no submission provided information to show that the Amendment was not strategically justified. Indeed, a number of submissions supported the Amendment in principle. The Panel notes that the Act contains a specific objective to conserve and enhance buildings or places of historical interest which translates through to the Victoria Planning Provisions and Planning Scheme. The Amendment supports the objectives of the Act and implements Clause 12.05-1S, Clause 15.03-1S and Clause 21.05-4 by properly documenting places of significance and protecting those places of heritage, architectural, aesthetic and cultural value through the application of the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis to manage and protect those places for the benefit of future generations. The Heritage Study and the Amendment include only places which have been assessed to meet local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay. The Panel considers that the Amendment does not compromise other policy provisions of the Planning Policy Framework and will result in a net community benefit by protecting places of heritage significance within the municipality for the benefit of current and future generations.

(iv) Finding The Panel finds that the Amendment: • is consistent with, and supported by, the Planning Policy Framework • will result in a net community benefit.

3.3 Conclusions For the reasons set out in the following chapters, the Panel concludes that the Amendment: • is supported by, and implements the relevant sections of the Planning Policy Framework • is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes • is well founded and strategically justified • is likely to deliver a net community benefit and sustainable development outcomes as required by Clause 71.02-3. • should proceed subject to addressing more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in the following chapters.

Page 14 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

4 Common issues

4.1 Property value and financial implications

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether property value and financial implications for individuals are relevant when considering whether a place has sufficient local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submissions 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 27 and 28 considered that the Amendment would restrict the saleability of their property or reduce its value. They were concerned that the overlay may introduce negative financial impacts in the event those properties needed to be altered, redeveloped or sold. Council submitted that property values were not a relevant consideration and referred to several panel reports that the economic impacts to be considered by an Amendment were those that related to the broader community and not to personal effects. It submitted that the net community befit of protecting places of heritage significance outweighs the perceived individual impacts on property owners.

(iii) Discussion The Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to individual places and precincts which meet the local significance threshold. The criteria for assessing whether they have sufficient local significance is found in PPN01. The criteria do not extend to individual financial impact or property value. The Panel acknowledges that the Amendment may have some economic impact on land owners, however this is a private economic impact rather than a broader community impact. The Panel does not consider that these private impacts outweigh the broader community benefit of the Amendment. Social and economic impacts are difficult to quantify and often intangible in the absence of any analysis and evidence. As identified in the Heritage Listing & Property Valuations in Victoria, Heritage Victoria, March 2001 report, property values are influenced by a complex range of factors. The Heritage Overlay applies to a considerable portion of the municipality. However, the Panel was not presented with information from any submitter which demonstrated: • the difference in property value between properties with and without the Heritage Overlay • a clear and direct relationship between property value and the impact of the applying the Heritage Overlay to properties.

Page 15 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The Panel notes that private economic considerations can be further examined in more detail at the permit stage. The Panel considers that any potential impacts will be relatively short-term impacts with the broader community benefit of retaining a precinct of cultural heritage significance having a more enduring impact. The Amendment delivers an outcome that is consistent with the objectives of the Act and Planning Policy Framework which aim to conserve heritage places within the municipality.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes that: • Property value and individual financial implications are not relevant when considering whether a place has sufficient local heritage significance to justify the application of the Heritage Overlay.

4.2 Building condition, development opportunity, building alterations and maintenance

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether building condition or development opportunity including building alterations and maintenance costs are relevant when considering whether a place has sufficient local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay.

(ii) Submissions Submissions 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, 22, 31, 33, 34 and 37 identified building condition and structural integrity as a basis for opposing the Amendment. Other submissions (Submissions 11, 13, 14, 19, 23, 27, 30, 35 and 41) considered the Heritage Overlay would make undertaking maintenance, repairs and alterations difficult. Council’s submission identified that the Heritage Overlay does not generally apply to maintenance and routine repairs nor does it compel repairs or restoration. Council acknowledged that the application of the overlay would necessitate permits for a range of buildings and works however, it pointed to the proposed incorporated documents which would reduce the number of required permit applications as well as the support it provided applicants through its heritage advisory service and heritage grants. It also indicated that some minor applications could be assessed under VicSmart provisions.

(iii) Discussion The Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to properties which achieve local heritage significance. Council acknowledged that the Heritage Overlay introduces another layer of control over property owners by imposing permit triggers and relevant considerations. The Panel considers that the Heritage Overlay is necessary to ensure that heritage values are recognised and appropriately managed. Applying the Heritage Overlay to sites establishes

Page 16 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

the need to take heritage values into account rather than precluding development. The Heritage Overlay enables the ability to apply for future development, demolition, works and subdivision through a planning permit application. This includes allowing an owner to improve the condition of their building. This process allows issues of property condition and integrity to be more fully considered in the context of a development proposal. Development opportunities are therefore not relevant to the Amendment and are appropriately dealt with through the planning permit process. The Panel considers that building condition may be relevant where there is clear technical evidence that the building is in a such poor structural condition that the heritage fabric is unlikely to survive in the short term. In some instances, Council has appropriately proposed to remove places or internal elements from the Heritage Overlay because further analysis has identified that those buildings or elements have been so altered as to have lost their heritage significance. Council has demonstrated a commitment to recognise significant places and introduce the Heritage Overlay to manage them with a willingness to apply a pragmatic approach to the assessment of permit applications on a case by case basis. Council has also sought to reduce the impact of the Amendment through: • introducing permit exemptions in the proposed incorporated documents • proposing to reduce the curtilage of the Heritage Overlay for several sites • providing access to its heritage advisory service. The Panel makes further suggestions in Chapter 7 about providing further exemptions for external paint controls.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes that: • opportunities for development including building alterations and maintenance costs are not relevant when considering whether a place has sufficient local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay. • in appropriate circumstances, building condition can be a relevant consideration in evaluating whether to apply the Heritage Overlay to an identified place.

Page 17 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

5 Precincts and group listings

5.1 Kialla Village Settlement (HO276) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The area previously known as the Kialla Village Settlement. How is it significant? It is of local historic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is historically significant as one of two surviving examples of a government initiative known as the Village Settlement Scheme. There were some 72 such village settlements established in Victoria from about 1893. They were set up in response to the 1890s depression. The intent was to give impoverished families an opportunity to become sustainable by farming a small allotment. An area of 188 ha [470 acres] was subdivided at Kialla, creating approximately 90 blocks of various sizes with an average of 2.05 ha [5 acres]. HERCON criteria A & B

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the Kialla Village Settlement is a place of cultural heritage significance • whether it is appropriate to include the Kialla Village Settlement in the Heritage Overlay (HO276) on a permanent basis • whether the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan is appropriate to be included as an incorporated document.

(ii) Background The Heritage Study identified that the former Kialla Village Settlement (Honey Suckle Park) was one of the places that previous studies had overlooked. Through the development of

Page 18 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

the Heritage Study, the village settlement area was researched and assessed as meeting the threshold of local significance (Hercon Criterion A) as a place of historic significance. Council’s Part A submission identified that the Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage IIC 2017 only identified property numbers 230, 242, 244, 245, 249, 250, 253, and 254, 255, 260, 265 and 270 Riverview Drive, Kialla as part of the Kialla Village Settlement (area within red polygon in Figure 1). That Study recommended that the Heritage Overlay be applied apply to protect the subdivision pattern of the land. Amendment C204 to the Planning Scheme applied an interim Heritage Overlay (HO276) to these places. During the preparation of Amendment C205, Council became aware that the curtilage for the Heritage Overlay was incorrect and that the original Kialla Village Settlement included a much wider area). The area was subsequently remapped (blue polygon area in Figure 1) to include: • 150, 180, 186, 196, 210, 215, 230, 242, 244, 245, 249, 250, 253, 254, 255, 260, 265, 270, 274, 280, 285, 305 & 310 Riverview Drive, Kialla • 40, 90, 110, 120, 117, 129, 130 and 153 Watt Road, Kialla • Former Kialla Landfill, Kialla Tip Road (Australian Botanic Gardens Shepparton) (CA18 Sec A, CA19 Sec A, CA20 Sec A, CA21 Sec A, CA22 Sec A) • Shepparton Regional Park (CA2002, CA2005, CA2025, CA2027, CA2029, CA2035, CA82C).

Figure 1 Kialla Village Settlement Heritage Overlay extent Note: Current extent of HO276 (red outline) and proposed extent (blue outline) The former Kialla Village Settlement comprises some 90 lots with an average area of 2.05 hectares. The area is mainly zoned Urban Floodway Zone with some small pockets of land in the Farming Zone. A permit may only be granted to subdivide land within an Urban Floodway Zone where: The subdivision does not create any new lots, which are entirely within this zone. This does not apply if the subdivision creates a lot, which by agreement between the owner and the relevant floodplain management authority, is to be transferred to an authority for a public purpose.

Page 19 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The subdivision is the resubdivision of existing lots and the number of lots is not increased, unless a local floodplain development plan incorporated into this scheme specifically provides otherwise. The Amendment proposes to introduce the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan April 2019 to provide a range of permit exemptions for building demolition, alteration, construction, tree removal and works. A permit would be required for subdivision. The Plan refers to ‘Appendix A’ comprising ‘Part 6 – Archaeological Heritage’ of the Heritage Act 2017. Council’s Part A submission proposed post-exhibition changes to include a statement that “the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 guide any works that may impact areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage”.

(iii) Evidence and submissions Submissions 13, 14, 15, 17,18 ,19, 29 and 38 identified several concerns about the Amendment including: • there is no need for a Heritage Overlay or community benefit in its application • the settlement pattern is not significant • there are no buildings of significance remaining and the area no longer reflects the original settlement • heritage controls are unnecessary given other zoning and overlay controls in place • financial impacts and development restrictions (discussed in Chapter 4) • content of the incorporated document • level of consultation and reasons for mapping changes • changes to the extent of the Heritage Overlay curtilage. Ms Scott (Submitter No 14) appeared at the Hearing and submitted that Council had failed to properly explain the Amendment to residents and emphasised that while the historical significance of the place was recognised, there was no need for the Heritage Overlay given existing controls already restricted subdivision. The submission identified concern regarding references to ‘cultural heritage significance’ and the incorporated plan’s references to the Heritage Act 2017. Several submissions reflected a strong community pride in this area and respect for the early settlers in this area and supported better interpretation of this area including describing why the settlement was established, a map of the area and identification of former prominent residents. Submission 20 (DELWP) supported the application of the Heritage Overlay to a portion of Crown Land within the settlement precinct which it manages. Ms Kemp’s evidence identified that: As part of the application of the Heritage Overlay it was determined that the surviving elements of the subdivision should be conserved. As there are no structures to be conserved an Incorporated Document has been prepared that provides an exemption from the need to seek a planning permit for any buildings and works. It is noted that there are other controls that focus on the management of this land. However, none of these controls have as their intent the management of cultural

Page 20 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

heritage. For the significance of the place to be considered as part of any proposed changes to the place the Heritage Overlay is required. She considered that the Heritage Overlay is an appropriate planning tool to ensure that the subdivision pattern of the Kialla Village Settlement is protected in the future. Council acknowledged that a number of owners and occupiers in the Kialla Village Settlement were not formally notified via letter as part of Amendments C204 and C216 to the Planning Scheme but that it had undertaken a much longer 10-week exhibition period to ensure adequate consultation occurred. This period included meetings with some land owners to discuss the Amendment and the changes proposed. Both Ms Kemp and Council considered that the proposed incorporated plan provided extensive permit exemptions.

(iv) Discussion The Panel undertook a drive by inspection of the Kialla Village Settlement which revealed that there was little if any fabric that dated from the late 19th century but that the subdivision pattern and the access roads were evident and significant as identified in the Heritage Study and evidence of Ms Kemp. The Panel is satisfied the Kialla Village Settlement is a place of local cultural heritage significance place under Hercon Criterion A and B. The Panel reviewed all submissions made by landowners and in particular Ms Scott’s verbal submission. It is apparent to the Panel that despite consultation with property owners there remains a level of confusion as to what the proposed Heritage Overlay means, including what is meant by the term ‘cultural heritage’ and why it is necessary to apply the Heritage Overlay given the other restrictive controls that already apply to the settlement. In responding to submissions, Council pointed out that not all of the land proposed for the Heritage Overlay was covered by the Urban Floodway Zone and therefore there was not a comprehensive cover for further subdivision. Ms Kemp, in her evidence made a cogent case for the recognition of the heritage values of the place and Council, by proposing the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan, has ensured that little more than the subdivision pattern is subject to heritage controls. Given that the majority of the land is covered by the Urban Floodway Zone it is unlikely that these controls will need to come into play very often given the limited opportunities for subdivision. The Panel supports Council’s approach as the Urban Floodway Zone and Heritage Overlay controls have very different purposes. The Heritage Overlay provides the appropriate tool to manage the heritage values of the settlement. This would include any roadworks that may impact on the alignment or design of roads in the settlement area. The Panel supports the use of the incorporated plan to expressly identify what buildings and works do not require a planning permit. As the incorporated plan relates solely to the consideration of applications pursuant to Clause 43.01 it is considered that references to the Heritage Act 2017 or Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes to reference the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and regulations are unnecessary and potentially confusing. The lack of understanding by property owners of the significance of the area and the impact of the Heritage Overlay would suggest that a further effort is required to communicate the

Page 21 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

values and meaning of controls to the Kialla Village community. This may be best achieved by Council circulating a simple document that discusses the history and significance of the place along with the impact of the proposed Heritage Overlay. The suggestion made in submissions that the place be subject to an interpretation plan which explains the significance of the place to the broader public would also appear to be an appropriate action. The Panel encourages Council to further explore these steps as actions accompanying the Amendment process.

(v) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The Kialla Village Settlement is a place of local cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO276) on a permanent basis. • Council’s Part C post exhibition changes to the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan to reference the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and regulations are unnecessary and are not supported. • The Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan 2018 be amended to remove reference to the Heritage Act 2017. The Panel recommends: Amend the Kialla Village Settlement Incorporated Plan March 2019 to: • Under ‘2. Purpose’ delete the last paragraph relating to the Heritage Act 2017. • Delete Appendix 2 and associated Heritage Act 2017 Section references.

Page 22 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

5.2 Nixon Street Group, Shepparton (134 and 142 Nixon Street) (HO174) Exhibited Statement of Significance – 134 Nixon Street, Shepparton

What is significant?

134 Nixon Street, Shepparton. How is it significant?

134 Nixon Street contributes to the local historic, social and aesthetic significance of the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

134 Nixon Street is of historic and social significance as it provides tangible evidence as to the character of residential settlement in Shepparton during the early 20th century. Nixon Street became established as a residential street during this period. For Shepparton, the early 20th century and in particular the 1920s was a period that was marked by growth. [HERCON Criteria A & G] It is of architectural significance as it provides a representative example of an Interwar timber bungalow. 134 Nixon Street contributes to the group of houses in Nixon Street that illustrate the diversity and variation of development in Nixon Street during its consolidation as a residential street. This includes the setting of the houses and the variations of the architectural expression. The period of development that is represented by this group was a time of change for Shepparton. The group of houses includes: 132, 134, 138-140, 142, 144, 150 and 156 Nixon Street Shepparton. [HERCON Criterion D] Exhibited Statement of Significance – 142 Nixon Street, Shepparton

Page 23 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

What is significant?

142 Nixon Street, Shepparton. How is it significant?

142 Nixon Street contributes to the local historic, social and aesthetic significance of the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

142 Nixon Street is of historic and social significance as it provides tangible evidence as to the character of residential settlement in Shepparton during the early 20th century. Nixon Street became established as a residential street during this period. For Shepparton, the early 20th century and in particular the 1920s was a period that was marked by growth It is of architectural significance as it provides a representative example of late Victorian/early 20th century cottage. 142 Nixon Street contributes to the group of houses in Nixon Street that illustrate the diversity and variation of development in Nixon Street during its consolidation as a residential street. This includes the setting of the houses and the variations of the architectural expression. The period of development that is represented by this group was a time of change for Shepparton. The group of houses includes: 132, 134, 138-140, 142, 144, 150 and 156 Nixon Street Shepparton. [HERCON Criterion D].

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the properties at 134 and 142 Nixon Street should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO174) • whether the Nixon Street Group should be extended to include other properties • whether paint controls should apply.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 22 relating to 142 Nixon Street was well summarised in Ms Kemp’s evidence: 1. The Heritage Overlay is not warranted on the property. 2. The respondent states that 142 Nixon Street, Shepparton is not a residential property – as described in the citation, instead, it is a commercial property. 3. The heritage controls have restricted further development and expansion of the property. 4. The respondent wishes to change the fence and the consultation meeting did not get a satisfactory response. 5. The respondent opposes paint controls as these will be restrictive. The respondent does not want to retain the current white colour. 6. The Heritage Overlay causes a material detriment. It means that the property cannot be sold and the respondent cannot move. This affects the respondents Superannuation and the impact is worse than the effects of the Global Financial Crisis with regard to the monetary value of the property and business. 7. Other buildings in Nixon Street that are similar in character to 142 Nixon Street have been demolished. 8. There are other buildings that are similar to 142 Nixon Street and they are not included in the Heritage Overlay.

Page 24 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The owner of 142 Nixon Street was represented at the hearing by his son, Mr Misbah Nawab who provided a further extensive written submission (Document 12) and verbal presentation to the Panel. The submission included photos of other buildings in the street including more modern buildings suggesting a loss of streetscape intactness. It also included photographs of the building’s structural condition (roof, ceilings, door frames, chimney, weatherboards and foundations) supported by recent structural building inspection and asbestos inspection and condition reports. The submission considered the costs of addressing the building’s structural issues would have a significance impact on its operations. Ms Kemp in her evidence stated: The significance of this place was supported by the Amendment C110 Panel Report where it recommended its inclusion in the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme. The adaptive re-use of this building has not diminished any understanding or appreciation of the residential characteristics associated with the former residential building and/or its capacity to contribute to the cultural heritage significance of HO174 Most places identified in the study have undergone some modifications and or/ alterations. What is important when assessing any place is that there is sufficient significant fabric to provide tangible physical evidence of the identified values. In this instance it is considered that there is sufficient fabric and the original built form is appreciable. The architectural features associated with this style are evident and the integrity is high. Change to significant places can be supported as long as the changes do not diminish the values to such an extent that the cultural values are no longer extant. The Heritage Overlay is not applied to restrict development. The purpose of heritage controls is to ensure that any proposed changes to the built fabric and/or setting of the heritage place do not negatively impact upon the significance of the place. In some cases the Heritage Overlay might restrict elements of redevelopment proposal but rarely does it exclude any development or change. Paint controls have been applied to guide the choice of future colour schemes for buildings that have been identified as having a strong aesthetic significance. The primary purpose of paint controls is to ensure that any future colour scheme is sympathetic to the cultural values. Inappropriate colour schemes can have a detrimental impact on the aesthetic qualities of a place. There are many different colour schemes that can be used in this context. If the place owner or manager wishes to paint an external surface with the same colour, a planning permit will not be required. A comparative analysis of Nixon Street was undertaken, noting that there is a tight geographical area for the formation of a group of places. This was supported by the Independent Planning Panel for Amendment C110 to the Planning Scheme. Submission 27 related to 134 Nixon St and opposed the Heritage Overlay considering that it was inappropriate for a commercial property, would restrict development and impact property values. Ms Kemp’s evidence made similar comments as provided in response to Submission 22.

(iii) Discussion It became clear to the Panel during the Hearing that Submissions 22 and 27 had been the result of proposed changes to the heritage policy along with amendments (the addition of paint controls) to the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay for HO174.

Page 25 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

It is also clear to the Panel that Dr Nawab felt aggrieved about the application of the Heritage Overlay in 2013 and that the submitter considers the redevelopment potential of the site has been significantly restricted. However, there was no evidence that there had been any serious discussions with the Council about redevelopment of the site. This is not a matter that the Panel can address but it can be appropriately dealt with through the permit application process. As pointed out by Ms Kemp, the heritage significance of the Nixon Street Group had been reviewed by the panel for Amendment C110 and it recommended that the group listing be approved. The Heritage Overlay has been in place on a permanent basis since 2013. The Panel considers that in relation to the properties at 134 and 142 Nixon Street, it is restricted to assessing whether the application of paint controls is appropriate for HO174. The issue of external paint controls is discussed in further detail in Chapter 7 however, the Panel accepts the evidence of Ms Kemp and considers that the application of paint controls to this group of buildings is appropriate and provides an appropriate management tool to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the group. Submissions 22 and 27 questioned why other similar properties were not included in the Nixon Street group. The Panel report for Amendment C110 identified that3: While it is not common for heritage precincts or groups which are based on such a diversity of building types and developmental periods to be defined, and, as discussed at the Hearing, there may some difficulty distinguishing the group from the wider urban area, we think the approach here is a legitimate one. We consider, however, that the selected houses are adequately representative and do adequately demonstrate the evolution of residential building types over time in Shepparton. It is also our view that in all most cases the alterations to these heritage buildings do not extinguish the contribution of the building to the wider heritage place. That panel went on to recommend (in part): Consider combining HO175, HO176 and HO177 with the Nixon Street group in a future amendment to create larger precinct, or adding HO176 and HO177 to the Nixon Street group to add to its diversity of dwelling types and periods of development. The Panel considers the submissions in this regard have substance and Council is encouraged to further review HO174 and the C110 Panel recommendations. The Panel notes that Council’s post-exhibition changes proposed to identify the properties at 115 and 117 Nixon Street as sites to be assessed as part of a future heritage study. The Panel supports this but suggests the review scope should be widened.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • 134 and 142 Nixon Street, Shepparton should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO174). • External paint controls are appropriate.

3 Page 26.

Page 26 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• Council should review the Nixon Street Group (HO174) consistent with the recommendations of the Panel for Great Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C110. The Panel further recommends: Council undertake further strategic work to review the Nixon Street Group (HO174) in line with the recommendation of the Panel for Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C110.

Page 27 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

5.3 32 Orr Street, Shepparton (HO140)

32 Orr Street, Shepparton (Source: Council Part B submission)

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the dwelling at 32 Orr Street, Shepparton is appropriately identified as Contributory in the Shepparton Residential Precinct North • whether tree controls are appropriate • whether the Shepparton Residential Precinct North should be reviewed.

(ii) Background The Heritage Study includes a Place Citation (p1274) for the Shepparton Residential Precinct North, the extent of which is shown in Figure 2) and a Place Citation for 32 Orr Street, Shepparton. The Precinct comprises mostly Contributory buildings and several Non- contributory buildings.

Figure 2 Shepparton Residential Precinct North

Page 28 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

HO140 was introduced by Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C49 in 2004 and further reviewed by Amendment C110 in 2013. The Panel for Amendment C110 amendment considered the Precinct to be of heritage significance and visually coherent. PPN01 provides guidance for the identification of precincts and the role of Contributory and Non-contributory buildings.

(iii) Evidence and submissions Submission 24 supported the need to maintain the overall appeal of the area but identified concerns about the application of the Heritage Overlay in general and the inclusion of the dwelling at 32 Orr Street, Shepparton as part of the Shepparton Residential Precinct North (HO140) including: • based on the statement that the precinct dwellings are reflective of the style of development of the time, the whole of Shepparton would be covered by a Heritage Overlay • most properties have been altered and the significant ones demolished • the rationale for inclusion of contributory places is flawed without an identified rationale for the Contributory designation • tree controls should not apply without further justification. Ms Kemp in her evidence considered that: • the heritage significance of the Precinct was assessed by the Panel for Amendment C110 and was found to be appropriate • a place with modifications can be considered Contributory to the significance of a precinct • tree controls are important in retaining street character and are restricted to ‘mature trees’ as identified in the Heritage Overlay Schedule. Council’s Part B submission supported Ms Kemp’s evidence and provided an overview of previous amendments that have informed HO140 and the role of contributory buildings to a precinct. Council considered the Heritage Overlay the best tool to manage the heritage values of the Shepparton Residential Precinct North.

(iv) Discussion The Panel is satisfied that the merits of the Shepparton Residential Precinct North and the contributory nature of buildings within it have been properly considered by the Panel for Amendment C110. The Panel agrees with the evidence of Ms Kemp and the Council submission that the site should remain in HO140 and that it is appropriately designated as Contributory. The Panel supports the application of tree controls to the Precinct as they contribute to its setting and heritage attributes. Tree controls are discussed further in Chapter 7.

Page 29 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(v) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The dwelling at 32 Orr Street Shepparton has already been assessed as appropriately identified as Contributory in the Shepparton Residential Precinct North and should remain within HO140 on a permanent basis as exhibited. • Tree controls are appropriate for HO140.

Page 30 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6 Individual places

6.1 170 Ardmona Road, Ardmona (former Ardmona Grammar School) (HO231) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Edwardian school building at 170 Ardmona Road Ardmona is significant. This includes all of the architectural features associated with its Edwardian architecture. How is it significant?

The former school building is of local historic, social and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The former Ardmona Grammar School is of historic and social significance as it provides tangible physical evidence of the prosperity and aspirations of orchardists in the Ardmona District. This district was one of the earliest in the region to embrace irrigation technologies, and by 1914 1008 hectares of orchards had been established. Private schools were not common and particularly in the less populated rural areas. It appears to have been established in response to the growing prosperity of the orchardists and their perceptions that it would provide both social and educational advantages for their children. HERCON criteria A & B It is of aesthetic significance for its representative Edwardian architecture. HERCON criterion E

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether 170 Ardmona Road, Ardmona is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO231) on a permanent basis • whether the Statement of Significance and Heritage Study citation should be amended • whether tree controls are appropriate.

Page 31 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 21: • requested that the 3 plane trees on the property not be subject to the proposed Heritage Overlay as they posed a physical threat to the house and may require urgent attention • opposed the inclusion of the verandahs in the overlay as they were replaced in 1996 with a different design. Ms Kemp’s evidence acknowledged the building had been altered but that these additions were sympathetic and not significant. In her opinion the plane trees contributed to the aesthetic significance of the place and that any proposal to remove or lop the trees could be considered as part of the planning permit process.

(iii) Discussion The submitter appeared at the hearing and reinforced his written submission. As part of the submission he also provided photographs of the rebuilt verandahs. The Panel undertook an external inspection of the place. It is the Panel’s view that despite the alterations there is sufficient original building fabric extant to enable an understanding of the significance of the place to meet Hercon Criterion E. Given neither the Heritage Study citation nor the Statement of Significance mention the condition of the dwelling it is not considered necessary to amend them. It is the view of the Panel that the three plane trees within the curtilage of HO231 make a significant contribution to the presentation and character of the place. It agrees with Ms Kemp that the appropriate manner to deal with dangerous trees in this instance would be through the planning permit process.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes: • 170 Ardmona Road, Ardmona is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO231) on a permanent basis. • Tree controls are appropriate as proposed.

Page 32 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.2 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha (Maneroo Homestead) (HO240) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

Maneroo homestead at 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha. The large landscaped gardens include a number of early trees and plantings. This garden setting contributes to the significance of the place. How is it significant?

Maneroo homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

Maneroo Homestead is of aesthetic significance for its fine and early Bungalow inspired architecture. The homestead was designed by the Melbourne architects Oakden and Ballantyne. The detailing of the architecture demonstrates a sophistication that is unusual for the region. This includes the Voyseyesque gable front, high quality glazing, brickwork and timber detailing. The elevated site for the homestead, combined with the large number of mature trees and the established garden features, contributes to its aesthetic significance. HERCON criterion E Maneroo homestead is of historic significance for its association with the early 20th century agricultural development of Shepparton, and in particular the Bunbartha region. Of note is the redesign of the farmland and waterways in order to develop particular irrigation technologies such as Nunan's patent spray irrigation overhead watering system. It is of historic significance for its association with William Orr, a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. It is of historic significance for its later association with Dr Ramsay Mailer, who apart from being a noted medical specialist contributed, as a Melbourne Cricket Club committee member and president, to the redevelopment of the MCG and its establishment as one of the finest cricket arenas in the world. His farming enterprises at Maneroo included the breeding of Jersey cattle and Southdown and Ryland sheep. HERCON criterion A

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the Statement of Significance and Heritage Study citation should be amended to include further historical information.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 2 provided information about Dr Ramsay Mailer, an owner of the house along with the following information about its construction: Maneroo homestead was built between 1910 & 1912.

Page 33 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The 1913 article in the Shepparton news describes a completed collection of buildings and irrigation system. The old septic tank which was replaced by Cornish’s in the 60’s was dated 1910 which also supports construction beginning in 1910. Ms Kemp indicated that she had verified the information provided by the submitter and had updated the Statement of Significance and citation accordingly. Council proposed these changes as a post-exhibition change in its Part A submission.

(iii) Discussion The Panel supports Council’s post-exhibition changes to update the historical information relating to the place to ensure the Statement of Significance and citation are as accurate as possible. No further changes to the Statement of Significance and citation are considered necessary.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes that: • Council’s post exhibition changes to the Statement of Significance and citation to update historical place information is appropriate. The Panel recommends: Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Include the historical place information for 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha as identified in Council’s post-exhibition changes included in its Part A submission (Document 1) and Ms Kemp’s evidence. Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Amend the citation for 150 Maneroo Road, Bunbartha to include the historical place information identified in Council’s post-exhibition changes included in its Part A submission (Document 1) and Ms Kemp’s evidence.

Page 34 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.3 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma (Homestead and Log structures) (HO247 and HO142) Exhibited Statements of Significance - Homestead

What is significant?

The large Federation-era homestead and its surrounds and setting. This includes the architectural features associated with late Victorian and Federation architectural periods. The two selection-era log buildings (HERMES 156034) contribute to the significance of the place. The mud brick shed also contributes to the significance of the place. How is it significant?

The homestead and outbuildings are of local cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The place is of historic significance for its association with the selection era and the increasing prosperity of Cooma and district during the early 20th century. HERCON criterion A The homestead is of architectural significance for its distinctive Federation and late Victorian architecture. It is of aesthetic significance for its fine detailing. HERCON criterion E Exhibited Statements of Significance – Log structures

What is significant?

The three log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma are significant. This includes their construction system and the primitive dressing of the logs, the notched ends and the remnant clay pugging that has been used to chink the logs. The primitive roof framing for all three huts contributes to their significance. How is it significant?

The three structures are of local historic, technical and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton.

Page 35 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Why is it significant?

They are of historic significance for their association with the settlement of the Cooma area during the Land Selection period. They are rare surviving examples of this once widespread construction type. Despite apparent changes to the original form they still have sufficient tangible physical evidence as to nature of their original character. HERCON criterion A The buildings are of technical significance as they represent an adaption of a traditional vernacular technique that became a typical built response, with particular reference to the conditions of the 1869 Land Selection Act, in the Goulburn Valley. In effect it was a brief flowering of a vernacular specific to this region. HERCON criterion F The log buildings that were once relatively common have become an increasingly rare feature in the rural landscape. HERCON criterion B The scale, structure and materials used in their structure contribute to the aesthetic qualities of these buildings. HERCON criterion E

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma are places of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO142 and HO247) on a permanent basis • whether the Statements of Significance and Heritage Study citations should be amended to remove reference to the demolished mud structure • whether tree and external paint controls should apply • whether a single Heritage Overlay designation should apply to the place.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 8 did not support the application of HO142 and HO247 to the site including the application of tree and external paint controls because: • there is nothing outstanding or notable about the homestead, with many other similar examples of homesteads in the area • the homestead has been renovated and modified • only two of the original log structures remain and are in poor condition. The mud brick structure no longer exists • there are no original colours on the existing homestead • trees may need to be removed for cropping or grazing • the proposed Heritage Overlay will have a detrimental impact on the value of the property. Ms Kemp made the following points in her evidence: • the homestead is representative of the period and is a fine face brick building • the place retains buildings that date from the Selection era – two solid log structures. These buildings have their own intrinsic significance however, if they are combined with the turn of the century homestead, the place demonstrates the transition from the basic and primitive to a sophisticated and economically successful enterprise

Page 36 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• most places identified in the heritage study have undergone some level of change. In this case there is more than sufficient fabric to appreciate the significance of the place • property values are usually not relevant to the assessment of the significance of a place • paint controls have been applied to ensure that future colour schemes are appropriate to the period of the building • the proposed tree controls are restricted to mature trees and where they contribute to the aesthetic significance of the place • a single Heritage Overlay should apply to the site covering the homestead and remaining log structures. Council generally supported the conclusions of Ms Kemp’s evidence but sought the Panel’s view about consolidating the Heritage Overlay to a single place.

(iii) Discussion The Panel supports the evidence of Ms Kemp and considers that while the homestead has undergone some level of change this has not diminished its aesthetic or historical significance. The remaining log structures have sufficient built fabric and architectural integrity remaining to make the original built forms appreciable. The Panel considers that the homestead and log structures satisfy Hercon Criterion A and E. It is appropriate to remove reference to the former mud structure. The Council’s Part B Submission supported the Amendment applying the Heritage Overlay to both places separately with HO247 covering the homestead and HO142 covering the log and mud structures. The Panel considers this is an unusual proposal as there is one citation and Statement of Significance for each of the place elements and Ms Kemp’s evidence identifies that there is a continuity of buildings which describes the significance of the place over time. She recommended that a single HO designation apply to the place. The Panel agrees and suggests that HO142 be amended to accommodate the significance of the homestead and the remaining log buildings and that HO247 not be applied. There is no need to adjust the mapping as the current Heritage Overlay map delineates areas of heritage significance in what is otherwise a large pastoral property. This change would require changes to consolidate the historical information into a single Statement of Significance and citation. The Panel notes regardless the Statements of Significance would need to be altered as the incorporated document has reversed the content for the two statements. Whether to apply paint controls to such a place is a vexed question. The submitter, probably correctly indicates, that the existing colour scheme of the homestead is not original, while Ms Kemp points out that these controls are designed to ensure that an appropriate colour scheme is maintained. While Ms Kemp’s position is reasonable from a heritage protection perspective, it would be preferable if the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay outlined a range of colours for which a permit was not required. However the Panel concludes that PPN01 does not provide for this flexibility in the Schedule to Clause 43.01, requiring either a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ designation without the opportunity for further qualification. The Panel considers that there is some merit in Council considering providing additional external painting guidance

Page 37 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

for homesteads and appropriate colour range exemptions in the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019. Paint controls are discussed further in Chapter 7. The Panel drove past the property and therefore had only a limited view of the significant elements of the place. However, this was sufficient to confirm that mature trees add to the significance of the homestead block and on that basis, it supports the application of tree controls. These controls will be limited to the mapped extent of the Heritage Overlay and therefore the submitter’s concern about having to seek permits for the management of trees throughout the property is unlikely to arise or be particularly arduous.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes that: • The homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma are of individual cultural heritage significance. • A single HO number (HO142) be assigned to the place within the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and the Heritage Overlay map (consistent with the exhibited extent of HO142 and HO247). • The Statements of Significance and citations for the two places be consolidated into a single Statement of Significance and citation and amended to remove reference to the demolished mud structure. • External paint controls should apply. • Tree controls should apply. The Panel recommends: No longer apply HO247 to 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma. Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Amend the description of HO142 to apply to the ‘Homestead and log structures’ at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and insert ‘Yes’ under the ‘Tree controls apply?’ and ‘Outbuildings or fences not exempt’ columns and identify the log structures under the ‘Internal alteration controls apply? Column. Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Consolidate the Statements of Significance for the Homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and remove reference to the demolished mud structure. Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Consolidate the citations for the Homestead and log structures at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma and remove reference to the demolished mud structure.

Page 38 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.4 1065 Murchison-Tatura Road, Dhurringile (Homestead) (HO254) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The homestead at 1065 Murchison Road, Dhurringile is significant. How is it significant?

The homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The homestead is of historic significance as being representative of the character of development that occurred in the region during the post war period. This economic period is marked by the growth of the agricultural sector. HERCON criterion A. The homestead is of aesthetic significance for its representative architecture. The scale and construction type is representative of the post war period and the impact of rationing of some building materials. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the homestead at 1065 Murchison-Tatura Road, Dhurringle is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO254) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 16 considered that: • the application of the Heritage Overlay to the homestead was inappropriate as the house was built in 1955 and has been altered over time • the house is in need of repair and the overlay restricts the manner in which repairs could be carried out. Ms Kemp in her evidence stated that there is sufficient original fabric of the dwelling to enable its architectural features to be appreciated. She also stated that the Heritage Overlay would not prevent appropriate repairs.

(iii) Discussion It is the Panel’s view that there is no reason why a building constructed in 1955 should not be covered by a Heritage Overlay where it meets the threshold of cultural heritage

Page 39 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

significance. The dwelling is now 65 years old and contributes to an understanding of the cultural heritage and development of the municipality. The Panel does not believe that the use of more “suburban” domestic architectural forms used in the description of the place by Ms Kemp is that unusual in the post war period. The statement that the homestead is a representative design is a more accurate reflection of its significance. The Panel also agrees that most places of this vintage would have undergone some modifications and that the original architectural form of this building is readily apparent. The Panel is satisfied that the homestead meets Hercon Criterion A and D.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes that: • The homestead at 1065 Murchison-Tatura Road, Dhurringle is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in Heritage Overlay (HO254) on a permanent basis.

Page 40 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.5 75 Quarry Road, Dookie (Magennis Cottage) (HO260) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The stone house at the rear of the mid-20th century house at 75 Quarry-Dookie Road Dookie. The mid-20th century house is not significant. How is it significant?

The stone house is of local historic, technical and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The vernacular stone cottage is of historic significance. It provides tangible physical evidence of the early Land Selection era. It is one of the oldest surviving cottages in the region. It is of historic significance for its use of stone as the building material. In this region 19th century housing tended to be constructed from brick or timber. The use of stone potentially recognises the Northern Ireland origin of the settlers. HERCON criterion A. It is of technical significance for the techniques used in its construction. HERCON criterion F. It is of aesthetic significance for its vernacular qualities. This includes the qualities of the stone - the typical character and colouration for the area. The scale of the building and its proportions contribute to its aesthetic significance. HERCON criterion D. It is a rare surviving example from the 1860s and of its type of construction. HERCON criterion B.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether HO260 should be removed from 75 Quarry Road, Dookie following its demolition.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 39 opposed the application of the Heritage Overlay on the basis that the identified stone building has been demolished. Ms Kemp in her evidence accepted that the demolition had occurred and that the application of the permanent HO260 should not proceed. This opinion was supported by Council who identified this as a proposed post-exhibition change in its Part A submission.

Page 41 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel accepts that the identified building no longer exists and that there is no heritage fabric remaining to be managed. On this basis, the Panel considers that the Heritage Overlay should not be applied to the site however it is appropriate to retain reference in the Heritage Study to the place to acknowledge what was there for the record.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • HO260 should not be applied. The Panel recommends: No longer apply HO260 to 75 Quarry Road, Dookie. Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Delete the 75 Quarry Road, Dookie Statement of Significance.

Page 42 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.6 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale (Harris House) (HO263) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The house at 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale. How is it significant? It is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is of historic significance for its association with the agricultural development of Grahamvale. It is of historic significance for its association with Closer Settlement. HERCON criterion A. It is of aesthetic significance as a good regional representative example of an Inter War house. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the house at 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO263) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 31 identified that the dwelling was moved to its current site in 1971 and therefore did not reflect the values identified in the citation. Ms Kemp, in her evidence confirmed that this was the case and that the approval of HO263 on a permanent basis should not proceed.

(iii) Discussion The Panel accepts that the identified building does not represent the cultural heritage values identified in the citation and Statement of Significance which pertain to settlement associations.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • HO263 should not be applied.

Page 43 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The Panel recommends: No longer apply HO263 to 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale. Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Delete the 65 Doyles Road, Grahamvale Statement of Significance.

Page 44 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.7 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains (Boorinda Homestead) (HO281) Exhibited Statement of Significance What is significant?

Boorinda Homestead at 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains is significant. This includes all of the architectural features associated with its Interwar architecture. The 'Trimdek' profile roof is not significant. How is it significant?

Boorinda Homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

Boorinda is of historic significance for its association with the early pastoral development of this district. It is of historic significance for its association Gavin and Kathrine Gibson who were prominent community members and land holders in the district during the early to mid 20th century. They bought Boorinda in 1899 and largely built the current homestead in c.1915/16. Kathrine continued with the farm after her husband's death and also continued to support the local community. She advocated for an ambulance for Dookie and she made a gift to the local Dookie College of £1500 for the construction of a modern brick laboratory as a memorial to her husband; she also donated equipment and a cot ('to be available for child patients from the Dookie district') to the Alfred Hospital. HERCON criterion A. Boorinda Homestead is of aesthetic significance for its austere Interwar architecture. It is a rare homestead for the region both in terms of its scale, as well as its design. HERCON criterion E.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the Boorinda Homestead at 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO281) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 10 opposed the application of the Heritage Overlay and queried the need for external paint, tree, fencing and outbuilding controls and posed a series of questions including “why a heritage overlay with restrictions is necessary on a private non-era dwelling which cannot be viewed from the public realm”. Ms Kemp, in her evidence reiterated the process followed to assess the place as being significant and indicated that its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay was based on research which found it to be of historic and aesthetic significance using the Hercon criteria. She indicated that the visibility of a place from a public road was not a pre-requisite for identification in an HO. She also indicated that the proposed paint colours were designed to ensure that appropriate, rather than specific paint schemes be applied to the building in the future and, as with other places in this Amendment, the tree controls were to be applied to ‘mature trees’ only.

Page 45 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with the evidence of Ms Kemp that it is not necessary for the significant elements of a place to be viewed from the public realm to have cultural heritage significance. However, it was unclear to the Panel how the citation for this place was able to be so detailed given that access was not provided. It would be desirable for Council to work with the land owner so that the provisions of the proposed permanent Heritage Overlay could be confirmed. The Panel was also unable to visit the place and cannot confirm the findings of the citation but accepts Ms Kemp’s evidence that it was based on detailed knowledge and research in the Heritage Study. This was not challenged by the submitter.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • That Boorinda Homestead at 195 Major Plains Road, Major Plains is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO281) on a permanent basis.

Page 46 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.8 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) (HO286) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The house known as Greenwood's mud brick house and the mud brick coolstore. The Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis) are of significance. How is it significant?

The house known as Greenwood's mud brick house is of local historic, technical and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

Greenwood's mud brick house and coolstore are of historic and technical significance. The homestead was built in 1908 from bricks made on the site. The mud brick structures demonstrate a resourcefulness that was not evident elsewhere in the region and as such they are a rare exemplar of this type of vernacular construction. The homestead is one of a very small number of domestic mud brick buildings from this period in the municipality. The cool store was built in 1947 and demonstrates the difficulty of sourcing building materials during the immediate post war period when building materials were rationed. HERCON Criteria A & B.

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the curtilage of HO286 should be reduced • whether tree and external paint controls should be removed.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 30 sought: • a reduction to the extent of the mapped area shown for HO286 to include only the structures that contribute to the heritage significance of the place, as identified in the Statement of Significance • the tree controls be removed as the heritage significance of the Canary Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis) had not been substantiated in the Statement of Significance • the external paint controls be removed where paint colours have not been identified as contributory to the heritage significance of the place, and where the existing requirements of Clause 43.01-1 are sufficient to require a permit to the paint an unpainted surfaces.

Page 47 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Ms Kemp in her evidence stated: • the requested reduction in curtilage was not appropriate, but a retraction to a small extent from the orchard to the rear is supported • at a site meeting with the submitter it was agreed that the tree controls could stay • paint controls are designed to ensure that appropriate colour schemes are maintained • the Statement of Significance sets out what is significant: “the 1947 mud brick cool store is of historic and technical significance. The later additions to the building are considered to be sympathetic but not significant. Any large-scale buildings or works to the non-significant fabric are not necessarily prohibited but may require a planning permit”. In order to protect the original coolstore, Council officers submitted that the Heritage Overlay should apply to the wider or enlarged coolstore building. In addition, it identified that the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan would provide exemptions from the need to obtain a planning permit for minor buildings and works in the Heritage Overlay. At the Hearing, Council submitted it was in discussions with the submitter who was unable to attend. Council provided the Panel with further proposed mapping changes after the Hearing in its Part C submission which included: • revising the Statement of Significance to note that the later additions to the coolstore are not significant • revising the curtilage of HO286 to remove the office building and land not deemed to be of significance from the Heritage Overlay (Figure 3).

(iii) Discussion The Panel notes the proposed curtilage changes as outlined in Council’s Part C submission. It accepts that this is the preferred outcome, striking a balance between the place elements of cultural heritage significance that satisfy Hercon Criterion A and B and an operating industry comprising more recent additions. The Panel considers that the curtilage reduction will not compromise the heritage values of the buildings. The Panel notes and accepts the advice that the submitter has agreed to the retention of the tree controls. The Panel considers that the identified trees add to the heritage values of the place. The Panel agrees that paint colour controls should remain. This is another site which in the Panel’s view would benefit from further guidance on appropriate paint colours.

Page 48 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Figure 3 Council proposed post-exhibition changes for HO286 curtilage

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • That HO286 should be approved to the extent shown in Council’s Part C submission. • External paint controls should apply. • Tree controls should apply. The Panel recommends: Amend the curtilage of HO286 (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore, 725 Byrneside- Kyabram Road, Merrigum) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Note that the later additions to the coolstore at 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) are not significant. Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Amend the citation for 725 Byrneside-Kyabram Road, Merrigum (Greenwood’s House and Coolstore) to note that the later additions to the coolstore are not significant.

Page 49 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.9 13 Pearce Street, Merrigum (Dutch House) (HO290) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The house at 13 Pearce Street Merrigum known as the Dutch House is significant. Its suburban setting contributes to its significance. How is it significant?

The Dutch House is of local historic, aesthetic and technical cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The Dutch House is of historic significance as it is a locally rare example of an imported pre- fabricated migrant house. Building material rationing and housing shortages in post war Victoria (c1950s), compounded in this case by post-war restrictions on the export of currency from a war- ravaged European nation, meant that some migrants brought their house with them when they migrated. It is of technical significance for its prefabrication techniques and the surviving building materials. HERCON Criterion F. It is of aesthetic significance for its restrained modernist architecture. This architectural expression was rare in the region during the post- war period. HERCON criteria E & B.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 13 Pearce Street, Merrigum is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO290) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 6 opposed the inclusion of the property in the Heritage Overlay on the basis that it had been altered since it was imported to Australia and is in poor condition. Ms Kemp in her witness statement indicated that most places identified had undergone some level of modification and in this case there was sufficient original fabric remaining to understand the significance of the place. She also indicated that it was inappropriate to consider the condition of a place at the identification and protection stage.

Page 50 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook a drive-by inspection of the property and was able to confirm that the original form of the place was readily apparent, and that the significance as described in the citation was appropriate. The Panel agrees with the evidence of Ms Kemp that the Statement of Significance appropriately identifies the house as meeting Hercon Criterion B, E and F.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • 13 Pearce Street, Merrigum is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO290) on a permanent basis.

Page 51 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.10 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum (Blacksmith and Motor Garage) (HO287) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Blacksmith and Motor Garage at 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum. How is it significant?

The former blacksmith's and garage is of local historic significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The former blacksmith's shop and garage is of historic significance as the only surviving building that was used as a blacksmith when horses were an important feature of commercial and social life in Merrigum. HERCON criterion A.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO287) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 7 stated: We believe that the shedding specified in the Heritage Citation Report is unworthy of preservation due to the following facts: 1. The shed is constructed of rusted corrugated iron cladding in poor repair and almost derelict. 2. The exterior is painted in the livery of the Total Oil Company which has no relevance to the building’s original purpose as a blacksmiths forge. Ms Kemp pointed out that utilitarian buildings such as this were often overlooked for heritage protection even though the role of the blacksmith was integral to the functioning of a township. She stated that the integrity of the building is good and that the building appears to be relatively intact.

Page 52 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external drive-by inspection and accepts Ms Kemp’s evidence that the place appears to be intact and a have high level of integrity. The Panel agrees that the structure meets the threshold to be identified as a place of cultural heritage significance satisfying Hercon Criterion A. The submission that the building is painted in a particular scheme not related to its original use is understandable. However, the application of paint controls should ensure that an appropriate scheme (including the current one) is retained so that the significance of the building is not compromised. Council proposed to reduce the curtilage of HO287 by removing it from the dwelling in its post-exhibition mapping changes as identified in its Part C submission and Figure 4. The Panel supports this change.

Figure 4 Council proposed post-exhibition changes for HO287 curtilage

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The former Blacksmith and Motor Garage at 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum is of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO287) on a permanent basis. • The dwelling at 102 Morrissey Street, Merrigum be removed from the curtilage of HO287 as identified in Council’s Part C submission. The Panel recommends: Amend the curtilage of HO287 to remove the dwelling at 101 Morrissey Street, Merrigum as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

Page 53 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.11 16 Alexandra Street, Mooroopna (former Parsonage) (HO302) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Methodist parsonage is of significance. How is it significant?

The former parsonage is of local historic, social and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. The architectural features associated with the early 20th century building such as the timber fretwork and timber joinery details, the timber weatherboard cladding and the corrugated metal cladding, all contribute to the significance of the place. The setting with setback from the front boundary is of significance. Why is it significant?

It is of historic and social significance for its association with the establishment of Methodism in Mooroopna. HERCON criterion A. It is of aesthetic significance for its early 20th century architecture. Its architectural expression relies on the asymmetrical facade with the projecting front and recessed bullnosed verandah. The decorative timber joinery (timber fretwork, timber verandah posts, timber detailing to the window hood and timber window and door frames) are also typical for the period and region. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 16 Alexandra Street, Mooroopna is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO302) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 12 considered that the Heritage Overlay was not warranted and would devalue the property and was proposed without adequate consultation. Ms Kemp’s evidence identified that the place at 16 Alexandra Street, Mooroopna is important for its association with the former Methodist Church. She opined that land valuation should not be a consideration as to whether the place is covered by a Heritage Overlay. Ms Kemp identified that consultation on the Amendment had been occurring since mid-2017.

Page 54 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external drive-by inspection of the property and confirmed that the place is in good condition and has been carefully managed by the owners. The significance of the place and its association with the Methodist Church is clear. The Panel agrees that the place meets the Hercon Criterion A and D as identified in the Heritage Study and the evidence of Ms Kemp. The Panel has discussed property value and financial impacts in Chapter 4. The Panel notes that the owner’s submission identifies that the submitter had been aware of the proposed Amendment for some time. The Panel considers that the notification arrangements for the Amendment have been appropriate.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • 16 Alexandra Street, Mooroopna is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO302) on a permanent basis.

Page 55 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.12 209-231 McLennan Street, Mooroopna (Turkish Mosque) (HO385) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The Turkish Mosque at 209-231 McLennan Street, Mooroopna is significant. This includes all features associated with its architectural expression, such as the fine white brickwork, the pattern of openings and the minaret. How is it significant?

The Turkish Mosque is of historic, social and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria. It is of local historic, social and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The Mosque is of historic and social significance for its association with successive migrations of Turkish migrants to the region. This group of migrants has made a notable contribution to the cultural life of the district. HERCON criteria A & G. The mosque is of aesthetic significance for its architectural expression. The aesthetic character of the building is defined by its white face brick construction, the pattern of openings and the striking 18 metre minaret. HERCON criterion E.

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the Turkish Mosque at 209-231 McLennan Street, Mooroopna is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO385) on a permanent basis • whether the Imam’s House should be identified as a significant outbuilding on the site.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 35 made the following points about the Amendment: Listing of our Place of Worship as a Heritage site and /or building would have long term negative effects within the community group that currently use the site. The required future additional upkeep as required by the heritage listing of the buildings located at 209-213 McLennan Street Mooroopna, Vic 3629 would add unforeseen costs to the current community users. There is no current avenues to recoup these costs and all future costs would be a burden to our organization. Any future changes or development proposals would require not only a planning permit but

Page 56 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

also heritage approval before any works are carried out. This created additional hurdles and costs that GVTICS will struggle to meet. The GVTICS is currently completely run by volunteers with no paid staff. The heritage listing will create additional administrative duties for volunteers when and works or changes are proposed. This creates and issue with ensuring volunteers assist with the centre. The more work required generally means less volunteers are willing to help. As the community grows and more people use the facilities located at 209-213 McLennan Street, Mooroopna the current facility will become inadequate. It is envisaged that within the next 10-15 years the current facility may be demolished and a new and larger facility will be built (sic) to cater for the growing members or extensive extensions and/or upgrades will be needed. Given that the current facility at 209-213 McLennan Street, Mooroopna is approximately 32 years old we don’t believe this warrants that this should be deemed as a heritage site. Ms Kemp’s evidence stated that: • the age of the place should not be a determining factor when assessing a place for heritage protection. The place has been included because of its historic and social significance along with its particular architectural expression • the Heritage Overlay controls do not require an owner to undertake any specific changes to a place • the process of seeking permits can be assisted by the Council’s heritage advisory service. In its Part B submission Council indicated that it was proposing post exhibition changes to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to identify the Imam’s House as a significant outbuilding in order to ensure that the Planning Scheme aligns with the Statement of Significance.

(iii) Discussion Any proposal to include a building as recent as this with a Heritage Overlay can be contentious. While buildings of at least 50 years of age are more conventionally considered to have potential heritage significance, the age of a structure is not critical. The Panel notes that the Heritage Study (including its thematic history) has applied a consistent approach in identifying places of worship within the municipality as being of local cultural heritage significance both architecturally and socially. As identified by Council, the mosque demonstrates cultural change within the municipality and was already “an iconic place and its cultural values are highly respected”. In this case the Mosque is a highly distinctive building which makes a dramatic statement within the Mooroopna landscape and at the entrance to the town. The Panel considers that the application of the Heritage Overlay now will ensure the building remains relatively intact as it reaches an age that is more normally associated with heritage identification. The Panel accepts that while a degree of maintenance will be exempt under the Heritage Overlay, there may be increased regulation associated with alterations to the place, but as indicated by Ms Kemp the congregation is able to avail itself of the heritage advice and assistance that is offered by the Council.

Page 57 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

It was unclear to the Panel how applying heritage controls to the Imam’s house would assist the protection of the significance of this place. Presumably, the use of the white brickwork on the house is the basis for this proposal. The Panel believes that the Mosque and its associated elements are important as identified in the Statement of Significance (satisfying Hercon Criterion A, E and G) but is not satisfied the house is one of those elements.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • The Turkish Mosque at 209-231 McLennan Street, Mooroopna is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in HO385 as exhibited. • The Imam’s house should not be identified as a significant outbuilding on the site. • the post-exhibition changes proposed by Council to include the Imam’s House in the Schedule to Clause 43.01 are not supported.

Page 58 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.13 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna (Ardmona Cannery) (HO321) Exhibited Statement of Significance What is significant?

The Ardmona Cannery and this includes all the structures that are representative of the key historic periods. How is it significant?

The Ardmona Cannery is of local historic, social, aesthetic and technical cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The Ardmona Cannery is of historic significance as it is the primary factor in the development of Mooroopna and the success of the district's prime industry, fruit growing. It is of historic significance as producing one of the earliest Australian-manufactured products that gained international recognition. It was awarded seven gold medals at the Imperial Fruit Exhibition in 1936. It is of historic significance for its early scientific association with the CSIR (CSIRO) with the running of an onsite laboratory. HERCON criterion A. Sections of the Ardmona Cannery are of aesthetic and architectural significance for their association with Twentyman and Askew, designers of many city factories. HERCON criterion D. The Ardmona Cannery is of historic and technical significance for its early 20th century adoption and extensive use of Australian-made plant and machinery. HERCON criteria A & F.

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the curtilage of HO321 should be reduced • whether the Statement of Significance and Heritage Study place citation should be amended to clarify the extent of internal controls and the significant external fabric.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 43 was prepared by Spiire on behalf of the owners and presented at the Hearing and requested that: Internal controls be restricted to the 1920s cork lined cool rooms along with all former external face brick walls and signage; and External controls not be applied to the southern yard/car parking area. The submission also sought an opportunity for Council’s final position to be presented to the Panel in a Part C submission following further discussions with the land owner. Council submitted that the land owner and Spiire Australia Pty Ltd have lodged a planning permit application for the redevelopment of the site for the construction of a modern fruit handling facility. It confirmed through its Part C submission and correspondence with the Spiire (Document 18) that it had reached some agreement with the submitter and proposed further post-exhibition changes to:

Page 59 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• update the Heritage Study place citation • limit the application of internal alteration controls to the 1920s cork lined cool rooms along with all former external face brick walls and signage • remove from the Heritage Overlay curtilage the hard stand areas to the north and south of the complex in accordance with the plans included in its Part C submission (as shown in Figure 5). The submitter has confirmed that these changes to HO321 would address the concerns outlined in their submission.

Figure 5 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO321 curtilage

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external drive-by inspection of the place. It is a large complex of buildings developed over a long period of time. The Panel supports the post-exhibition changes to reduce the curtilage of HO321 and to be more specific about the extent of internal controls in the Schedule to Clause 43.01 and update the citation and Statement of Significance to clarify the significant heritage elements of the place. The Panel considers that these changes will not diminish the cultural heritage significance of the place which have been clearly established in the Heritage Study.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The curtilage of HO321 should be reduced as identified in Council’s Part C submission. • The Schedule to Clause 43.01 should be amended to limit the application of internal alteration controls to the 1920s cork lined cool rooms along with all former external face brick walls and signage as identified in Council’s Part C submission.

Page 60 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• The Heritage Study citation should be updated as identified in Council’s Part C submission to reflect changes to the Heritage Overlay curtilage and extent of internal significance. The Panel recommends: Amend the curtilage of HO321 (Ardmona Cannery, 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Limit the extent of internal controls to the 1920s cork lined cool rooms along with all former external face brick walls and signage in the ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ column for HO321 (Ardmona Cannery, 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Amend the citation for 16 Young Street & 6 Doonan Street, Mooroopna (Ardmona Cannery) to reflect changes to the Heritage Overlay Curtilage and extent of internal significance as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

Page 61 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.14 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison (Waranga Park) (HO328) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

Waranga Park at 5 Murchison-Tatura Road Murchison is significant. This includes all the architectural features associated with the style. How is it significant?

Waranga Park is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

Waranga Park is of historic significance for its association with the Waranga pastoral run and William Gunn, a squatter and settler and his son William Gunn Jnr. A community leader from the late 19th century and into the early 20th century Gunn Jnr was instrumental in many community projects and this included setting up the initial water supply for the township of Rushworth. It was William Gunn Jnr and his brother Alexander who built Waranga Park in 1906 and in 1931 this was moved to its current location. HERCON criterion A. Waranga Park is of aesthetic significance for its turn of the 20th century architecture. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the curtilage of HO328 should be reduced.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 42 sought a modification of the Heritage Overlay to restrict it to the homestead surrounds. Ms Kemp’s evidence recommended that the curtilage be contracted to include the homestead and the avenue of peppercorn trees leading to it. Council confirmed in its Part B Submission that it intended to modify the Amendment to reduce the curtilage to remove it from the western paddock but retain it over the peppercorn trees. It also proposed post-exhibition changes to the Heritage Study place citation to reflect the significance of the mature trees. Council advised that it had informed the land owner of this proposed change before the Hearing. Council’s proposed post- exhibition changes were mapped in its Part C submission (refer Figure 6).

Page 62 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Figure 6 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO321 curtilage

(iii) Discussion It is unclear whether the proposed changes to the amendment are satisfactory to the submitter as they did not appear before the Panel. However, the Panel agrees that the area of land proposed in the exhibited version of the Amendment is too extensive and supports with the proposed modification of the Heritage Overlay (including the peppercorn trees) as proposed in Council’s Part B and C submissions.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes that: • The curtilage of HO328 should be reduced so that it includes the homestead and avenue of peppercorn trees and excludes the western paddock as identified in Council’s Part C submission. The Panel recommends: Amend the curtilage of HO328 (‘Waranga Park’, 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison) to include the homestead and avenue of peppercorn trees and exclude the western paddock as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Amend the citation for Waranga Park’, 5 Murchison-Tatura Road, Murchison to identify the significance of mature trees as identified in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

Page 63 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.15 325 Poplar Avenue, Orrvale (former Methodist Church) (HO342) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Methodist Church is significant. The architectural features associated with early 20th century ecclesiastic building. How is it significant?

The former Methodist Church is of local historic, social and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is of historic and aesthetic significance for its association with the establishment of Methodism in Orrvale. It provides tangible physical evidence of local Methodist community's commitment to its religion. HERCON criterion A. It is of aesthetic significance for its early 20th century ecclesiastic architecture. The later additions such as the entry porch and the vestry enlargement are also of significance. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether internal alteration, tree and outbuilding controls should apply.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 26 identified that: • there is nothing inside the original church to warrant heritage controls. It was extensively renovated by the previous owners using new materials and fittings • the application of tree controls is opposed because of their need to maintain a safe environment for guests staying in the former church. Ms Kemp made the following points in evidence: • tree controls have only been applied to mature trees on the site • it is proposed to remove the proposed internal controls from the Schedule to Clause 43.01 as a post-exhibition change • it is accepted that the second church on the site was relocated from Shepparton and does not have any intrinsic significance to the place.

Page 64 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Council confirmed in its Part B and Part C submissions that it proposed to remove the internal controls as part of post exhibition changes and would not proceed with a proposal to include the second church as part of the Heritage Overlay as an outbuilding.

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external drive-by inspection of the property. It is accepted that the second church on the site was relocated from elsewhere and should not form part of the citation or be identified as a significant outbuilding. The Panel notes that Council’s Part B and C submissions propose to remove the internal alteration controls from this property. This was a result of a site inspection undertaken by Council officers and its Heritage Adviser. The Panel supports this change. It considers tree controls are appropriate for this site as they contribute to the heritage context and setting of the former church.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay for 325 Poplar Avenue, Orrvale (former Methodist Church) (HO342) should be amended to remove internal and outbuilding controls as identified in Council’s Part C submission. The Panel recommends: Amend the Schedule to the Clause 43.01 to: • Insert ‘No’ under ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ for HO342 (former Methodist Church, 325 Poplar Avenue, Orrvale).

Page 65 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.16 9 and 9A Edward Street, Shepparton (House) (HO352) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

9 Edward Street, Shepparton, and this includes the Federation era bungalow (with its garden setting) is significant. The shop front was built during the occupation of the site by Bush's Blinds (c.1980) and is not significant. The front fence and the painted finish to the shop front is not significant. How is it significant?

9 Edward Street is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

9 Edward Street is of historic and social significance as it demonstrates the character of residential expansion to the immediate north of the central business area during the Interwar period. There was an increasing demand for residential land from the 1900s and in particular during the 1920s. The economic prosperity which drove this expansion is linked to the increasing success and sustainability of irrigation, dairying and farming. HERCON criteria A & G. It is of architectural significance as it is a good regional representative example of a Federation period bungalow style. The porch is distinctive. The face red brickwork, orange terracotta tiles and creamy white rendered gable with white timber details create a pleasing evocation of this style. HERCON criterion E.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 9 and 9A Edward Street, Shepparton is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis (HO352).

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 11 identified the following issues: This overlay restricts the options for us to lease this shop as all most lease's need to display their signage in colours that complement their logos. As the Council has rated this shop separately to the house I cannot see how you can class it as part of the house within the overlay You cannot have it both ways. I don't see how this can be included as it does not have any significant meaning to the town. So now, as well as reducing the value of our property you are also reducing our right to earn income from the shop.

Page 66 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

We now have leakage problems with the roof of this shop but this Heritage Control will stop us replacing the roof with a modern roof that will completely fix its problems. Many properties that are of significant age, appearance and historical value to the town have been left off this overlay. Why we are being victimised and suffering a massive reduction in the value of our property due to heritage controls when other properties are not. I have written down 34 properties from just a walk down 3 streets near my house. These houses would be considered significant and should have been referred to in this overlay. How can this be considered fair? Ms Kemp responded: • The assessment of significance was undertaken thoroughly and she remained satisfied that the comparative assessment of this place supported its inclusion. • In terms of other places mentioned by the submitter: 1. 92, 94 and 96 Corio Street, Shepparton are located within the Heritage Overlay as places of Contributory significance in the Shepparton Residential Precinct South (HO141). 2. 111 Maude Street is proposed to be assessed as part of a future heritage study. 3. 101 Corio Street is a modern building and does not satisfy any of the historic themes. 4. 48 – 60 Maude Street is included as a non-contributory area in HO96. • The shop is designated as Non-contributory and it should be anticipated that changes would be allowed. Council advised that it was aware of the other properties mentioned in submission 11 and confirmed that a number of them are covered by existing overlays and that one site is proposed for assessment in the future.

(iii) Discussion The Panel is of the view that HO352 was appropriately assessed in the terms of the Hercon criteria and comparatively assessed against other similar properties. The Panel agrees that the place is of local cultural heritage significance meeting the Hercon threshold Criterion A, E and G.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • 9 and 9A Edward Street, Shepparton is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO352) on a permanent basis.

Page 67 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.17 61 Maude Street, Shepparton (House) (HO186) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

61 Maude Street, Shepparton and this includes the garden setting. The low brick fence contributes to the significance of the place. How is it significant?

It is of local historic, social and aesthetic significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is of historic significance as it demonstrates the character of residential expansion to the north of the central business area during the 1920s. The economic prosperity which drove this expansion is linked to the increasing success and sustainability of irrigation, dairying and farming. [HERCON Criteria A & G]. It is of architectural significance as it is a good regional representative example of Interwar architecture and the bungalow style. The integrity of the place and this includes the house and garden setting contribute to the aesthetic significance. [HERCON Criterion D]. It is one of a number of houses that were constructed in this section of Maude Street during this period. This includes: 63 Maude St [HERMES #108135]; 76 Maude St [HERMES #108136]; 84 Maude St [HERMES #108137]; 88 Maude St [#108140]; 89 Maude St [#108141]; 85 Maude St [HERMES #108138].

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether outbuilding and fence controls should be applied to 61 Maude Street, Shepparton.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 3 stated that the front fence no longer existed having been replaced some time ago. Ms Kemp in her evidence confirmed that the submission was correct, and that the citation should be amended. Council supported this change in its post-exhibition changes included in its Part C submission.

Page 68 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees with the evidence of Ms Kemp and Council that the citation should be amended to remove reference to the fence that has been removed. The Panel notes that the Statement of Significance similarly refers to the fence and should also be amended. The Panel also noted that the third paragraph of the ‘Why is it Significant?’ section of the Statement of Significance does not follow the standard format and seems to be expressed as a note. It would be appropriate for that portion of the Statement to be revised.

(iv) Conclusion and Recommendations The Panel concludes: • The Statement of Significance and place citation should be amended to remove reference to the fence and correct the format of ‘Why is it Significant?’. • The Schedule to Clause 43.01 should be amended to remove reference to the fence and gates under the ‘Outbuilding and fence’ provisions for the place. The Panel recommends: Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Insert ‘No’ under the ‘Outbuildings or fence not exempt’ apply for HO186 (61 Maude Street, Shepparton). Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Remove reference to the fence and correct the formatting under ‘Why is it Significant?’ for 61 Maude Street, Shepparton. Amend the Draft Greater Shepparton Heritage Study Stage II, 2019 to: • Amend the citation for 61 Maude Street, Shepparton to remove reference to the fence.

Page 69 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.18 31 Welsford Street, Shepparton (House) (HO364) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

31 Welsford Street Shepparton, and this includes the garden setting and open wire fence, is significant. How is it significant?

31 Welsford Street is of local historic and aesthetic significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

31 Welsford Street is of historic and social significance as it demonstrates the character of residential expansion to the immediate north of the central business area during the Interwar period. There was an increasing demand for residential land from the 1900s and in particular during the 1920s. The economic prosperity which drove this expansion is linked to the increasing success and sustainability of irrigation, dairying and farming. HERCON criteria A & G. It is of architectural significance as it is a good regional representative example of Federation period bungalow style. The porch is distinctive with its concave brick balustrade with contrasting rendered section on the posts. The fine timber fretwork is also notable. The integrity of the place, and this includes the house, garden setting and the low front fence, contributes to the aesthetic significance. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 31 Welsford Street, Shepparton is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO364) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 32 was effectively summarised in Ms Kemp’s evidence: 1. The zoning of the place supports new development. 2. If the Heritage Overlay is applied the place will lose context through loss of scale. 3. The area is busy and is not appropriate for residential use. 4. The condition of the building is compromised through cracking to the brick work. This occurred after recent road works. She responded by pointing out that the current zoning allows the place to continue to be used as a dwelling, and that in her opinion the changing surrounds will not compromise the

Page 70 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

significance of the place and that the condition is not a matter to be considered at this stage of the planning process.

(iii) Discussion The Panel considers that 31 Welsford Street, Shepparton has been properly assessed as meeting the Hercon Criterion A, D and G for heritage protection as a place of local cultural heritage significance. The Panel agrees that the changing nature of the surrounds does not diminish its individual heritage significance. The building appears to be in good condition and integrity. Any structural issues associated with cracking brickwork could appropriately be dealt with at the planning permit stage.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • 31 Welsford Street, Shepparton is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO364) on a permanent basis.

Page 71 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.19 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East (former Shepparton East Hall) (HO368) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The Shepparton East Hall at 703 Benalla Road (Midland Highway), Shepparton East. How is it significant?

The Shepparton East Hall is of local historic, social and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The Shepparton East Hall is of local historic and social significance for its association with intensification of settlement brought about by Closer and Soldier Settlement at the beginning of the 20th century. The hall is of historic and social significance as it was constructed by voluntary labour in 1922 and was the focus of community life and entertainment. HERCON criteria A & G. It is of aesthetic significance for its simple utilitarian architecture, its community design and its construction from bricks that were made from the local sand from the Broken River. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the former Shepparton East Hall at 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in HO368 on a permanent basis • should the curtilage of HO368 be reduced? • should internal alterations and external paint controls apply to the place?

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 37 was made by Chris Smith and Associates on behalf of the owner. In summary it stated: • the place does not have social significance and was sold to the present owners in 2001 • the building has undergone significant alterations • the proposed paint controls and internal controls are opposed • the building cannot comply with current building regulations.

Page 72 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Ms Kemp’s evidence indicated that whilst the place retained its stated significance, the proposed internal controls should be deleted. Council in its Part B Submission proposed that the mapped area of the HO368 be adjusted to remove the hard stand area at the rear as a post-exhibition change (and confirmed in its Part C submission mapping changes as shown in Figure 7). It also proposed to amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to delete the internal controls provisions.

Figure 7 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO368 curtilage

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external drive-by inspection of the site. It agrees that the place is appropriately identified as having heritage significance (satisfying Hercon Criterion A, D and G and accepts that the interior is apparently so altered that the proposed controls are not warranted. The issue of future building reuse and condition could be appropriately considered as part of any future planning permit application. The Panel accepts and supports Council’s submission that the Heritage Overlay should not cover the hard stand area at the rear of the former hall and does not consider that the reduced curtilage will impact on the heritage significance of the place.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The former Shepparton East Hall is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in HO368 on a permanent basis. • The curtilage of the HO368 should be reduced as proposed in Council’s Part C post-exhibition changes. • Internal controls should not apply. The Panel recommends: Amend the curtilage of HO368 (former Shepparton East Hall, 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East) as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

Page 73 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Insert ‘No’ under ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ for HO368 (former Shepparton East Hall, 703 Midland Highway, Shepparton East) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

Page 74 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.20 110 Craven Road, Tatura (Gladfield HO375 and Nimitybelle HO376) Exhibited Statement of Significance – ‘Nimitybelle’

What is significant?

Nimitybelle, the homestead at 110 Craven Road, Tatura, is significant. This includes the architectural features associated with this style: the corrugated metal clad hipped roof, the symmetrical facade, the timber framed windows and doorways and the brick chimneys. The hay shed with its timber posts and the short sheets of galvanised corrugated metal roof is significant. How is it significant?

The homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is of historic significance as it contributes to the group of homesteads dating from the late Victorian period to the early 20th century. As a group these buildings, through their scale and design, contribute to an understanding of the extent of economic growth and prosperity of the region during the late 19th to early 20th century. This was a period that saw the consolidation of irrigation, farming and other agricultural industries which resulted in an increasing prosperity. HERCON criterion A. The hay shed demonstrates a vernacular construction system that was commonly used for rudimentary outbuildings during the 19th and early 20th century. It is a rare surviving example in this region. HERCON criterion A. The homestead is of aesthetic significance as a local example of vernacular Victorian architecture. HERCON criterion D. The hay shed is of aesthetic significance for its simple proportions that have a classical-like simplicity. The textures of the unpainted timber posts contrast with the corrugated metal roof and combine to create a timeless addition to the rural cultural landscape. HERCON criterion E. Exhibited Statement of Significance – ‘Gladfield’

Page 75 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

What is significant?

The timber weatherboard Victorian homestead is significant. This includes the architectural features associated with its period of construction, the return bullnosed verandah, the hipped roof, the brick chimneys, the timber weatherboard cladding, the timber-framed windows with side lights and the symmetrical facade. How is it significant?

The homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

Gladfield is of historic significance for its association with the Brady family who were early settlers in the district. It is of historic significance as it provides tangible physical evidence of the character of rural and regional development during the mid to late Victorian period. The scale and design of the building contributes to an understanding of the extent of economic growth and prosperity of the region. HERCON criterion A. It is of aesthetic significance for its representative architecture. It exhibits relatively simple architectural expression and largely relies on an asymmetry of expression and the use of typical elements such as timber-framed sash windows. It demonstrates what was typical for period and region. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issues The issues are: • whether the ‘Nimitybelle’ and ‘Gladfield’ homesteads are places of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO375 and HO376 respectively) on a permanent basis • whether external paint controls should apply to HO375 and HO376.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 25 opposed the Heritage Overlay being applied to their property because it is their home and farm and would make repairs more costly and restrict development resulting in the buildings becoming redundant and falling into disrepair. The submission considered Gladfield Homestead typical for its period, but not special. The submission identified that Nimitybelle Homestead had been in the one family since settlement and well looked after and found it offensive that a Heritage Overlay was being applied to keep it in order. The submission opposed paint control and outbuilding controls on the hayshed. Ms Kemp in her evidence identified that: • Nimitybelle and Gladfield homesteads provide representative examples of the two different responses to the building of homesteads of their scale and type during the Victorian period. She considered them important as they provide tangible physical evidence of the changes to the municipality’s settlement patterns • the controls are there to protect significant places for future generations • the owners of Nimitybelle have cared for the homestead and it is in good condition.

Page 76 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• the application of a Heritage Overlay was not a reflection on level of owners’ care but was about recognising the cultural values of the place • the hay shed was included in the Heritage Overlay for its representative vernacular construction and there are no restrictions on its maintenance and care. Council’s submission supported the evidence of Ms Kemp and proposed no further changes to the Amendment although it identified that a further inspection of the hay shed would be required to support removal of outbuilding controls.

(iii) Discussion The submitter was not represented at the Hearing. The Panel has assessed the material provided to it during the course of the Hearing. It is satisfied that the heritage assessment has been completed in line with PPN01 and the Hercon criteria and that the dwellings meet Criterion A and D and that the hay shed is also of local cultural heritage significance. As indicated in Ms Kemp’s evidence there is recognition that the owners have cared for the properties. The Panel accepts the view that the application of the overlay should not be seen as a penalty and that the owners have access to the Council’s heritage support services and a range of permit exemptions in the incorporated document. The Panel considers that the application of external paint controls is appropriate for the dwellings, noting its further observations relating to painting in Chapter 7.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes that: • Nimitybelle and Gladfield homesteads at 110 Craven Road, Tatura are places of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO375 and HO376 respectively) on a permanent basis. • External paint controls should apply to HO375 and HO376.

Page 77 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.21 201 Hogan Street, Tatura (Shop) (HO218) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The shop at 201 Hogan Street, Tatura is significant. It is representative of the eastward development of the Tatura township following the construction of the railway 1880 - the Toolamba to Echuca railway line. It is a timber framed structure with a large single gable roof clad with corrugated metal sheeting. The external walls are clad with weatherboards . There is a large shop front window and the central entry is recessed and splayed. The verandah has a straight profile and there are timber verandah posts. Its design with its large gable shopfront is atypical for the commercial streetscape and contributes to the diversity of commercial buildings found within Hogan Street. The modifications to the shop windows [east] are not significant. How is it significant?

It is of local cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

It is of historic significance as it provides tangible physical evidence of the development of Tatura during the turn of the 20th century - a period of prosperity associated with closer settlement and the development of irrigation. It demonstrates the character of development which occurred to the east of the railway line as the town expanded. HERCON criterion G. It is of architectural significance for its unusual gable roofed shop front. HERCON criterion B. The surviving features such as the west shop front window, the splayed entry and the timber weatherboard cladding contribute to its architectural expression and demonstrate many of the values associated with shop front architecture from the period. It is of aesthetic significance as it contributes to the diversity of the commercial streetscape. HERCON criterion D.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether 201 Hogan Street, Shepparton should be removed from HO218.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 33 identified that the building has seriously deteriorated and that a permit was being sought to demolish the place and, if granted, the Heritage Overlay would be irrelevant.

Page 78 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Council submitted that a site inspection of the property has identified significant white ant damage of the building and other structural damage that made it unsafe (confirmed by Council’s Building Surveyor). Council considered the building fabric so compromised that it was no longer significant and the place should be removed from the Heritage Overlay. Ms Kemp’s written evidence proposed no change to the Heritage Overlay, but in her oral evidence indicated that she supported Council’s proposed post-exhibition changes to delete HO218.

(iii) Discussion While the Panel’s observation of the building suggested that it was reasonably intact, it supports Council’s post-exhibition changes which were informed by a more detailed site inspection and the evidence of Ms Kemp.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • HO218 should not be applied. The Panel recommends: No longer apply HO218 to 201 Hogan Street, Tatura. Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • delete the 201 Hogan Street, Shepparton Statement of Significance.

Page 79 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.22 1340 Murchison-Tatura Road, Tatura (Homestead) (HO385) Exhibited Statement of Significance What is significant?

The homestead at 730 Dhurringile Road and 1340 Murchison-Tatura Road, Tatura is significant. How is it significant?

The homestead is of local historic and aesthetic cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

730 Dhurringile Road, Tatura is of historic cultural heritage significance as it provides tangible physical evidence of the character of rural and regional development during the mid to late Victorian period. The scale and design of the building contributes to an understanding of the extent of economic growth and prosperity of the region. HERCON criterion A. It is of aesthetic significance for its fine early 20th century architecture. This can be found in the overall design with features such as the verandah and its fretwork, the high pitched roof and the symmetrical facade. HERCON criterion E.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the homestead at 1340 Murchison-Tatura Road, Tatura is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO385) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 34 was prepared by TP Legal on behalf of the land owner Goulburn Valley Water which primarily uses the site for wastewater treatment. The detailed submission presented to the Panel (Document 6) was critical of the building’s identification in the Heritage Study because: • the site had not been inspected by Ms Kemp • the content of the Statement of Significance and citation are generic and high level with minimal detail and based on information obtained through other ‘local knowledge’ sources and was not consistent with PPN01 • no apparent comparative analysis had been undertaken • the existing unused dwelling is in derelict condition, altered and has no useful purpose • the building had not been identified as significant prior to 2017 • the application of the Heritage Overlay is not in the public interest. Ms Kemp’s evidence responded in the following terms: • the place has been assessed using the Hercon criteria and has applied the thresholds as utilised for the Shepparton studies • the condition of the building is not normally part of the assessment of its significance • public access is not a requirement for heritage identification.

Page 80 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel was provided with very little in the way of description of this property other than that included in Ms Kemp’s evidence: The homestead is a fine example from the Federation/Edwardian period. This includes the face brickwork, the verandah and the steeply pitched roof. The submitter has not provided any information about the place other than its condition was considered derelict and identifying that the verandah and fretwork may not be original. While the Panel acknowledges that it is unusual that Ms Kemp in preparing the Heritage Study did not inspect the site or undertake a more rigorous comparative analysis, given that access to the site was not available it is not unusual in that instance to rely on other sources of information to establish the significance of a place. The Panel was afforded an opportunity to view the homestead structure and walk through it. While the building’s condition has significantly deteriorated (in part as a result of it not being secured and weather protected) and alterations apparent there remains significant external fabric visible (brickwork, verandah elements and roof) that reflect the citation detail and distinguishes the homestead from others viewed by the Panel and identified in the Heritage Study. While it accepts that the Statement of Significance detail is minimal (including the comparative analysis) the Panel acknowledges that detailed analysis is difficult to do across such a large study area. The role of early homesteads within the municipality’s pastoral and settlement history is well established in the thematic history. Relying on Council’s heritage evidence , it accepts the position put to it that the homestead is of local cultural heritage significance, meeting Hercon Criterion A and E. The Panel considers that the restricted extent of the Heritage Overlay curtilage minimises the impact on the site’s wastewater treatment operations. The Heritage Overlay itself does not compel the land owner to maintain or restore the building. The Panel notes that the land owner has previously sough a permit to demolish the dwelling. The Panel considers that the permit stage is the appropriate time to consider issues relating to the structural integrity and building condition.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • The homestead at 1340 Murchison-Tatura Road, Tatura is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO385) on a permanent basis.

Page 81 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.23 575 Toolamba-Rushworth Road, Toolamba West (former Uniting Church) (HO124) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

No detail provided How is it significant?

No detail provided

Why is it significant?

The Uniting Church, Toolamba West is of local historic, social and aesthetic significance. Constructed in 1923, the church has served as a centre for local Presbyterian worship and community activity for almost 80 years. Aesthetically, the building is an intact and good example of a rural brick church, of which there are numerous examples throughout the municipality. The Canary Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis) are contemporary with the church and make an important contribution to the setting. The modern toilet block is of little significance.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the former Uniting Church at 575 Toolamba-Rushworth Road, Toolamba West is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO124) on a permanent basis.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 41 identified that the Heritage Overlay is too restrictive and prevents future development of the property. Council and the evidence of Ms Kemp considered that the former Church was of local historic, social and aesthetic significance and that the Heritage Overlay was the best tool to apply to protect its significance.

(iii) Discussion The Panel undertook an external inspection of the property. It is in a rural location and acts as somewhat of landmark for Toolamba West. The former church is in good condition externally and the Panel considers that the Heritage Study citation appropriately identifies

Page 82 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

the significant elements of the place. The date palms are a significant visual component of the site. The Panel notes that the Statement of Significance for this place does not follow the standard format excluding details on ‘What is Significant?’, ‘How is it Significant?’ and identifying the relevant Hercon Criterion. While the Panel is satisfied that the former church is of local cultural heritage significance it considers that the Statement of Significance should be enhanced and standardised.

(iv) Conclusion and Recommendations The Panel concludes that: • The former Uniting Church at 575 Toolamba-Rushworth Road, Toolamba West is a place of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay (HO124) on a permanent basis. • The Statement of Significance should be reviewed and rewritten in the standard format to include details on ‘What is Significant?’, ‘How is it Significant?’ and identifying the relevant Hercon Criterion. The Panel recommends: Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Include details on ‘What is Significant?’ and ‘How is it Significant?’ and identify the relevant Hercon Criterion for the former Uniting Church at 575 Toolamba- Rushworth Road, Toolamba West.

Page 83 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.24 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust (former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall) (HO104) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

No detail provided How is it significant?

No detail provided Why is it significant?

The Uniting Church as the corner of Zeerust Church and Zeerust Roads, Zeerust is of local historical, social and aesthetic significance. Constructed in 1876 and 1914, the church and hall have been a centre for Methodist/Uniting Church worship and activity for over 125 years. Aesthetically the church is a substantially intact and representative example of a rural church with simple Gothic Revival detailing, distinguished form the numerous examples in the municipality by its cement render finish. The adjacent church hall is a substantially intact and representative example of its type and makes a contribution to the significance of the place.

(i) The issues The issue is whether: • the Statement of Significance and citation should be amended to refer to an existing toilet structure within the Heritage Study citation and the Schedule to Clause 43.01.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 9 sought to add one of the outbuildings (long drop toilet) to the Statement of Significance and identified that a second outbuilding structure had been blown over. Ms Kemp accepted the suggestion that the extent of the overlay be extended to cover the remaining toilet and the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay be amended to identify the toilet as a significant outbuilding. Council in its Part B Submission advised that it had met with the submitter and supported the proposed changes which it proposed in its post-exhibition changes identified in its Part C submission.

Page 84 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel acknowledges the positive in way in which the owner and Council have worked together to refine the Statement of Significance. It supports the Statement of Significance and Heritage Study citation and the Schedule to Clause 43.01 being amended to acknowledge the significance of the toilet structure as a significant outbuilding as identified in Council’s Part C submission post-exhibition changes. However, the Panel notes that the Statement of Significance for this place does not follow the standard format excluding details on ‘What is Significant?’, ‘How is it Significant?’ and identifying the relevant Hercon Criterion. While the Panel is satisfied that the former church is of local cultural heritage significance it considers that the Statement of Significance should be enhanced and standardised.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The citation and schedule to the Heritage Overlay should acknowledge the significance of the toilet outbuilding. The Panel recommends: Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Insert ‘& toilet block’ under ‘Outbuildings or fences not exempt’ for HO104 (former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall at 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust) as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Include details on ‘What is Significant?’ and ‘How is it Significant?’ and identify the relevant Hercon Criterion and identify the significance of the toilet structure for the former Zeerust Uniting Church and Hall at 400 Zeerust Road, Zeerust.

Page 85 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.25 210 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust (former Gribben log building) (HO404) Exhibited Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Gribben log building at 210 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust. How is it significant?

The former Gribben log building is of local historic, aesthetic and technical cultural heritage significance to the City of Greater Shepparton. Why is it significant?

The former Gribben log building is of historic significance as it provides tangible physical evidence of the type of buildings that were constructed by selectors during the settlement period of the mid 19th century. These construction techniques were essentially a product of the requirements for successful selection. They were once commonplace but are increasingly becoming rarer as structures in which they are employed disappear from the landscape. HERCON criteria A & B. The log building is of aesthetic significance for its contribution to the cultural landscape of the Goulburn Valley. HERCON criterion E. The log building is of technical significance for its method of construction. The log buildings of northern Victoria are constructed in a similar manner and rely on a minimum of mechanical or manufactured materials for completion. They are a technical testimony to the innovative enterprise of the selector. HERCON criterion F.

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the curtilage of HO404 should be reduced.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 5 requested that the extent of the HO404 be reduced to the area surrounding the log structure. Ms Kemp’s evidence identified that: Currently the Heritage Overlay applies to 3.8ha of land. The majority of this land is not significant and the proposed extent is beyond the intention of HO404 which is to preserve the log building. Ms Kemp acknowledged that the submitter has provided guidance for the revision through aerial mapping with dimensions from title boundaries but recommended that a site inspection be carried out to accurately identify the curtilage.

Page 86 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Council’s Part B Submission confirmed that further information had been provided by the submitter and Council was supportive of amending the curtilage in line with the original submission. This was again confirmed in its Part C submission as summarised in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Council proposed post-exhibition changes to HO404 curtilage

(iii) Discussion The Panel accepts the findings of the Heritage Study and evidence of Ms Kemp which assesses the log building of being of local cultural heritage significance under Hercon Criterion A, B, E and F. The Panel also supports the resolution of the curtilage as proposed by both the submitter and the Council and mapped as part of Council’s Part C submission post-exhibition mapping changes. These changes do not diminish the heritage values of the place and minimise the impacts of the overlay on farm operations.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The curtilage of HO404 should be reduced as identified in Council’s Part C submission. The Panel recommends that: Amend the curtilage of HO404 (former Gribben log Building, 210 Zeerust School Road, Zeerust as identified in the Appendix 1 mapping changes in Council’s Part C submission (Document 16).

Page 87 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

6.26 Various sites (DELWP submission)

(i) The issues The issues are whether: • the proposed heritage places at HO236, HO307, HO312 and HO334 have cultural heritage significance • the Heritage Overlay should apply to Crown Land sites of local cultural heritage significance • exemptions should apply to the proposed heritage places.

(ii) Evidence and submissions Submission 20 (DELWP) supported the application of the Heritage Overlay to 380 Thompsons Road, Congupna (Moreton Bay Fig Trees) (HO245) but opposed its application to other Crown Land sites managed by Parks Victoria: • 420 Boxwood Road, Boxwood (Lime Kilns) (HO236) • 1 and 1A McLennan Street, Mooroopna (Chinaman’s Gardens) (HO307) • Part of Shepparton Regional Park (Mooroopna Flats) (HO312) • 3-23 Willoughby Street, Murchison (Murchison Protectorate) (HO334). The DELWP submission considered that high levels of protection were already afforded to Crown Land and a Heritage Overlay (which is not generally applied over the Park Victoria estate) was not warranted. DELWP submitted that Parks Victoria considered that it shouldn’t have to refer its works programs to Council for approval. The submission supported the application of heritage controls to the reserve adjacent to Murchison – Goulburn Weir Road, Murchison (Flume at Murchison Goulburn Weir) because this land is freehold. Other sites were supported for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay (HO254 Congupna Common and HO276 part of the Kialla Village Settlement). Council in its Part B Submission indicated that the Heritage Overlay was the appropriate mechanism for identifying the heritage significance of these places. Council submitted that while their ownership by the Crown protected their other values, the heritage significance is best managed under the Heritage Overlay as required by the Act.

(iii) Discussion DELWP withdrew from the Hearing so the Panel was unable to fully understand the basis of its submission which did not contradict the Heritage Study’s identification of HO236, HO307, HO312 and HO334 as places of individual cultural heritage significance. The Panel independently supports the findings of the Heritage Study and the evidence that these places satisfy various Hercon Criterion and are places of local cultural heritage significance. Although Parks Victoria manages Crown land for a range of values, it agrees with Council that the heritage significance of these places is best identified and managed through the application of a Heritage Overlay consistent with their identified values and elements.

Page 88 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Given DELWP accepted the proposed application of the overlay to some sites it cannot be suggested that it is opposed to the application of heritage controls to Crown Land generally. Regardless, the Panel was not presented with any specific reasons as to why the sites opposed for the Heritage Overlay should be deleted from the Amendment. While the Heritage Overlay and other provisions of the Scheme provide a range of exemptions for site management activities, DELWP and Council could consider further changes to the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019 to expand the range of exemptions for Crown Land if considered necessary.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel concludes: • 420 Boxwood Road, Boxwood (Lime Kilns) (HO236), 1 and 1A McLennan Street, Mooroopna (Chinaman’s Gardens) (HO307), Part of Shepparton Regional Park (Mooroopna Flats) (HO312) and 3-23 Willoughby Street, Murchison (Murchison Protectorate) (HO334) are places of individual cultural heritage significance and should be included in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis as exhibited.

Page 89 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

7 Form and content of Amendment

7.1 Tree controls

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether tree controls as proposed for mature trees should be applied to specific places.

(ii) Submissions and evidence The Panel considered a number of submissions opposing the application of tree controls and dealt with them on an individual basis in Chapter 6. The exhibited Amendment applies tree controls throughout the Schedule to Clause 43.01 by nominating ‘all mature trees’. The exhibited changes to Clause 21.05 include a definition of Mature tree: Mature tree means a tree greater than 5 metres in height or greater than 2 metres in circumference as measured at 1.4 metres above ground level. Council submitted that it sought to protect mature trees where they actively contributed to the significance of the place. Council’s Part A Submission identified that: Where tree controls to protect all ‘mature trees’ are proposed to apply, justification for their application as part of the Amendment is included in each place’s respective place citation report / statement of significance. During the exhibition period, Council officers noted that several places did not include sufficient justification to warrant the application of tree controls to protect all ‘mature trees’. Council officers are also cognisant of the recommendations of the Panel Report for Amendment C157 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme which states that “If the Citation does not identify any significant trees or garden elements, and they are not listed in the Statement of Significance, there is no basis for activating tree controls”. Council officers are proposing post-exhibition changes after undertaking a thorough review of all place citation reports and Statements of Significance to ensure that, where tree controls are proposed to apply, appropriate justification is included. … As part of the Amendment, where tree controls currently apply (as denoted by the Schedule to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay), Council officers have sought to specify which tree(s) are of intrinsic significance to the place in accordance with Planning Practice Note 1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay. Additionally, Council officers are proposing to revise several place citation reports to include further information on why they are significant. Appendix 1 to Council’s Part C submission identified post-exhibition changes to: • various Statements of Significance to add content relating to the significance of mature trees to those places (pp56-83) • Include additional guidance in the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019 to define ‘lopping’.

Page 90 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel has considered specific submissions as they relate to tree controls and has generally supported the approach taken by Council. PPN01 indicates that where applying tree controls: The schedule can apply tree controls over heritage places. The tree controls could apply to the whole of a heritage place (for example, over a house site or an area) or a tree or group of trees could be specifically nominated as the heritage place. Tree controls are applied by including a ‘yes’ in the Tree Controls Apply? column. Tree controls should only be applied where there has been a proper assessment. The statement of significance for the heritage place should identify the particular trees that are significant (under “What is significant?”) and why the tree or trees are important. If only one, or a few trees within a large property are considered significant, the ‘Tree Controls Apply’ column can be qualified with the relevant details. A planning permit would then only be required to remove, destroy or lop the trees that were specifically identified in the column. This control is designed to protect trees that are of intrinsic significance (such as trees that are included on the National Trust Heritage Register), or trees that contribute to the significance of a heritage place (for example, trees that contribute to the significance of a garden or area). The control is not meant to protect trees for their amenity value. See Planning Practice Note 7 – Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas for alternative methods of vegetation protection. While on one hand the wide scale application of tree controls using a generic ‘all mature trees’ approach (157 occurrences) is unusual, in a landscape as open and flat as that surrounding Shepparton the presence of mature exotic tress makes a significant contribution to the historic landscape and often provides evidence of homesteads and settlements. The Amendment appropriately identifies specific trees where appropriate. The Panel supports Council’s post-exhibition changes to amend the exhibited Statements of Significance to identify the role of vegetation to the significance of individual places and to include a definition of ‘lopping’ in the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan April 2019 so as to minimise the need for permits and reduce the administrative burden and costs for Council and land owners. The Panel considers such a change consistent with tree controls being ‘turned on’ in the exhibited Clause 43.01 schedule. The Panel does however suggest that Council consider providing further guidance in the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan around mature trees, particularly if the Planning Scheme’s migration to the Planning Policy Framework format results in the loss of ability to include definitions that currently reside in Clause 21.05.

(iv) Conclusions and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The approach to tree controls proposed by the Council (with its proposed post- exhibition changes to Statements of Significance) is appropriate and would ensure the conservation of important vegetation associated with heritage sites.

Page 91 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The Panel recommends: Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Amend Statements of Significance to include additional detail about significant trees as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan, March 2019 to include a definition of lopping as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

7.2 Internal controls

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the approach taken to applying internal controls as proposed by the Amendment is justified.

(ii) Submissions and evidence The Panel received a number of objections to the application of internal controls and dealt with them on an individual basis. The PPN01 identifies the following about the application of internal controls: Internal alteration controls over specified buildings can be applied in the schedule by including a ‘yes’ in the Internal Alteration Controls Apply? column. This provision should be applied sparingly and on a selective basis to special interiors of high significance. The statement of significance for the heritage place should explain what is significant about the interior and why it is important. Council, in its Part A Submission made the following points about the application of internal controls: As part of the Amendment, internal alteration controls are proposed to apply to several places identified as being of ‘individual’ heritage significance. Internal alterations controls have been applied sparingly and only to interiors of particular note and significance. The statement of significance denotes which elements are of significance. … During the exhibition period, Council officers and Council’s Heritage Advisor met with a number of submitters to the Amendment of property proposed to have internal alteration controls. It became apparent that a number of land owners had negative misconceptions about the application of internal alteration controls and that their application would effectively ‘rule out’ any future interior modifications to their property. Council officers note that internal alteration controls have only been applied to the significant internal elements and that certain minor works would be permitted subject to a planning permit. To respond to the concerns of three (3) land owners, Council officers are proposing post-exhibition changes to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay to specify which internal elements are of significance.

Page 92 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(iii) Discussion The Panel observed that internal controls had been applied sparingly and had largely been used to identify interiors of public buildings. Where submissions had pointed out that interiors were no longer original (the former Orrvale Methodist Church and East Shepparton Hall for example) Council has appropriately proposed post-exhibition changes which delete internal controls. The Panel was initially concerned however, that the exhibited Amendment included a simple ‘Yes’ in the ‘Internal alteration controls apply’ column rather than being more specific to internal elements identified in the Heritage Study citation or Statement of Significance. Appendix 1 to Council’s Part C submission (pp34-55) proposed extensive changes to Statements of Significance to be more specific about the extent of internal controls which are proposed to be reflected in an amended Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Appendix 2 in Council’s post-exhibition changes contained in its Part C submission). The Panel supports these proposed changes as they reduce the scope of proposed internal alterations that apply and provide greater guidance to the important fabric and internal elements in a manner that meets the guidance of PPN01.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendations The Panel concludes: • The approach to internal controls proposed by Council in its proposed post- exhibition changes is appropriate and would strike the right balance between ensuring the conservation of important interiors while enabling modifications of interiors that do not meet the threshold of significance. The Panel recommends: Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to: • Amend the content of ‘Internal alteration controls apply?’ columns as identified in Appendix 2 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17). Amend the Greater Shepparton Statements of Significance for Places in the Heritage Overlay April 2019 to: • Amend Statements of Significance to include additional detail about the application of internal controls as identified in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission (Document 17).

7.3 Paint controls

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether the application of external paint controls as proposed by the Amendment is appropriate.

Page 93 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

(ii) Submissions and evidence The Panel received a number of objecting submissions to the application of external paint controls and dealt with them on an individual basis in Chapters 5 and 6. The PPN01 identifies the following about the application of external paint controls: External painting controls over particular heritage places can be applied in the schedule by including a ‘yes’ in the External Paint Controls Apply? Column Council, in its Part A Submission made the following points about the application of external paint controls: The Amendment proposes to apply external paint controls to buildings of ‘Individual’ heritage significance and ‘Contributory’ heritage significance in heritage precincts for places that demonstrate high levels of aesthetic and architectural significance. The Place citation report and statement of significance associated with the place substantiates why these places are of aesthetic and architectural significance. External paint controls will assist in encouraging external materials, colours and finishes for heritage buildings that are consistent with and complement the architectural intent of the place. It also referred to the Panel report for Amendment C42 to the Maroondah Planning Scheme4: The Panel has concluded that the application of external paint controls to all buildings proposed for HO (Heritage Overlay) listing in Amendment C42 is not sufficiently discriminating. Council officers submit that the approach undertaken for the application of external paint controls as part of Amendment C205 has been discretionary and that external paint controls are only proposed to apply to places of aesthetic significance. External paint controls allow for planning permit triggers to paint significant features, such as window sills and fascias. External paint controls can also allow Council to provide guidance on the type of colour used.

(iii) Discussion It is apparent that Council has been cognisant of the difficulties associated with the application of external paint controls and has taken an approach which restricts these controls to places of individual or contributory significance. As Council pointed out, it provides access to a heritage advisory service to provide guidance around appropriate paint schemes. However, the Amendment comprises a large number of places and this could result in a significant number of permit applications. Regardless, submitters remain concerned that these controls will result in them being required to paint their properties in colours that they don’t see as appropriate or desirable. Council was anxious to point out that the controls are meant to ensure that buildings are not painted inappropriately, rather than for Council to specify colour schemes. In at least one instance (the homestead at 840 Kyabram-Cooma Road, Cooma) this Panel has recommended that external paint controls should apply, but identified that some

4 Maroondah C42 (PSA) [2010] PPV27 (23 March 2010)

Page 94 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

consideration should be given to providing an exemption from painting in a specified range of colours, particularly for homesteads which are less visible from the public realm and where protection of places is arguably more important than what colour they are painted. The Panel considers that there is value in providing greater guidance for owners. It accepts Council’s argument that the controls are desirable to avoid the application of inappropriate colours. An alternative approach may be to amend the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan to provide specific parameters for places identified for external painting controls which could provide greater flexibility. Council is encouraged to explore such a change to the incorporated plan, with a particular focus on homesteads which are generally unable to be viewed from the public realm and rural industries where such controls can be disruptive to site operations.

(iv) Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: • The approach to external paint controls proposed by Council is appropriate • That Council should explore providing greater flexibility through permit exemptions, possibly by means of specifying a range of appropriate colours in the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan for which no permit is required for external painting. The Panel further recommends: Council undertake further strategic work to review the Greater Shepparton Heritage Incorporated Plan 2019 to provide guidance in the form of a range of appropriate external paint colours.

7.4 Double listings

(i) The issue The issue is: • whether additional contributory places included within heritage precincts should also be identified as individually significant with their own Heritage Overlay sites.

(ii) Submissions and evidence This was not an issue raised by submitters but has been identified an issue by a number of panels dealing with heritage amendments. The Panel was invited to make comment on it by Council. PPN01 identifies the following about double listing: How are individual buildings, trees or properties of significance located within significant areas treated? The provisions applying to individual buildings and structures are the same as the provisions applying to areas, so there is no need to separately schedule and map a significant building, feature or property located within a significant area.

Page 95 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

The only instance where an individual property within a significant area should be scheduled and mapped is where it is proposed that a different requirement should apply. For example, external painting controls may be justified for an individual building of significance but not over the heritage precinct surrounding the building. Alternatively, tree controls may be justified for a specific tree or property within a significant precinct but not over the whole precinct. In such situations the individual property or tree should be both scheduled and mapped. Significant buildings or structures within a significant precinct can be identified through a local planning policy. In its Part A Submission Council stated: Council queried the validity of ‘double listing’ places of ‘Individual’ and ‘Contributory’ heritage significance in a heritage precinct at the Panel Hearing for Amendment C110 to the Planning Scheme in 2013. Council submitted that ‘double listing’ specific heritage properties is a more appropriate way of managing these properties and ensuring additional heritage controls are appropriately applied. Council discussed undertaking this approach with DELWP during the drafting stages of the Amendment where verbal in-principle support was received. Planning Practice Note 1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay states that “the only instance where an individual property within a significant area should be scheduled and mapped is where it is proposed that a different requirement should apply”. The Draft Study recommends that the places listed in Table 2 (below) be double listed to appropriately reflect the significance of the place. The place citation report provides more specific information on places that have been ‘double listed’ and recommends the application of an additional Heritage Overlay to appropriately reflect the place’s significance.

(iii) Discussion There may be circumstances where a place may be contributory or significant within a precinct because it displays important attributes of that precinct but also significant in its own right. The Panel is aware that in the past there have been good practical reasons for avoiding ‘double listing’. In particular, where planning scheme maps associated with a heritage precinct left a ‘hole’ where the individual overlay was proposed. As a consequence, the control emanating from the significance of the precinct would technically not apply to the individually significant place. An online Planning Report produced for such a place would confirm its individual overlay, but not that it formed part of a heritage precinct. In oral submissions Council confirmed that this problem had been discussed with DELWP which had demonstrated that the technical problem associated with mapping had been overcome and that in future, Planning Reports could identify both individual and precinct overlays applying to a property. In this Amendment Council proposes to apply both sets of heritage controls to a number of properties (45 in 6 precincts). As the PPN01 points out the controls are the same, so it is difficult to understand what is to be achieved by this approach. There does not appear to be a different set of controls applying to these individually significant places and it is unclear as to whether they are to be provided with separate Statements of Significance. If the more specific information about

Page 96 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

individual places is to be included in the precinct Statements of Significance, then that should be sufficient to ensure that particular details of the place are protected via the precinct control. There should be some meaningful difference demonstrated between the heritage schedule controls switched on (such as external painting, tree and outbuilding controls) between individually significant building and those that are contributory within a precinct if both forms of listing are proposed. Ideally, there should be a consistent approach across the state to avoid confusion.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel recognises Council’s approach is consistent across the 6 precincts and notes there are relatively few places affected. The Panel has not been in a position to review citations or Statements of Significance for the 45 ‘double listed’ places to determine the relationship between their purported individual and precinct significance. The Panel encourages Council to review the precinct and individual Statements of Significance to ensure that these distinctions are clear and justified. It should also work with DELWP to resolve this issue in the next stage of the Amendment process.

7.5 Heritage Overlay Schedule notations of incorporated plans The Panel noted the unusual asterisk notations relating to incorporated documents at the end of the Schedule to Clause 43.01. The Amendment proposes to introduce additional incorporated documents creating a cascade of notes and multitude of asterisks. The Panel understands that this approach has been used to reduce the size of the Schedule but suggests that this format could be improved by using a numbering note system for clarity.

7.6 Clause 21.05-4 The Amendment updates the content of Clause 21.05-4 (Cultural heritage) including revising the demolition policy. Only one submission (Goulburn Valley Water) specifically referred to the policy wording, identifying that in some instances there would be no replacement building to consider when determining a demolition proposal. The Panel notes that this is not a new policy provision. It considers that the words ‘should not be granted’ should be read generally and not as a mandatory provision as fundamentally policy cannot create a mandatory control. The policy provides an appropriate level of flexibility for different circumstances. Council invited the Panel to make comment on the demolition policy changes to Clause 21.05-4. The Panel considers the proposed policy changes are generally clear, appropriately structured and worded, consistent with relevant Planning Practice Notes. The Panel suggests some minor changes which do not change the intent of the exhibited Amendment: • avoid terms such as ‘design excellence’ or ‘clearly’ which are subjective terms and difficult to interpret or apply

Page 97 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

• the policy dot point relating to replacement buildings does not need the words ‘clearly and’ • the last point relating to demolition approvals and new development should be separate dot points.

7.7 Other post-exhibition changes

(i) Mapping changes Appendix 1 to Council’s Part C submission proposed the following mapping changes following discussions with landowners but where no formal submissions were lodged5: • Delete: - HO295 - 35 Flynns Road, Moorilm (Homestead) - HO405 - 235 Zeerust Road, Zeerust. • Reduce the curtilages of: - HO41 - 8 McLennan Street & 4-6 Elizabeth Street, Mooroopna (former Athenaeum Hall) - HO430 and HO431 - 18 & 20 Thomson Street, Tatura - HO59 - 4910 and 4920 Goulburn Valley Highway, Murchison East - HO18 - 93 & 93A Saddleback Road, Dookie - HO384 - 5855 Midland Highway, Tatura (Chock and Log Fence) - HO144 - 50 Merrigum-Ardmona Road, Merrigum (Snelling’s Property) - HO285 - 31 and 33-39 Judd Avenue, Merrigum (former Carnation Company Milk Factory). • Extend the curtilage of HO15 - 75 Hoopers Road, Dookie (The Chateau) to include the stone Ha-Ha. The Panel considers that deletion of HO295 and HO405 and variation of the extent of Heritage Overlay curtilages as proposed in Appendix 1 of Council’s Part C submission are appropriate and further refine the application of the Heritage Overlay without generating the potential for detriment to land owners.

(ii) Heritage Study citation changes Appendix 1 to Council’s Part C submission proposed a number of minor changes to the Heritage Study citations to correct errors and update property information.6 While the Panel has not reviewed these changes in detail, it considers that they are minor and assist in ensuring citation content is correct and as up to date as possible. The Panel supports of the proposed citation changes identified by Council.

5 Pages 14 to 32. 6 Pages 11 to 13.

Page 98 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

No. Submitter No. Submitter 1 Powercor 23 David Bassett 2 John Pettigrew 24 Daniel Lovell 3 Di Doyle 25 Robert and Lyn McCartney Goulburn Broken Catchment 4 26 Cheryl Hammer Management Authority 5a Helen Morgan 27 Ramesh Arora 5b 6 M Moore 28 Janine Bassett 7 Roger Driscoll 29 Mark Farren 30a Greenwood Orchards and the 8 Kirk and Joanne Oliver 30b Greenwood Family 9 Anne-Maree Rourke 31 SR Shaholli & Co Pty Ltd 10 Alice Tallis 32 Steven Tricarico 11 Roger Perry 33 Ian and Narelle Snelling 12 Eric Haass 34 Goulburn Valley Water Goulburn Valley Turkish Islamic & 13 John Buckley 35 Cultural Society Inc 14 Alan and Glenice Scott 36 Anne Tyson 15 Pamela Bayer 37 John Cook 16 Josefina Lang 38 Roy Shepherd 17 Iris Lines 39 Allan and Margaret Shields 18 Unknown 40 Goulburn-Murray Water 19 John King 41 Taresa Marello Department of Environment, Land, 20 42 Jane Vraca Water & Planning 21 Garry Anderson 43 Geoffrey Thompson Holdings Limited 22 Kahlid Nawab

Page 99 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by Greater Shepparton City Council Mr Michael MacDonagh, who called expert evidence on heritage from Deborah Kemp of Deborah Kemp Heritage Concepts Pty Ltd Goulburn Valley Water Mr Nicholas Crawford of TP Legal Department of Environment, Land, DELWP withdrew from participating in the Hearing on 26 Water & Planning November 2019 Misbah Nawab Greenwood Orchards & Enterprises Pty Mr Joel Greenwood (unable to appear at hearing) Ltd and Greenwood family SR Shaholli & Co Pty Ltd Withdrew from Hearing based on post-exhibition changes proposed by Council (Document 2A) Margaret Shields Garry Anderson Roy Shepherd Was unable to appear at Hearing Glenice Scott Geoffrey Thompson Holdings Limited Jane Macey and Tess Coates of Spiire

Page 100 of 101

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C205  Panel Report  4 February 2020

Appendix C Document list

No. Date Description Provided by 1 22/11/2019 Council Part A submission Council 2 “ Expert witness statement of Deborah Kemp, Deborah “ Kemp Heritage Concepts Pty Ltd 2A 27/11/2019 Letter and submission from Clement Stone on behalf of S R Clement Stone Shaholli & Co Pty Ltd and Voskop Enterprises Pty Ltd 3 1/12/2019 Additional submission materials regarding 210 Zeerust Ms Morgan School Road 4 2/12/2019 Slide from submission regarding conflict of interest Mr Nawab 5 “ Heritage Overlay Precinct Maps 6 “ Goulburn Valley Water submission Mr Crawford 7 “ Letter from Council to owner of 235 Zeerust School Road Council 8 “ Greenwood submission Mr Greenwood 9 “ Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Amendment C110 Council Panel Report, 26 April 2013 pages 22-26 10 3/12/2019 Victorian Heritage Database excerpt Village Settlement, Council Settlement and Portland Road Coleraine 11 “ Report of Proceedings taken under the provisions of the Council Settlement of Lands Act 1893, 30 June 1895 12 “ Sana Medical Centre submission Mr Nawab 13 “ Nawab submission slide notes “ 14 “ Submission from Ms Shields Ms Shields 15 “ Submission from Ms Scott Ms Scott 16 “ Geoffrey Thompson Holdings Limited submission Ms Macey 17 16/12/2019 Council Part C submission and proposed post-exhibition Council changes to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 18 “ Council correspondence and final position regarding Council Submission 43 19 “ Council correspondence and final position regarding Council Submission 5

Page 101 of 101