Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C3 Part 2 Panel

WHITEHORSE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C3 PART 2

PANEL REPORT

REPORT OF PANEL INTO AMENDMENT C3 PART 2 TO THE WHITEHORSE PLANNING SCHEME

1. PANEL APPOINTMENT On 20 November 2000, under delegation from the Minister for Planning, the Honourable John Thwaites, Ray Rooke (Chairperson) and Maggie Baron (Member) were appointed pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as a Panel to consider and hear submissions about Amendment C3 Part 2 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

2. THE AMENDMENT 2.1 The Amendment seeks to provide heritage protection to significant buildings and precincts within the municipality by their inclusion in the Planning Scheme under a Heritage Overlay (HO). A copy of the proposed Amendment and its Explanatory Report are included as Attachment 1.

The HO, which is derived from the State Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP), must be used by a Council, which seeks heritage protection for its significant buildings.

Buildings covered by the Heritage Overlay will require a planning permit for subdividing and consolidating land, demolishing or removing a building, constructing a building, externally altering a building by structural work, rendering, sandblasting or in any other way, constructing or carrying out works and constructing or displaying a sign. Trees are also covered by the Overlay.

Under this provision, a planning permit is not required for routine repairs and maintenance that do not change the appearance of the building.

In essence, Amendment C3 proposes to add 96 places of individual heritage significance and five heritage precincts within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

2.2 The Whitehorse Planning Scheme currently includes eight (8) individual places of significance within the Heritage Overlay Schedule and one place within interim heritage controls, recently introduced by the Minister for Planning at the Council’s request. Of those included within the present Heritage Overlay Schedule, four (4) are listed on the Victorian Heritage Register.

In March 1998, Allom Lovell and Associates Pty Ltd were appointed by the Council to undertake a review of the Heritage studies conducted by the former Cities of Box Hill and Nunawading. Andrew Ward and Associates had completed a “Heritage and Conservation Study” in 1990 for the former City of Box Hill, identifying three areas of special character and 278 buildings of individual heritage significance. Context Pty Ltd also completed a “Heritage Awareness Study” in 1994 for the former City of Nunawading, identifying four areas of special character and a primary list of places thought to be of historical significance.

Upon review of the previous studies, Allom Lovell and Associates completed the “Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999” in June of 1999, which identified one hundred and fourteen individual buildings of heritage significance and five heritage precincts. The review also recommended further investigation of another 74 buildings and several streets within a future study.

2.3 The scope of the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999 was largely confined to reviewing places identified in earlier studies commissioned by the former Cities of Box Hill and Nunawading. During the course of the Heritage Review it became apparent that more investigation was required into the identification of both potential heritage precincts and individually significant buildings, previously identified as graded C in the Box Hill and Nunawading Studies. As a result, the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999 recommended further work to be conducted to provide a complete review of heritage assets within the City of Whitehorse.

The second study commenced in November 2000 and stage 1 is expected to be completed in June 2001.

3. THE EXHIBITION AND PANEL APPOINTMENT PROCESS 3.1 Following its review of the former Box Hill and Nunawading Heritage Studies, the Council determined to advise owners and occupiers of properties identified in the review of its intentions regarding the introduction of heritage protection and convened an information day attended by some 50 people at Box Hill Town Hall on 16 June 1999. Some 600 were contacted by letter about the Council’s intentions.

3.2 Amendment C3 was placed on public exhibition from 6 November 1999 until 6 December 1999 and notice of the amendment was placed in the local newspapers and Government Gazette, sent to all owners and occupiers of land identified for the proposed HO and Government service providers and exhibited in all municipal libraries and customer service centres.

3.3 In response to this notice, 41 submissions from owners and occupiers were received of which 24 did not support the proposed HO and 17 did. Of the objections, one has since been withdrawn and two properties have been since sold. Of the 17 submissions in support of the overlay, 4 supported it outright and 13 subject to changes. None of the referred authorities objected to the proposal. A list of the submitters is included as Attachment 2.

3.4 As a result of the submissions received opposing the amendment, this Panel was appointed to hear and consider those submissions at a public hearing.

3.5 The Panel held a directions hearing at the Council officers at Nunawading on 1 February 2001 and a public hearing at the same venue on 15 February 2001 and 20 February 2001. The following persons appeared at the hearing:

• Ms Lucinda Peterson, Senior Urban Planner for the City of Whitehorse with Miss Robyn Riddett of Allom Lovell and Associates Pty Ltd, Conservation Architects. • Ms Rosie Milanese for her mother Mrs M Colosimo, the owner of 1 Zetland Road, Box Hill.

• Jim Hondrakis on behalf of his father and uncle, the owners of 568, 570 and 572 Station Street, Box Hill. • Gernot Schubert for Eve Schubert, the owner of 129 Mt Pleasant Road, Nunawading. • David Healy and Elaine Fevini in respect of Unit 6, 5 Longland Road, Mitcham and the body corporate of the units. • Lloyd Rowe, VicRoads Team Leader for the Whitehorse region and Jeff Gerrish, Planning Officer for the region in respect of properties at 449 Springvale Road, 347 Blackburn Road and 142 Boronia Road. • Peter Barber, Solicitor of Deakins for the Salvation Army in respect of its property Tyneholme (formerly Howard House) at 310 Elgar Road, Box Hill. • Rhonda Tallnash, General Manager, Corporate Communications and Chris Dunham, Corporate Communications Office with Box Hill TAFE in respect of its property at 1000 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill (formerly Box Hill Girls Technical School). • Andrew Clarke of Fisher Stewart, Planning Consultants, for Philco Australia Ltd, the owner of the former Standard Brickworks site at 14 Federation Street, Box Hill, who called Bryce Raworth, Conservation Architect and Urban Designer as a witness. • Anthony Northam, the owner of Flat 12, 5 Longford Road, Mitcham. • Lou Cappanola for the owners of 953 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill and 580 Station Street, Box Hill.

All parties at the hearing addressed written submissions and/or reports. Some tendered photographs and/or addressed visual overhead presentations. The sites and precincts which were the subject of the matters addressed at the hearing and also some other properties referred to in submissions were inspected by the Panel after the hearing. The Panel in reaching its conclusions and recommendations took all submissions received into consideration.

3.6 The Panel expresses its thanks for the courtesy, cooperation and contribution of all parties at the hearing and in particular the City of Whitehorse, not least for making its facilities and assistance available to the Panel prior to, during and after the hearing.

4. LEAD UP TO AMENDMENT C3 PART 2 4.1 At the time of the Council resolution in August 1999 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C3, the Council also resolved to request interim demolition controls for all properties affected by the Amendment from the Minister.

4.2 In March 2000 the Council resolved to refer all submissions to an Independent Panel and also was advised by the Department of Infrastructure that the new format planning scheme does not provide for interim demolition controls.

The Council accordingly then resolved to split Amendment C3 into 2 parts – Part 1 dealing with properties not subject to a submission and Part 2 dealing with properties subject to a submission. Following further advice from the Minister, the Council resolved to adopt Amendment C3 Part I, not to press for interim heritage controls over properties subject to submissions in Part 2 and to refer those submissions in Part 2 to a panel being the Panel conducting the present hearing.

5. RELEVANT STATUTORY AND POLICY PROVISIONS The following provide the context and justification for the Council’s Heritage Review and Amendment C3.

5.1 Section 4.1(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that it is the Council’s responsibility to “conserve and enhance those buildings, areas and other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.”

5.2 Clause 15.11 of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) which is incorporated in all municipal planning schemes relates to heritage and encourages the conservation of places as a means of understanding our past. Councils are required to identify places which are significant for aesthetic, historical or cultural reasons amongst others and to protect them from inappropriate development.

5.3 Clause 21.05 of the Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) under the heading “Enhancing Residential Character (Objective 1, Implementation and Further Work)” provides the following directions: • “Apply a Heritage Overlay to buildings, structures and natural features of historical significance. • Prepare and exhibit an amendment that introduces a Heritage Overlay over residential buildings, other structures and natural features identified as being worthy of such protection under the Planning Scheme.”

5.4 Clause 21.07 “Protecting Area of Special Significance (Objectives 3 and 4, Implementation and Further Work) provides the following directions: • “Apply a Public Park and Recreation Zone to Wattle Park and a Heritage Overlay on the buildings and structures listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and identified in the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999. • Implement the appropriate controls for the various buildings, structures and areas identified in the Whitehorse Heritage Review. • Prepare an amendment for public exhibition that paces a Heritage Overlay onto buildings and structures identified as being worthy of protection in the City of Whitehorse Heritage Review.”

6. MATTERS TO BE REMOVED FROM AMENDMENT C3 PART 2 6.1 HERITAGE LISTED PROPERTIES The Department of Infrastructure’s Planning Practice Note entitled ‘Implementing the Heritage Overlay’ (dated February 1999), states that for properties included in the Victorian Heritage Register, external paint controls, internal alterations and tree controls are nominated at the discretion of Heritage Victoria and should not be included in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as exhibited.

However, there are 4 properties included in Amendment C3 which are already listed in the Heritage Overlay under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. They are also listed on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995. These properties are as follows:

• 166-172 Burwood Highway, Burwood (Former Wesleyan Day School) • 14 Federation Street, Box Hill (Former Standard Brickworks) • 1020 Riversdale Road, Burwood (Wattle Park) • 656 Mitcham Road, Mitcham (Wunderlich Terra Cotta Tile Works)

It is therefore intended by the Panel, with the approval of the Council, that the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay be amended so as not to activate external paint controls, internal alteration and tree controls over these 4 properties listed on the Victorian Heritage Register.

6.2 PRIOR DEMOLITION Since exhibition and consideration of Amendment C3, the Council has granted demolition permits for the following properties, viz. • 519(A) Station Street, Box Hill • 78 Middleborough Road, Burwood • 10 Blackburn Road, Blackburn • 60-64 Railway Road, Blackburn

Also, demolition approval for the former Edward Wilson Trust Cottage at 340 Elgar Road, Box Hill has been approved by the Building Approvals Board despite Council opposition.

The Panel therefore intends, again with the consent of the Council, not to include these 5 properties within the HO.

6.3 PAINT CONTROLS The HO includes a Schedule which outlines additional controls (including external paint and internal alteration controls and whether heritage buildings should be used for prohibited uses) which can be included if appropriate.

However, since exhibition of the Amendment, the Schedule to the HO has been amended by the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) so that it now requires a planning permit to paint previously unpainted surfaces ie. over unpainted brick or cement render and provides an option to nominate whether or not controls apply to previously painted surfaces ie. painted brick or painted timber.

In light of this change to the Schedule in the HO and also taking into account the approach adopted by other councils such as Boroondara, Monash, Manningham, Knox and Stonnington, the Whitehorse Council has decided to adopt a like and consistent approach by not having paint controls over previously painted surfaces. However, the Council also decided there should be two exceptions to this approach – being the Combarton Street and Mont Albert shopping precincts. The Panel accepts this and the Council’s reasoning that “Combarton Street is a streetscape of painted timber dwellings. If one dwelling was painted in bright pink for example, this would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape as a whole. Regarding the shopping precinct, within a commercial area, there is often the pressure for corporate colours to be used or colours which catch consumers attention which are not necessarily compatible with the heritage context of the street. In this regard a schedule of colours will be developed to allow painting without a planning permit as long as the colour chosen is part of that schedule and hence sympathetic with the heritage character of the street.

The Panel will therefore recommend that the paint control on previously painted surfaces not be applied with the exception of the Combarton Street and Mount Albert shopping precincts.

6.4 PROHIBITED USES The prohibited uses column in the Schedule to the HO is proposed to be changed as part of Amendment C3 indicating that no prohibited uses may be allowed. Under the Council’s existing HO, prohibited uses may be considered.

Two submissions were received in relation to properties listed on the Victorian Heritage Register – from Parks Victoria in relation to Wattle Park and from Standard Brick Works owners of 14 Federation Street, Box Hill.

The Council informed Parks Victoria that inclusion of Wattle Park in the HO was not necessary because of its Victorian Heritage Register listing and of the Council’s intentions to change the prohibited use column in the Schedule to the Overlay. Parks Victoria has now indicated no objection to the changes.

The Panel however advises Council that under Section 48 of the Heritage Act 1995 all places listed on the Victorian Heritage Register are required to be included in the Heritage Overlay. Hence the Panel recommends that Wattle Park be included in the Heritage Overlay as exhibited, and that Council allows prohibited uses at this site, pending further discussion with Parks Victoria.

However, the owners of Standard Brickworks objected to the change in the prohibited use column (as well as requesting a reduction to the mapped area of the Overlay as pertaining to this site). This objection is dealt with later in this Report at Section 10.1.3.

7. AGREED CHANGES TO THE HO SCHEDULE A number of submissions were received by the Council which, while generally supporting the HO, nevertheless sought minor changes in relation to their individual properties’ reference in the Schedule to the Overlay.

In considering these requests, the Council discussed the matters raised with the affected landowners and conducted further site inspections in an endeavor to resolve the issues. Agreement between the owners and Council was reached in respect of the several properties discussed below.

The Panel supports the Council’s approach in securing agreement for including properties in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel however would caution Council that heritage values for places are sometimes difficult to appreciate within the extant fabric. This is

particularly true of industrial heritage sites and sites which may contain significant archaeological deposits. Therefore the Panel will adopt the Council’s recommendations and wording for properties as detailed below. In some cases the Panel has made additional recommendations for these places.

7.1 1201-1205 Riversdale Road, Box Hill South – St James Uniting Church, Wattle Park The Schedule nominated paint controls on the church building. The description of the building in the citation includes ‘all external timber’ including the large barge boards are of stained redwood.’ The citation did not mention that the doors to the church building (excluding the main entrance) are painted black and there was concern that Council would make them paint in a ‘traditional’ heritage colour. It is considered, that this issue has been resolved in that paint controls not apply to previously painted surface. (See Section 3.)

7.2 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn The property has been sold within the last year. The previous owners objected to the Heritage Overlay in November 1999. The new owners have put in a submission stating that they support the Heritage Overlay however they have requested a change to the exhibited schedule. The new owners have stated that when they first viewed the house in February 2000, there was no evidence of the timber stables which were cited in the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999 as it was demolished in late 1999.

Normally, the Heritage Overlay exempts buildings and works associated with outbuildings and fences from advertising. The outbuildings and fences column in the schedule allows for nominated outbuildings and fences to be advertised as part of a planning application. Although one more outbuilding still remains on the site, it is not considered necessary that buildings and works to the shed be subject to advertising. In this context, it is recommended that ‘no’ be included on the schedule in the outbuilding column. While a planning permit is still required to make changes to the outbuilding, it is recommended that changes to the outbuilding be exempt from advertising.

7.3 18 Gordon Crescent, Blackburn The Schedule provides an opportunity to protect individually significant trees on properties included in the heritage Overlay. The owner of 18 Gordon Crescent, Blackburn has requested that the English Oak on his property be included in the Schedule. It is considered that, as the owner himself wishes the tree to be protected and the tree is of similar period to the house on the property (original to the garden), that the tree be included in the Overlay Schedule.

7.4 63 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North The owner of the above property put in a submission objecting to the inclusion of the outbuildings in the Schedule to the Overlay. An expert heritage report was submitted by Mr Don Goldsworthy indicating that the large shed is not intact. In this context, it is considered that the outbuildings referred to in the Schedule be removed and the large 1930s outbuilding is specifically excluded within the Heritage Overlay by stating so in the definition of the ‘Heritage Place’.

7.5 6-8 Meerut Street, Mitcham The submission requested that the fence be removed from the Schedule as the fence is dilapidated. As the Schedule only indicates whether or not alterations and demolition of the fence is exempt from advertising, and still requires a planning permit, it is considered that the Schedule could be changed to meet the request of the owner.

7.6 456-460 Mitcham Road, Mitcham The owners of the above property made a submission to Amendment C3 requesting the name of the property be amended from “Grantham” to “Glenhowan”. They have also requested the removal of the fence and paint controls from the schedule. The change of name is consistent with the name identified on the National Trust Register. The removal of the fence from the Schedule would still mean that a planning permit is required for buildings and works to the fence (but will be exempt from advertising) and the inclusion of paint controls should apply to unpainted surfaces only which is an automatic permit requirement as discussed earlier in this report.

8. REFINING THE BOUNDARY OF THE HO The following is a straight extract from the Council’s submission to the Panel which it adopts as it does the recommendations contained therein.

There are a number of large sites that were identified in the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999 of which a building and its immediate surrounds has been identified. The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay allows the actual building or heritage place to be defined beyond just the address. This refinement is reflected as a description of what the heritage place is, in other words explaining that the “heritage place is defined as building A, B and its front setback” for example. By defining the heritage place further, on large parcels of land, this provides users of the planning scheme with a clear idea of what is to be protected and provides that a planning permit is only required for heritage reasons for places, not sections of the site which have no identified heritage value.

Defining the heritage place in the Schedule is supported by Heritage Victoria as a way to provide certainty and clarify for users of the Heritage Overlay. Furthermore, Heritage Victoria encourages altering the overlay maps to reflect the refined heritage place.

A number of submissions were received to Amendment C3 which support the Heritage Overlay but request the Heritage Overlay to only cover the building that was identified as significant. In considering the requests, site inspections were made in all instances in conjunction with the owners of the land to determine the extent of the Heritage Overlay. In many instances, it is recommended that a buffer area be included within the Heritage Overlay area to protect the heritage building where buildings and works may be conducted within immediate proximity.

500 Burwood Road, Vermont South – Australian Roads Research Board A submission was made from the owner to reduce the scope of the Heritage Overlay to cover the heritage building and surrounding landscape only. The land has been recently subdivided and a retirement village proposed on the second lot to the rear of the property. It is considered that a Heritage Overlay over the second lot is not necessary as

it does not contain any buildings identified as significant. It is suggested that the schedule be refined to reflect the heritage place as appropriate. As exhibited: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO24 Australian Road Research Board 500 Burwood Highway, Vermont South Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO24 Australian Road Research Board 500 Burwood Highway, Vermont South (Heritage place is defined as the AARB building and surrounds on Lot 1 on PS433751M

144-169 Burwood Highway, Burwood (Presbyterian Ladies College) A submission was made to reduce the scope of the Heritage Overlay to cover the heritage building and surrounding landscape only. The area covered by the school is expansive and it is considered that a Heritage Overlay over the entire school site is not necessary as it does not contain any further buildings identified as significant, with the exception of Hethersett House and Hethersett Hall. It is suggested that the Schedule be refined to reflect the heritage place as appropriate.

As exhibited: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO23 Hethersett 141-169 Burwood Highway, Burwood

Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO23 Hethersett 141-169 Burwood Highway, Burwood (Heritage place is defined as the buildings known as Hethersett House and Hethersett Hall, and land within 5 metres of these buildings, excluding the Boarding House. Also includes land within the circular driveway to the south of Hethersett House).

The Panel agrees with this proposed amendment, however it recommends that the full site be assessed for potential heritage values during the Council’s current heritage study by Andrew Ward.

181-195 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Blackburn Primary School) A submission was made to reduce the scope of the Heritage Overlay to cover the heritage building and surrounding landscape only. The area covered by the school is expansive and it is considered that a Heritage Overlay over the entire school site is not necessary as it does not contain any buildings identified as significant. It is suggested that the schedule be refined to reflect the heritage place as appropriate.

Exhibited Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO102 Blackburn Primary School 181-195 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn

Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO102 Attached to the Blackburn Primary School 181-195 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Heritage Place is defined as the brick school buildings originally constructed in 1889 and 1923, fronting Whitehorse Road and excluding the timber classrooms northern wall of the brick buildings.)

The Panel agrees with this proposed amendment, however it recommends that the full site be assessed for potential heritage values during the Council’s current heritage study by Andrew Ward.

58-74 Station Street, Nunawading (Daniel Robertson Brickworks) A submission was made in support of the Heritage Overlay for this property, but requested the Overlay to be refined to the original smokestack only. Council officers met with the owner and visited the site on two occasions. It was requested that, as the Brickworks are still in day-to-day use as a business which impacts on the ability for the kilns and other aspects of the site to be replaced on a regular basis, the smokestack and immediate surrounds should be included within the Heritage Overlay only. This would allow the retention of the landmark being the smokestack without impacting on the day- to-day operation of the business which involves continual maintenance and replacement of the kilns, roof and other infrastructure associated with the Brickworks. In this context, the Schedule be refined as follows: 14

Exhibited Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO91 Daniel Robertson Brickworks 58 Station Street, Nunawading

Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO91 Daniel Robertson Brickworks 58 Station Street, Nunawading (Heritage place is defined as the smokestack only and two metres surrounding the smokestack).

In Council’s submission it comments that the owners of the Daniel Robertson Brickworks were supportive of the Heritage Overlay, providing that the extent of the overlay was reduced to cover the “landmark” smokestack only. Council met with the owners and undertook two site inspections prior to resolving their view that the extent of the Heritage Overlay should be reduced to “….the smokestack only and 2 metres surrounding the smokestack.”

In the correspondence from ERM (consultant planners to the owners) it is clear that the owners of the Brickworks would not support a larger Heritage Overlay.

The Panel observes that the heritage assessment undertaken by Allom Lovell identified a number of buildings as being of local heritage significance, in addition to the smokestack. Furthermore, Council advised that their heritage adviser had not been asked to comment on the reduced area. Therefore the Panel considers it can only support a reduced Heritage Overlay for this property at this stage while a potential larger area of the site is investigated for heritage values.

Given the clear view of the owner that they would only support the smokestack and an additional 2 metres in the Heritage Overlay, the Panel is mindful that the owner has not been heard in respect of a larger Heritage Overlay.

In the circumstances, while the Panel agrees with the proposed amendment to the Schedule above, it also recommends that Council’s Heritage Advisor be asked to consider the impacts of the reduced HO and of an enlarged area. In the event of a recommendation from the Heritage Advisor of an enlarged area for inclusion in a HO, Council will need to include the enlarged area with due notice to the owners in its next round of heritage reviews.

147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North (Former Wesleyan Chapel) The original chapel building was identified as significant within the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999. The Chapel fronts the street, … and the other non-contributory church buildings (of 1970s ear) are located approximately 20 metres away from the building, set back further from the street. A submission was received on behalf of the church requesting that the Heritage Overlay only apply to the original church building and its memorial garden.

Exhibited Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO91 Former Wesleyan Chapel 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North

Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO91 Former Wesleyan Chapel 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North (Heritage place defined as the old Wesleyan Chapel and memorial garden only).

355 Station Street, Box Hill (Kingswood College) A submission was made to reduce the scope of the Heritage Overlay to cover the heritage building and surrounding landscape only. The area covered by the school is expansive and it is considered that a Heritage Overlay over the entire school site is not necessary as it does not contain any buildings identified as significant. It is suggested that the schedule be refined to reflect the heritage place as appropriate.

Exhibited Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO86 Gwynton Park 355 Station Street, Box Hill Amended Schedule: PS Map Ref Heritage Place HO86 Gwynton Park 335 Station Street, Box Hill (Heritage place defined as the administration building c1907, land within 2 metres of the building and the front setback between the building and the Station Street boundary.

9. PROPOSED HERITAGE PRECINCTS The Whitehorse Heritage Study 1999 identifies 3 precincts within the municipality as having heritage value: • The Mont Albert residential precinct for its considerable aesthetic and historical significance, and: • the Combarton Street precinct for its considerable aesthetic significance. • Vermont Park precinct for its considerable aesthetic significance.

9.1 THE MONT ALBERT RESIDENTIAL PRECINCT The statement of significance describes the area as follows: “Aesthetically, the precinct contains a large number of substantially intact houses dating from the Victorian, Edwardian and inter-War periods. The historically important remnant Victorian houses are complemented by a large number of Edwardian and inter- War houses exhibiting a range of interesting stylistic characteristics. Most of the houses display a particularly high level of intactness. Historically, the precinct represents the three major phases of development of the Mont Albert area. The precinct also has historical associations with Matthew Davies’ Freehold and Investment Banking Company, important nineteenth century property speculators.”

Of the 139 properties within the proposed Mont Albert Residential precinct, six submissions were received opposing the proposed Heritage Overlay. One submission was subsequently withdrawn after the owner sold their property. The Panel will now deal with the opposing submissions.

9.1.2 No. 1 ZETLAND ROAD, MONT ALBERT (a) Ms Rosie Milanese appeared at the hearing on behalf of her mother M. Colosimo, the owner of the above property and addressed a detailed and comprehensive submission objecting to the inclusion of the property within the Mont Albert residential precinct.

In brief summary, it was submitted that: • There was no need for the property to be listed. • There were concerns about the removal of rights as to what the owners can do in respect of such properties and the Council’s powers to control all changes to the property. • Heritage properties dropped in value and were difficult to sell and insure.

(b) Before dealing with the other issues raised in this submission, the Panel agrees with the inclusion of this property within this heritage precinct. The property is located near the corner of High Street and Zetland Road and is surrounded by other residences within the heritage area. The house itself, according to the Council’s records, was built C1922. While not individually significant in its own right, it displays the features of a contributory dwelling and is intact. It is the combination of such houses which makes up the Mont Albert residential precinct. Even if the house was considered to be non contributory, such houses should remain in a heritage area if it is clearly part of an otherwise intact streetscape as any major change to the property may impact on the heritage streetscape.

(c) Loss of Property Value and Hardship A number of persons objecting to having their property included in the HO asserted that the heritage listing would result in a loss in property value.

Ms Milanese also made this assertion but no evidence of perceived economic loss in support of this assertion was adduced to the Panel.

However, Ms Milanese did draw to the Panel’s attention the Panel Report on Amendment L45 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme and to a report from T. Scott Keck, Certified Practicing Valuer of Herron Todd White which was submitted to the Independent Panel reporting on Amendment L47 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Both of those amendments involved the inclusion of properties within the schedule to a HO.

Mr Keck’s report was commissioned by some 48 property owners in the municipality of Stonnington who objected to their property being listed within the proposed HO and his brief was “to determine whether or not the present system of promulgation towards final heritage listing and heritage listing itself can have an impact on property values.” One of his conclusions was that “for the 48 properties …, based on external inspection and review of Council and other relevant data, … the adverse impact on values of the group due to the heritage listing would be on average, a reduction of 15% …”

Although the Panel was referred only to Mr Keck’s report in relation to Stonnington L47, the Panel read the whole Report on that amendment. It seems that Mr Keck was not called as a witness to be cross-examined on what could be considered a rather complex report and certainly this Panel had no opportunity to question him on the Report’s contents.

Indeed, the L47 Panel made no direct reference to it saying in its findings in para 5.9 under the heading “Implications of Hardship On The Panel’s Recommendations” at p.43. However, it did say in relation to the balance between the interests of heritage conservation and the interests of individual property owners, “in the latter case, we were informed (and accept) that the introduction of a heritage control would cause a substantial reduction in the values of some properties.”

It then immediately went on to say that “this is a common and, in principle, accepted consequence of changes in planning controls (eg: even a change in a Council’s non-statutory residential code can have quite substantial effects on some property’s values, depending on the specific characteristics of the property.)”

In the absence of rigorous testing of the data and conclusions in Mr Keck’s report and any other supporting conclusions on the implications of adverse economic effects on property values resulting from HO controls, the Panel is not persuaded that that conclusion is necessarily correct.

Indeed, in the Boroondara L45 Panel Report, to which Ms Milanese also referred the Panel, it was said at p.7 that “while it might at first be feared that restricting opportunities to develop will depress property values, the Panel is presented with compelling evidence to support the view that property values either remain unaltered or increase where heritage controls are introduced. It appears that not all people see property as an opportunity to redevelop for capital gain. It also appears that many people value the characteristics that development controls seek to protect and they are reassured to know that the neighbourhood of the property is controlled so that no unsympathetic development can disturb the enjoyment or reduce the value of the property.”

This contrary view is supported by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) which suggests that the introduction of heritage controls is likely to have either no influence or potentially increase property values. Within the report, “Economic Effects of Heritage Listing” commissioned by the AHC in 1995, it was considered that the location, general amenity, level of ethnicity and crime are possibly greater influences on property value than heritage. Furthermore, a survey of Real Estate Agents in historical areas in Australian cities undertaken as part of the AHC study, supported the view that heritage listing has generally little impact on residential property values. It was reported that the quality of historical properties

and precincts such as ambience and attractive appearance of the overlay area was generally emphasized by the Real Estate Agents as positive attributes in marketing campaigns.

In Stonnington L47, the Panel confronted, as this Panel is being also asked, the question in reaching a decision to recommend inclusion of a property in the amendment, whether or not consideration must be given not only to its heritage importance but also the economic consequences of such an inclusion.

This is a consideration also in relation to questions of hardship other than perceived loss of property value. To put the question another way: if a building can be shown to have heritage significance, should a decision to designate it in a HO take account of other, non heritage, objectives of the Planning and Environment Act (such as the objective of providing “for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land” or the need “to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians”), or have these matters been accounted for in the structure of the planning scheme framework and are to be now open to resolution by other means?

In answering this question, this Panel considers such matters should be more appropriately considered in another forum and therefore has determined it inappropriate to take into account any issues of a property owner’s hardship. As the Stonnington Amendment L47 Panel said on this point: “We accept that hardship, as it may financially affect the owners of properties of heritage significance …, may be a relevant consideration in a future decision as to whether to allow alterations to, or demolition of, a heritage building. However, that decision is one to be made at the relevant time.”

(d) Ms Colosimo also raised the issue of the difficulty to insure properties covered by a HO. In this regard, the Panel accepts the investigations conducted by the Council on the issue of home insurance. We were told that “three major insurance companies were contacted, namely RACV, AAMI and GIO insurance. All three

companies were asked if a property is covered by heritage controls, does this impact on the ability to insure the property or increase the cost of the premium.

All three companies stated that as long as the dwelling is structurally sound, water tight, secure and well maintained, there are no problems with insuring heritage properties and the premiums are not any higher than for an unlisted property. In fact all residential properties are required by the insurance companies to be structurally sound, water tight, secure and maintained, irrespective of their heritage status or otherwise.

AAMI stated that the only properties that they do not insure are ones listed on the Register of the National Trust.”

(e) Some other issues raised by Ms Colosimo are dealt with elsewhere in this Report (eg: paint controls in Section 6.3).

9.1.3 39 High Street, Mont Albert The owners of this property submitted that it was built in 1930-34, is of different character to other contributory buildings in the street, is surrounded by mainly commercial/non residential development, is on the extreme edge of the heritage area and that the opposite corner of High Street is not included in the HO.

However, the Panel agrees with the Council reasons for inclusion as the dwelling, located on the NW corner of High Street and Whitehorse Road, is a good example of Spanish Mission style and appears externally to be largely intact. It is near no. 692 Whitehorse Road to the west which is also part of the proposed heritage area and presents excellent visibility to the street, creating an important gateway into the heritage area from Whitehorse Road. The fact that the house on the opposite corner is not included does not diminish the contribution of the subject property to the heritage precinct.

9.1.4 12 Beatty Street, Mont Albert The owners of this property argued in support of their submission for its non conclusion in the HO that the opposite side of Beatty Street is not included in the heritage area nor are properties 2, 4, 6, and 8 and that no. 10 is a brand new house.

The Council submitted to the Panel that because the Southern side of Beatty Street (excepting nos. 1 and 3 at the western end) are not included in the heritage area and nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 Beatty Street are also not included. Beatty Street does not display the characteristics of the Victorian, Edwardian and inter war streetscapes making up the significance of the Mont Albert residential precinct. The Council therefore recommended that nos. 10, 12 and 14 Beatty Street be excluded from HO.

However, although the Panel agrees that no. 10 Beatty Street which was constructed in 1999 should be excluded, it considers that the houses adjacent to No. 10 Beatty Street, namely Nos. 2,4,6 and 8 have been included within the Heritage Overlay, and hence exclusion of No. 10 would not affect the overall boundary of the Heritage Precinct Overlay area.

The Panel however considers that Nos. 12 and 14 should remain within the Heritage Overlay. Both Nos. 12 and 14 are substantially intact and of a similar era of construction, representing the Inter-war period of housing construction in the Mont Albert Residential precinct. Furthermore, these houses form an important relationship to the properties at 4 and 6 Hood Street, enhancing the general amenity, aesthetic quality, size, form and set back of the precinct in this vicinity.

9.1.5 692 Whitehorse Road and 33 High Street, Mont Albert The following is an extract from the Council submission to the Panel in relation to the above properties. The Panel agrees with the Council’s reasons for supporting inclusion within the heritage precinct.

The owners of the above properties, Moorfields Community for Adult Care, requested that they be excluded from the heritage area as none of the buildings on the two sites

justify preservation on heritage grounds. It is submitted that neither site is significant nor contributes to the area. The Whitehorse Road property is a gutted early twentieth century attic house surrounded by 1960s residential development and the High Street property is a basic 1920s/30s house that does not justify preservation.

Moorfield commissioned Mr D Beck, Architectural Historian and Conservation Architect, to assess the contribution of these buildings to the heritage precinct. The Heritage Value Assessment prepared by Mr Beck makes the following observations:

• The interior of 692 Whitehorse Road has been gutted and is almost unrecognisable as an Edwardian era house, there have been extensive additions to the rear and the roof has been replaced with 20th century tiles. • 692 Whitehorse Road cannot be seen from any part of the proposed precinct except from over the back fence in the lane, where nothing of significance is evident. • No other property in Whitehorse Road has been included in the Precinct. • 692 Whitehorse Road does not have the significance of other Edwardian houses within the precinct as it is merely a standard Edwardian house. • Number 766 Whitehorse Road, a nearby comparable Edwardian era house, is excluded from the proposed overlay. • There are a large number of Edwardian houses in this area and heritage protection should only be given to the best examples. • 33 High Street is nothing more than an example of a standard house of its time and does not merit inclusion in an Overlay. High Street as a whole has little to offer by way of heritage value and does not justify an Overlay.

Mr Beck concludes that neither building adds to the integrity or value of the Heritage Precinct and they should be removed from Amendment C3.

Moorfields’ submission to support the deletion of these properties from the Heritage Overlay is: • Until recently, Moorfields have operated a hostel, known as Annersley, at 692 Whitehorse Road. Residents have been relocated to a new facility at 75 Thames

Street. Both 692 Whitehorse Road and 33 High Street are currently leased to the Brotherhood of St Lawrence until November 2000 after which time it is envisaged these sites will be redeveloped. • Moorfields will need to rebuild its nursing home, currently located in Canterbury and the prime alternative site in Annesley. A new facility on this site would provide for an additional 51-180 beds for the City of Whitehorse. • Moorfields is committed to community consultation but the planning for a new facility needs to commence immediately. This process cannot wait until the outcome of the Heritage Overlay is known. • The current buildings are beyond their reasonable life and do not meet current certification requirements for aged care residential services and extensive renovations would still not facilitate accreditation. • Moorfields is a charitable institution committed to providing high quality aged care and therefore Council’s support for the demolition of these buildings is being sought.

Response: Allom Lovell and Associates reviewed the area as part of the Whitehorse Heritage Review 1999. It was considered that the boundaries of the area be extended northwards, including the Moorfields properties, given that these buildings were consistent with the significance of the original historic area.

During the community consultation period held for the Whitehorse Review 1999, Moorfields met with Council officers to express their concern about the Heritage Overlay and their need to upgrade their facilities.

Council considered the request for demolition at its meeting on 5 June 2000 and resolved that it did not support the demolition of the building and resolved that the Independent Panel set up for Amendment C3 consider the matter.

In making this resolution, Council considered the contribution of both of the buildings to the proposed heritage precinct. The Heritage Overlay is concerned with impact of development on the streetscape, so the ‘exterior houses’ such as those referred to by Mr

Beck can make a significant contribution to the precinct’s appearance and continuity through conversation.

In addition, while a planning permit is normally required for buildings and works for the aged care facility, a Heritage Overlay would require that these buildings and works, and demolition if appropriate, be proposed in a form that respects the bulk, scale and setback of other contributory buildings in the area. The Heritage Overlay would be only one of many issues to be considered when assessing such an application.

It is also noted that the heritage precinct extends to Whitehorse Road at Marlborough Street and High Street, as well as the Moorfields site. It is considered that there is little justification to argue that either of the buildings are not contributory to the heritage streetscape.”

Council further advised additional properties will be assessed during the next phase of Council’s Heritage Study programme and Glencoe, at 766 Whitehorse Road, Mont Albert will then be assessed.

The Panel approves the inclusion of the precinct within the Heritage Overlay as amended.

9.2 COMBARTON STREET PRECINCT This precinct is identified in the Whitehorse Heritage Study 1999 as having considerable aesthetic significance. A map of the precinct area and the location of properties represented by submissions from the owners is included as Attachment 3 to this Report.

There area is described in the Statement of Significance as follows: “The Combarton Street Precinct is of considerable aesthetic significance. The precinct contains the best collection of small Californian bungalow-style houses in the City of Whitehorse. The precinct comprises very homogenous streetscapes, with nearly all of the houses, including those not in the bungalow style, similar in scale, setback and materials. Although there are many examples of this housing style throughout the municipality, they are generally relatively scattered, or in groups of two or three. In addition, a number of

the bungalows within this precinct are extremely good examples of this Arts and Crafts influenced style. Of particular note are elements such as decorative brick and timberwork, both noticeable in the verandahs of many of the bungalows.” There are some 135 properties within the precinct. The owners of two properties supported the HO in submissions and 2 opposed inclusion in the HO.

9.2.1 34 Lansdale Street and 5 Patricia Street, Box Hill The owners of these properties opposed inclusion in the HO largely because of its irrelevance to them since they do not intend selling or renovating and objected to the Council’s rights over what can be done to the properties and potential difficulty to attain full selling value in the event of a sale.

However, the Panel agrees with the Council’s conclusions that both properties contribute to the heritage significance of the area and should be included in the HO. They are both located in streets which are largely intact with most of the street consisting of contributory buildings. No. 34 Lansdale Street was constructed in C1927 and 5 Patricia Street in C1917. Other matters raised in the submission are discussed generally elsewhere in this Report.

9.3 VERMONT PARK The Whitehorse Heritage Study 1999 identified Vermont Park as having considerable aesthetic significance. A map of the precinct area and the location of properties whose owners made submissions is included as Attachment 4 to this Report.

The statement of significance describes the area as follows: Vermont Park is of aesthetic significance as an award-winning complex of architect-designed cluster housing from the 1970s. At that time, Vermont park was an innovative and influential experiment in terms of planning, prefabrication and energy efficient design. As an early example of its type, Vermont Park is unique in the municipality.”

Some 43 properties are within the Precinct. Two submissions received supported inclusion in the HO and 4 opposed it. Those opposing were the owners of 1 Maculata Walk, 22 Miniata Walk, 40 Saligna Walk and 27 Citriodora Walk.

The properties within this estate are already controlled by the rules of the Body Corporate which consists of all the owners within the estate who appoint a committee of management for day-to-day running of the estate.

9.3.1 A major concern was a perceived duplication of requirements in the HO presently undertaken by the Body Corporate Committee and the consequent removal of self governing rights.

In the Panel’s view, this is a misconception. Even if a planning permit is sought by a property owner (eg: for extensions), and granted, approval is still required from the Body Corporate before building can commence. Also, as pointed out by the Council, any planning application requiring advertising would give the Body Corporate an opportunity to consider and comment on the proposal early in the process. In addition, it should be borne in mind that no planning permit is required for internal changes.

9.3.2 The Council said, and the Panel agrees, that the HO will in fact complement the existing Body Corporate controls and that the Council’s Heritage Advisory Service, to which a heritage advisor has just been appointed, is one available to both individual property owners and the Body Corporate to facilitate the obtaining of technical advice and expertise on heritage matters, thereby providing invaluable assistance to the Body Corporate in its role.

9.3.3 The Panel does not accept that the costs associated with obtaining a permit for works under the HO will be “draconian” as some objectors allege. Any additional costs will be minimal in the circumstances as it is reasonable to expect that there will be costs associated with designing any additions or alteration (not internal) and producing plans, especially given that the Body Corporate under its Rules must approve any such plans and that building permits are required anyway.

9.3.4 However, the Council agrees that a change to the Heritage Buildings and Precincts Policy proposed to be included in the planning scheme (Clause 22.11) as part of Amendment C3 is desirable to remove what may in some circumstances be considered to be an unnecessary financial burden in obtaining a planning permit under the HO.

The Heritage Policy as exhibited states that “All planning permit applications must be accompanied by an assessment from a suitably qualified and experienced heritage architect outlining how the application conserves, enhances and is sympathetic to, the significance of the heritage building and/or precinct.”

In instances where the proposal would have a visual impact on the streetscape, whether it is positive or negative, an assessment should be done by a suitably qualified heritage architect. While this may have a cost involved it would ensure that the design of the proposal is of a quality that will benefit not only the owner of the property but the other properties represented by the Body Corporate.

It is acknowledged however, that there may be some instances where an assessment by a heritage architect for minor changes proposed in heritage areas or to heritage buildings is unnecessary. In all instances where a planning permit is sought, Council’s Heritage Advisor would assess the heritage merits of the application anyway on behalf of Council.

The Council in acknowledging this concern in respect of minor changes to buildings in heritage precincts or to heritage buildings has proposed to change this part of the policy so that it will now read: “All planning permit applications should be accompanied by an assessment from a suitably qualified and experienced heritage architect outlining how the application conserves, enhances and is sympathetic to, the significance of the heritage building and/or precinct.”

The Panel approves this change and will recommend amendment of that part of the proposed Heritage Policy accordingly.

9.3.5 The Council, in introducing the HO, is not intending to tell the residents in the heritage precinct how to maintain what has been successfully done for the last 2 decades and considers “that the present Body Corporate does an excellent job in keeping the standards up. Indeed, the fact of the proposed listing as a heritage precinct is evidence that the area has remained intact and true to its original form and layout.”

However, the Council is bound to uphold the objectives of planning in Victoria and the municipality in particular, especially that objective in Section 4.1(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which says that it is the Council’s responsibility “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.”

10. INDIVIDUAL PLACES

10.1 14 Federation Street, Box Hill

Mr Andrew Clarke and Mr Bryce Raworth – submission on behalf of the owner

Mr Andrew Clarke, Fisher Stewart, appeared on behalf of Phileo Australia Ltd., the owner of the former Standard Brickworks site at 14 Federation St., Box Hill. Mr Bryce Raworth, Heritage Consultant also appeared on behalf of the owner.

In their submission, Mr Clarke outlined three main areas of concern relating to the proposed Heritage Overlay: 1) Extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay That the Heritage Overlay would cover the whole site, and as such is inconsistent with the extent of registration under the Victorian Heritage Register. 2) Permit requirement for external painting The proposed amendment would require a permit for external painting of buildings on the site. 3) Prohibited uses The removal of the current opportunity to use the heritage place for a prohibited use.

The Statement of Significance in the heritage study is as follows: The following Statement of Significance is primarily derived from the Heritage Victoria citation for the Former Standard Brickworks (H720): The former Standard Brickworks is of outstanding historical and technological significance.

The complex is the rate remnant of a series of brick and tilemaking works, which were established in the eastern suburbs between the 1880s and the 1940s. The complex comprises a rare and unusually intact brickmaking plant of the early twentieth century. The site retains material evidence from all the stages of the brick production process from clay extraction to despatch of finished bricks.

Until the closure of the works in 1988, the Hoffman patent brickmaking kiln was one of the last such operative kilns in Victoria.

The distinctive form and internal fittings of the clay mill building provide evidence of superseded brickmaking processes and ancillary trades, in particular the tramway system for hauling clay, and the blacksmith’s shop. The grinding pans and brick press machinery on site exhibit the same fundamental technology, which was introduced with the industrialization of brickmaking to Victoria in the second half of the nineteenth century.

10.1.1 Extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay

Mr Clarke outlined that the proposed Heritage Overlay included the area of the former clay pit, which was in-filled and capped in 1990. Since being in-filled, the clay-pit no longer exists and that there is no physical or visual nexus between it and brick making operations.

Mr Raworth’s comments in respect of this aspect can be summarised as follows: • His office has undertaken a detailed analysis of the site and found the remnant fabric to be of high order of significance • As such these remnant elements are of local significance (in addition to their recognition at state level through inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register)

• There is an anomaly between the Heritage Victoria listing and the Department of Infrastructure p-Data listing • The quarry has long since been in-filled • The elements once of interest in the quarry region have already been destroyed, hence there is neither a practical nor philosophical argument for the imposition of an overlay on the whole of the site

The Council agreed that the extent of registration in the Victorian Heritage Register is satisfactory, given Heritage Victoria administers the heritage aspects of the site.

The Panel is in agreement with the views of Council, Mr Clarke and Mr Raworth in respect of the extent of the Heritage Overlay and recommends that the Council adopt an extent of Heritage Overlay which replicates that of the extent of registration on the Victorian Heritage Register.

The Panel further notes however the close proximity of the recreation area and lake adjacent to the brickworks, and suggests Council explore ways in which the former quarrying activities of this area (more broadly than just 14 Federation Street) can be interpreted for visitors.

10.1.2 Permit requirement for external painting

In his submission Mr Clarke submitted that approvals from Heritage Victoria are required to undertake painting of the Brickworks, hence there is no need for this control to be applied within the Planning Scheme. This position was strengthened by Mr Raworth who stated that the Victorian Heritage Register control in respect of external painting was sufficient for this site. The Council supports this submission, as does the Panel. See Section 6.3.

10.1.3 Prohibited uses

(a) Mr Clarke outlined a range of matters relating to the proposed amendment. In summary these matters are that: • Currently the Planning Scheme allows prohibited uses over the whole of the site. • Seeking to reduce the area covered by the Heritage Overlay would also reduce the area for which allowing prohibited uses would be covered. • The owner, Phileo, has made a request to the City of Whitehorse to re-zone the whole of the site, but this is currently stalled. • The future use of the registered land (registered under the Heritage Act) would require approvals from both the Heritage Council Victoria and Whitehorse Council.

In Mr Clarke’s submission he also referred to Clause 43.01-6 of the Planning Scheme which provides that a permit may be granted to use a heritage place for an otherwise prohibited use if all of the following were to apply: • The Schedule to the Overlay identified the heritage place as one where prohibited uses may be permitted. • The use will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. • The benefits obtained from the use can be demonstrably applied towards the conservation of the heritage place.

He further stated that “Allowing prohibited uses does not mean that they will automatically occur. Planning permission must still be obtained, and this takes into account any impacts of any future uses on the amenity of the area.”

And further that: “The Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions states:

How are the controls over the prohibited use of a significant place applied? … “This provision should only be applies to a limited range of places. For example, the provision might be used for redundant churches, warehouses or

other large building complexes, where it is considered that the existing uses will create difficulties for the future conservation of the building. Currently this provision applies in the metropolitan area of Melbourne to places, which are included on the Victorian Heritage Register…”

He also referred to the Department of Infrastructure Planning Practice Note supporting the VPP application described above. In summary he argued that the former Standard Brickworks site is a very large, former industrial building complex in the metropolitan area of Melbourne included on the Victorian Heritage Register, and that allowing prohibited uses is totally consistent with the Practice Note. He also claimed that if prohibited uses were not allowed, the chance of further decay would be increased.

Mr Clarke then asked Mr Raworth to comment on the allowance of prohibited uses at this site.

Mr Raworth stated that removal of the existing Schedule, which allows for prohibited uses was perhaps the most important issue affecting this site.

He raised the following matters in support of the ongoing allowance for prohibited uses at this site: • The existing Heritage Overlay allows for prohibited uses. • The site is currently zoned industrial, and given the site cannot be used for brick making, any alternative industrial use would in all probability not only have no positive use for the Hoffman Kiln, or any of the other buildings This restriction is likely to actively contribute to the eventual dereliction and demolition of the remnant buildings on the site. • The schedule to the Heritage Overlay is specifically designed to anticipate the needs of significant sites such as the former Standard brickworks. • Comparable sites have found adaptive re-use through a combination of residential development and small scale office and commercial use – the types of use most likely to be appropriate for this site in the long term. • Allowing prohibited uses conforms to the extant schedule.

Mr Raworth concluded that use of the prohibited uses element in the Schedule keeps the window of opportunity as wide as possible and that in his many years experience working with historic buildings, this allowance has been successfully exploited, without detriment to the overall objectives of zoning and its users.

(b) Council outlined that this site is currently zoned Industrial 1, and that it is situated within a Residential 1 and Public Park and Recreation Zone area. Council acknowledges that the site should be given the maximum support to ensure the conservation of the heritage aspects of the site, whilst maintaining and utilising the planning processes to manage the site. Council further stated that allowing prohibited uses within the Schedule was consistent with Clause 43.01 of the Heritage Overlay.

Council also tabled the following key points in their submission: • In drafting the amendment Council considered the importance of governing uses through the (re)-zoning process • The local community has taken a keen interest in the site and any future developments thereon. • The formal request from the owner to rezone the land to Residential 2 has been stalled due to Council’s request for further information. Council has requested further planning documents from the owner. Future uses at the site would be best addressed through a full master planning process, which would address heritage and traffic management issues. Council has no specific difficulty with enabling prohibited uses, but wants the zone to govern use and overlays to frame development on the site.

The Panel recognises that the long term conservation and ideally re-use of this site is dependent on sound strategic conservation planning, of which site use is one element. The Panel further comments that it is critical that the site is well maintained in the short term in order to maximise potential adaptive re-use options for the site. The Panel expresses its concern that gradual attrition of the site may be used as a future management strategy. It

therefore reminds the owner of their obligations under the Heritage Act to ensure the property is maintained to the extent that its cultural heritage significance is not affected. It recommends the owner pursue an active strategy to explore adaptive re-use of the site as soon as possible.

The Panel recognises the value of, and supports the application of allowing prohibited uses at this site as keeping the windows of opportunity open for the widest possible range of future use options for this site. Consequently the Panel recommends that Council amend the Schedule and allow prohibited uses at this site. The Panel further recommends that the parties work together to achieve an agreed maintenance programme for the site to be implemented at the earliest date together with the development of a Conservation Management Plan.

10.2 129 Mount Pleasant Road, Forest Hill (The Wattles)

10.2.1 Mr Gernot Schubert – submission for the owner

Mr Gernot Schubert appeared on behalf of his mother, the owner of 129 Mount Pleasant Road. Mr Schubert explained that the property has been in his family’s ownership since 1956, and that the family had long intended for the house to be demolished and a set of units or similar be developed on-site, one of which would be available for his mother to live in, whilst ensuring an income stream for his mother. He further advised that the house is in poor condition, requiring extensive work and rejuvenation, and that the house has been badly affected by the cypress tree roots.

He stated the house was not of major historical significance, and that there are better examples of historic houses of this type in the Eastern suburbs. He also claimed that surrounding developments had impacted on the heritage significance of his property, as they were dissimilar in style, age etc.

In respect of the historic significance of the garden, he stated that: • The garden has changed significantly since 1956, • The only original trees are the cypress trees on the boundary and a wisteria and rhododendron at the rear of the property, • The cypress trees are old and will need to be taken down within the next few years due to safety concerns. He states that applying a Heritage Overlay to the property would result in financial loss as a result of the inability to develop units, and that there would be additional financial burdens resulting from: • Rebuilding of services • Renovating the house • Demolishing and rebuilding outhouses • More expense to remove cypress trees if the house is on the property.

These financial considerations are then likely to lead to loss of freedom in respect of accommodation options for his mother in her later years, and mental stress.

In summary he stated: • House has no historical significance • Garden has no historical significance • Overlay will cause mental anguish to the owner • Overlay will cause extreme financial hardship for the owner.

10.2.2 Council response

The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: “The Wattles is of historical significance, being demonstrative of the early agricultural nature of the area and in particular flower farming. It is the only surviving nineteenth century house on one of the oldest secondary roads in the former city of Nunawading.”

Council’s heritage consultant confirmed the heritage significance of the place at a level B, being individually significant for the following reasons: 37

• Demonstrative of early agricultural activity in the area, in particular, flower farming • It is the only surviving 19th century house in the area • It is located on one of the oldest secondary roads in the district • The curtilage provides an appropriate rural setting, reinforcing these heritage values.

Bestowing heritage designations to properties is a valid planning process and heritage listing alone will not unduly influence the economic value of a property. Furthermore, this designation will not prohibit land use, but will guide future development impacts on the site.

10.2.3 Panel response:

The Panel undertook a site inspection of the property and supports the Council view that the property is of heritage significance at a local level. The Panel however considers that the property did not demonstrate an association with flower farming, but rather its rarity and age were of significance to the local community.

The Panel therefore agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 129 Mount Pleasant Road on the basis of it being of individual heritage significance to the Shire and further recommends that the Council undertakes additional research to determine what heritage values may be attributed to the trees on the site.

10.3 58 Lucknow Street, Mitcham

The written submission from the owner outlines general support for the application of the Heritage Overlay, but raised concerns in respect of the mixed nature of properties in the area and the rapid rate of development in the street.

The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: The house at 58A Lucknow Street is of historical and aesthetic significance. Constructed on the Austral Park Estate which was subdivided in 1906, it is a particularly unusual example of a picturesquely composed and detailed Edwardian bungalow which incorporates a number of interesting

architectural elements. Of particular note are the timber gable-end details, unusual window mullion details and corner box window.

Council submitted however that the house has been assessed as of local level heritage significance, on an individual basis. Discussion relating to the impacts of development within heritage areas is addressed in Section 12. The Panel supports the view of Council and therefore agrees that the Heritage Overlay Heritage Overlay be applied to 58 Lucknow Street, Mitcham.

10.4 38 Haines Street, Mitcham

The property was sold in August 2000, after the exhibition period. The previous owner opposed the application of the Heritage Overlay. Council advised the Panel that all new owners of properties included in the C3 Amendment had been contacted about the amendment, and that no further submission opposing the HO was received in respect of 38 Haines St, Mitcham.

The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: The house at 38 Haines Street, Mitcham, is of historical importance and aesthetic interest. It is one of a very small number of surviving houses in Mitcham from the nineteenth century, and demonstrates an early and important phase of residential settlement in the area. Aesthetically, the house is a very intact example of a relatively simple Italianate timber villa.

The Panel agrees that 38 Haines St, Mitcham be included in the Heritage Overlay.

10.4 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn North

This property was sold in March 2000, after the exhibition period. The previous owner opposed the application of the Heritage Overlay. Council however subsequently received a submission from the new owners who support the Amendment.

The following statement of significance is derived from Context Pty Ltd’s study “Harwood Preliminary Analysis of Significance”, August 1994: Harwood, 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn North, is of historical and aesthetic significance. It is one of the few surviving properties which provide evidence of the establishment and development of market gardening, and later orcharding, in the area. The elements remaining form this period, including the house, well, outbuildings and orchard remnants, demonstrate the key elements of farming life. The property also has historical associations with several farming families, including the Redman, Tivendale and Filshie families. Aesthetically, the house is a good and substantially intact example of a large Edwardian timber villa which retains a number of early orchard-related outbuildings.

The Panel therefore agrees that 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn North be included in the Heritage Overlay.

10.5 568-572 Station Street, Box Hill

The statement of significance is as follows: The former Ellingworth’s estate agency shop building is of considerable historical and aesthetic significance. Although somewhat altered, the building remains a prominent and distinctive Edwardian commercial building dating from a main period of growth of the Box Hill commercial centre. The building has important associations with the prominent Ellingworth family, early settlers in the Box Hill district.

10.6.1 Owner’s submission

Mr Jim Hondrakis appeared on behalf of the owners and addressed a written submission. The owners are opposed to the Heritage Overlay for the following reasons: • The Heritage Overlay would limit development opportunities on the site(s) • The Heritage Overlay would diminish the potential for future capital gains on the properties • The market value of the properties will be diminished • The buildings are currently in “ordinary” condition and have undergone numerous alterations over the years, hence little of the original fabric exists

Mr Hondrakis further informed the Panel that the properties had been in his family’s ownership for more than 30 years, and have housed family business activities for 20 years.

10.6.2 Council response

The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: The retail building at 566- 572 Station Street is of historical and aesthetic significance. Although constructed in 1907, its detailing is predominantly Italianate and more typical of the late nineteenth century. In Box Hill it is unusual as one of a very small number of substantially intact block of shops of Italianate appearance in the municipality, and is an important element in the largely Edwardian Station Street streetscape.

Council Heritage Adviser reviewed the properties and confirmed the heritage significance of the buildings, despite some alterations. The Council further submitted that: • The buildings are currently situated in a Business Zone 1, which requires planning permits for building and works • Any extension to the building would also require an additional permit in respect of car parking dispensation • The Heritage Overlay would be an additional matter to consider in respect of changes to the property, but it is not considered onerous • There is no evidence that the application of the Heritage Overlay would impede full development of the site • There are no heritage controls for internal changes to any of the buildings

10.6.3 Panel response

The Victorian Planning and Environment Act requires Councils “to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historic interest, or otherwise of special cultural value”

Each municipality is further required to implement these objectives utilising their Municipal Strategic Statement as the guiding framework. The City of Whitehorse Municipal Strategic Statement meets the objectives specifically in Clauses 21.05 and 21.07 (See Section 5 of this Report).

Furthermore, the Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.10-3 addresses the Box Hill Business District , and in particular Objective 3 states:

“To improve the appearance and environment of the Box Hill Business District and surrounding areas.”

And draws on several strategies to achieve this, including:

“Encouraging improvements to existing buildings, particularly buildings of heritage value.”

Clause 22.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement further reinforces the clear intent of the City of Whitehorse to effectively conserve and enhance its heritage assets through sub-clause 22.05-3. This Clause identifies the following policy for Whitehorse Road and Station Street (one of five policy statements guiding this area): “New development protects, complements and enhances existing historic buildings.”

The Panel recognises the owners’ concerns in respect of the application of the Heritage Overlay, but believes: • There are already a range of controls and constraints, which guide (re)-development works at these properties • The assessment of heritage significance and subsequent Planning Scheme protection should be handled in a transparent manner • Any impacts of the Heritage Overlay should be addressed at the time of any proposals to develop the listed property.

Whilst the Panel recognises that the application of an Heritage Overlay is perceived as an onerous impact for some owners, the Panel firmly believes that the use of planning tools such as an Heritage Overlay is a valid and appropriate planning process.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 568-572 Station Street, Box Hill

10.7 953 Whitehorse Road and 580 Station Street, Box Hill

10.7.1 Mr Lou Cappanolo-submission on behalf of the owner

Mr Cappanolo spoke to a tabled written submission. The key points raised in his submission were: • That if the properties are of heritage significance, what has the Council done to date to enhance their standing in the community, and what is the future intent of Council in this regard. • Commercial and residential properties are impacted in different ways when their heritage significance is identified and an Heritage Overlay is applied. • That the 953 Whitehorse Rd property is surrounded by places of no heritage significance, and that these other buildings detract from the heritage significance of the (former) State Bank Building. • The application of the Heritage Overlay would be a burden to the building owner. • If Council is truly genuine about the community values of these properties, it should purchase heritage buildings and restore, and that further the Council should improve the amenity of the surrounding streetscape. • Placing restrictions will negatively impact the true potential and value of commercial properties and hence discriminate against their owners.

10.7.2 Council response

Council’s Heritage Adviser reviewed the properties and confirmed the heritage significance of the buildings, despite alterations, and that the buildings should be included in the Heritage Overlay. The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: The former State Savings Bank building is of aesthetic and historical importance. The building is an unusually picturesque bank building, and a good example of a commercial building in a bold Arts and Crafts style, a departure from the more common Classical Revival banks of the period. Historically, the bank dates from a major period of expansion of Box Hill as a commercial centre.

The Council further considered that: • The buildings are currently situated in a Business Zone 1, which requires planning permits for building and works. • Any extension to the building would also require an additional permit in respect of car parking dispensation. • The Heritage Overlay would be additional issue to negotiate in respect of changes to the property, but it is not considered onerous. • There is no evidence that the application of the Heritage Overlay would impede full development of the site. • There are no heritage controls for internal changes to any of the buildings.

Further impacts of Heritage Overlay are addressed in Section.

10.7.3 Panel response

Each municipality is further required to implement these objectives utilising their Municipal Strategic Statement as the guiding framework. The City of Whitehorse Municipal Strategic Statement covers these objectives specifically in Clauses 21.05 and 21.07.

Furthermore, the Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.10-3addresses the Box Hill Business District , and in particular Objective 3 states: “To improve the appearance and environment of the Box Hill Business District and surrounding areas.”

And draws on several strategies to achieve this, including: “Encouraging improvements to existing buildings, particularly buildings of heritage value.”

The Panel recognises the owners’ concerns in respect of the application of the Heritage Overlay, but believes: • There are already a range of controls and constraints, which guide (re)-development works at these properties. • The assessment of heritage significance and subsequent Planning Scheme protection should be handled in a transparent manner. • Any impacts of the Heritage Overlay should be addressed at the time of any proposals to develop the listed property.

The Panel further comments that it is not appropriate for Council to shoulder the full responsibility in respect of places of heritage significance, and that indeed if all such properties were in the ownership of “the State”, this would raise many other issues of community concern.

Whilst the Panel recognises that the application of an Heritage Overlay for these buildings is perceived as an onerous impact, the Panel firmly believes that the use of planning tools such as an Heritage Overlay is a valid and appropriate planning process.

Nonetheless the Panel supports the protection of these places through the Heritage Overlay, as it is the most transparent and fair way of identifying and protecting places of heritage significance.

The Panel further notes that there are a range of funding schemes to support owners of places of heritage significance and that Council should assist all owners of heritage places to access these funding schemes.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 953 Whitehorse Road and 580 Station Street, Box Hill.

10.8 310 Elgar Road, Box Hill (Tyneholme, formerly Howard House))

The Statement of Significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: Tyneholm is of aesthetic and historical significance. It is one of a small number of substantial mansions built in the municipality during the 1880s Boom. The house retains much of its large grounds, and is an important local landmark near a prominent traffic intersection. Historically, the house derives some significance from its long association with the Salvation Army. The house is one of a few remaining nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings associated with a children’s welfare organisation, of which there were several in the municipality.

Peter Barber, Solicitor of Deacons, appeared on behalf of the owner and addressed a written submission.

The key issues raised in the submission were: • The Salvation Army owns the property, and has since 1913. • The property has served a range of uses and in 1997 a redevelopment proposal was raised with Council. • The property has had a complex planning history in recent times, which can be summarised as follows: The property has been redeveloped and several units have been constructed This development required the demolition of a separate building on-site (Wilson House) There is a current proposal to extend the primary building (Tyneholme), and introduce non-residential use in the form of offices. An Independent Panel is currently considering this proposal (Amendment C2).

Mr Barber further submitted that the owner acknowledges the heritage significance of this property and that it should ultimately be given protection under the Planning Scheme.

However, the owner is seeking a delay in the application of the Heritage Overlay for this site, to allow the merits of the C2 Amendment to be considered.

The Panel however can see no reason why the acknowledged heritage value of the site should not be immediately recognised by its inclusion in the HO now. There seems little to be gained by going through a separate amendment process after the decision in Amendment C2.

Assuming the recommendation of the Panel in Amendment C2 is for an approved office and residential development in accordance with an approved development plan, the amendment would be then included in Clause 52.03 (Specific Sites and Exclusions) of the Planning Scheme to allow for the use and development of an office and exempting the requirement for a planning permit to facilitate the approved development in accordance with an incorporated plan to be inserted into the Schedule to Clause 52.03.

This would overcome any concerns by the owner about the need or otherwise to obtain further planning approvals under the HO. It should be noted that now any proposed buildings and works on the site require a planning permit, irrespective of whether or not there is an overlay. The Panel also notes the VCAT decisions which established there are no pre- existing use rights for an office on the site and that a planning scheme amendment for such a use is required.

The Council has acknowledged that not all of this large site is significant from a heritage view and that therefore the HO should be refined to include only those aspects of the site considered of heritage significance.

The Council’s Heritage Consultant that an appropriate reduced defined curtilage is, “…the front set back and land within a 5m setback to the building on all sides be included as a minimum.”

The Panel approves this amendment to the exhibited overlay boundary for the site.

10.9 1000 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill (Box Hill TAFE) (Formerly Box Hill Girls Technical School)

Section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act states: “a Planning Scheme is binding on every Minister, government department, public authority and municipal council, except to the extent that the Government in Council on the recommendation of the Minister directs by Order publishes in the Government Gazette.”

The Governor in Council directed that Planning Schemes are not binding on specific Minster’s including Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education. (2 February 1988.)

At the hearing Rhonda Tallnash, General Manager, Corporate Communications with Box Hill TAFE therefore submitted that the site was not subject to the Planning Scheme as a consequence of the Ministerial direction under Section 16. She however further submitted

that “the (Box Hill) Institute (of TAFE) is sensitive to the cultural and sociological aspects of heritage preservation and is committed to liaising with relevant bodies to ensure that the physical presence of buildings is consistent with community expectations and where practicable meet relevant planning guidelines.”

10.9.1 Council response

Council sought and received legal advice in the context of this exemption and was advised: If a public school is exempt from the Planning Scheme by way of order published in the Government Gazette, none of the Planning Scheme applies. This includes the Heritage Overlay.

Council advised however that there are several public schools included in the Amendment C3, and that whilst the properties are not subject to the requirements of the Planning Scheme it is still appropriate for them to be listed in order to provide a comprehensive list of heritage assets within the City of Whitehorse. Furthermore, listing would enable the owners to access a range of heritage funding programs.

10.9.2 Panel response

The statement of significance in the Heritage Study is as follows: The former Box Hill Girls’ Technical School is of outstanding historical and aesthetic significance. As the first girls’ technical school ever established in Victoria, it demonstrates a very important phase in the history of education in the state. The building itself is a particularly assured example of 1930s Moderne design, characterised by bold rectilinear composition, banded brickwork and regular fenestration.

The Panel notes that the heritage significance of this place has been assessed as a level A, namely a State level heritage place which would be accorded protection via the Victorian Heritage Register.

The Panel accepts the legal exemption. However, it considers that it is appropriate to include 1000 Whitehorse Road in the Heritage Overlay of the Planning Scheme to: • Ensure the heritage values are clearly articulated • Contribute to a complete listing of heritage assets • Enable the owner to access funding programs

The Committee approves the TAFE commitment to liaise with relevant authorities and to meet relevant planning guidelines where practicable.

10.10 Proposed road widening and freeway reservations 181 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Blackburn Primary School) 347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East (Burwood Heights Uniting Church) 449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill (Strathdon) 142 Boronia Road, Vermont (Greenways)

10.10.1 Mr Lloyd Rowe, Team Leader, Statutory Planning, VicRoads appeared on behalf of Vic Roads.

Mr Rowe tabled several computer-generated maps showing where the proposed Heritage Overlays may have incongruence with VicRoads strategic planning objectives.

In respect of the individual sites, the following issues were raised:

181 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Blackburn Primary School) HO 102 Slip lanes are proposed on the corner of Surrey and Whitehorse Roads. VicRoads requests that the HO not apply to these sections of land.

347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East (Burwood Heights Uniting Church) HO 19 VicRoads is seeking approximately 4 metres from the existing western boundary for future intersection improvements, scheduled to take place within the next 2-5 years.

449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill (Strathdon) HO 84 VicRoads is seeking an amendment to the western and southern boundaries to conform to the boundary of the proposed freeway reserve.

142 Boronia Road, Vermont (Greenways) HO 21 VicRoads is seeking the boundaries of the eastern and southern boundaries conform to the freeway reservation.

10.10.2 Council response

181 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Blackburn Primary School) HO 102 - The issue has been resolved as the Heritage Overlay has been refined to include the original school buildings only.

347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East (Burwood Heights Uniting Church) HO 19 - Any proposal to remove 4 metres of land from this site should be addressed at the time the proposal and design framework are developed. The Heritage Overlay would allow full consideration of the heritage aspects of this site at such a time.

449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill (Strathdon) HO 84 - VicRoads is unable to provide a timeframe for development that is within the next 10-20 years.

142 Boronia Road, Vermont (Greenways) HO 21 - VicRoads is unable to provide a timeframe for development that is within the next 10-20 years.

10.10.3 Panel response

181 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn (Blackburn Primary School) HO 102 - The refinement of the Heritage Overlay has addressed the VicRoads concerns.

The Panel therefore agrees that the refined extent of Heritage Overlay be applied to the Blackburn Primary School.

347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East (Burwood Heights Uniting Church) HO 19 - The Panel believes the application of the Heritage Overlay would appropriately identify the heritage aspects of this property. The Heritage Overlay would allow for an appropriate consideration of the heritage values of this site, and would enable a balancing of the VicRoads and heritage preservation objectives. The Panel further notes that there are several tress located on the area under consideration, and that an assessment of their heritage (or other) values should be undertaken.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East, and further considers that the heritage or other values of the trees on the boundary of this property be assessed.

449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill (Strathdon) HO 84 - This property has been identified as being of local level heritage significance. The statement of significance in part states: “Strathdon is of historic significance. The property is a rare surviving orchard property which retains the original house, some outbuildings and remnant fruit tress. The property has important associations with the locally prominent Fankhauser and Matheson families. “

The area identified by VicRoads as being required for future freeway extensions is comparatively large, covering approximately 20% of the site.

One plan tabled by VicRoads indicates orchard plantings are located on the western boundary of the site, well away from the proposed freeway reserve. However no information was provided in respect of outbuildings, remnant plantings or other heritage assets in the SE corner of the allotment, the area under question.

The Panel believes that the heritage values of this site should be protected under the Planning Scheme, and that the Heritage Overlay will enable a full consideration of planning, infrastructure and heritage considerations at a time when the proposed freeway extension is undertaken.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 449 Springvale Road, Forest and also considers that the heritage or other values of the full site, including archaeological values, be assessed.

142 Boronia Road, Vermont (Greenways) HO 21 - This property has been identified as being of local level heritage significance. The statement of significance states:

“Greenways is of historical significance. It is one only few surviving examples of the type of farming homestead which once flourished in the municipality. It is a particularly significant in that unlike its comparable examples elsewhere in the municipality, it still retains a considerable portion of its original land, and has not been encroached on by subsequent residential development. In this way, it maintains the truly rural atmosphere which was once the identifying characteristic of the area.”

The area identified by VicRoads as being required for future freeway extensions is comparatively large, covering approximately 25% of the site.

No information was provided in respect of outbuildings, remnant plantings or other heritage assets in the SE corner of the allotment, the area under question. It is highly likely that given the pristine nature of this site, there will be a range of cultural resources remaining in-situ.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to 449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill, and further considers that the heritage or other values of the full site, including archaeological values, be assessed.

10.11 5 Longland Road, Mitcham (Montana)

10.11.1 Mr Anthony Northam appeared at the Hearing

Mr Northam is the owner of Montana, which is the original homestead at 5 Longland Road. He spoke to a tabled submission, the key issues of which were:

• He is in support of the application of the Heritage Overlay to his property. • He is concerned that the cypress and pine trees at 5 Longland Road were not identified and included within the Heritage Overlay. • He requested the trees outside Unit 12 be included in the Heritage Overlay. • Since writing to the Council in respect of the absence of protection of tress at the property, one cypress has been removed. • He believes the interest the Body Corporate has taken in respect of the trees has arisen since he raised the matter of the trees being significant with Council.

10.11.2 Mr David Healy and Mrs Elaine Irvine appeared on behalf of the Body Corporate.

Mr Healy and Mrs Irvine submitted that: • Mr Northam owns Unit 12, 5 Longland Road (Montana), but that some of the area on which the trees are located is leased from the Body Corporate to him. • The Body Corporate understands the Heritage Overlay as exhibited relates only to Montana (Unit 12) and does not cover any other units or trees. • The Body Corporate and other residents have expressed concerns about the health and stability of the trees. • The Body Corporate has commissioned a report from Galbraith & Associates, (Tree and Landscape Consultants), which suggests many trees at this site pose a hazard.

10.11.3 Council response

The house Montana was identified as being of regional heritage significance and the surrounding units constructed in the early 1970’s are not contributory and should not be included in the Heritage Overlay.

The trees in question are not located on land owned by Mr Northam.

Whilst the trees may contribute to the overall setting of Montana it is not possible to include them in the Heritage Overlay, as they have not been exhibited in this amendment. Furthermore, the owners (members of the Body Corporate) have not been formally notified of Amendment C3, and therefore a separate Planning Scheme amendment would be required in order to formally exhibit the proposal to all parties.

10.11.4 Panel response

The heritage significance of Montana has been assessed as a level B. The Statement of Significance reads: “Montana is of historical and aesthetic significance. Historically the house is associated with Frederick Purches, a prominent local landowner. Aesthetically, the house is a very good example of a transitional Edwardian/bungalow style house, which combines elements from both styles. Of particular note are the unusually heavy verandah detailing and interesting roof form.”

The description of the place is focussed on the house, and the garden or tree elements at 5 Longland are not discussed. When questioned, Council advised that the assessment work did not include the specialist area of heritage trees.

During the site visit the Panel noted that the cypress and pine trees appear to make a contribution to the whole of 5 Longland Road, and that the values of the trees need to be independently assessed by a suitable heritage tree expert.

The Panel is concerned however that are trees are not removed hastily, especially if this was undertaken in order to “avoid” any perceived constraint regarding the long term preservation of the trees.

The Panel further notes that in situations when parties are in dispute it is easy for each party to gain “appropriate” supporting advice which supports their view as to the safety, condition, age and health of trees. We believe venturing down a pathway of obtaining multiple reports from “alleged” experts would bring no resolution to these matters. The Panel would prefer to see the Council working in cooperation with both Mr Northam, the Body Corporate and other residents in order to negotiate a management strategy for the trees at this site. The trees clearly provide at the absolute least an improved amenity at this site, and it would be hard to imagine the residents truly wanting to see the trees removed in order to avoid a perceived Planning Scheme constraint.

The Panel agrees that the Heritage Overlay be applied to Montana, (Unit 12) 5 Longland Road and further recommends that Council ensures the heritage or other values of the cypress and pine trees be assessed as soon as practicable and that Council notifies the Body Corporate and other owners that the trees have been identified as being of heritage significance and that a further study is to be undertaken to determine their values. The Body Corporate be then also requested that none of the cypress or pine trees under consideration are to be removed or heavily pruned until their heritage significance has been determined.

The Panel also suggests that Council works with both the owner of Unit 12 and the other residents to ensure a cooperative approach is taken in respect of the longer-term management of the trees.

11. OTHER CONCERNS RAISED

The submissions received raised a wide range of concerns and general issues many of which were common to all or some. Rather than deal with such issues in response to the general conclusions on each individual submission set out in Section 10 of this Report, the Panel will now cover such issues and concerns under the following headings following the sequence and form presented to the Panel by the Council in its submission at the Hearing.

The issues raised included such matters as: • property values • insurance • the restrictive nature of the controls • loss of freedom and flexibility • personal hardship

11.1 Property Values and Personal Hardship

The concern of several submittors that the proposed heritage controls will have a detrimental affect on property value or that they will create undue hardship as they cannot afford to renovate their property but would be restricted in selling or re-developing it has been dealt with in Section 9.1.2 of this Report

11.2 Insurance

Section 9.1.2 of this report also covers the concern expressed by some submittors that properties covered by the HO are difficult to insure.

11.3 Freedom and Flexibility and Restrictions

Some submitters expressed concerns that the heritage controls were unduly restrictive and that they would no longer have the freedom to do what they want with their property. The

Panel agrees with the Council comment on this point when it said: “Significant heritage places, whether they are part of a precinct or significant on their own, are considered assets to the community and as a result local, state and general government has the responsibility to manage the retention and enhancement of these assets. The introduction of a heritage control will, depending on the circumstance, encourage and guide development on the properties which respect their heritage significance. In this context, some loss of freedom and flexibility is inevitable.”

The Panel regards the imposition of heritage controls to be a valid planning procedure. It is not just heritage controls which might or might not affect the value of a property or restrict a property owner’s rights and freedoms over the use and development of a property. Whenever there is a designation of a planning boundary or planning control, heritage or otherwise, or in the issuing of a planning permit, there will be an intrinsic relationship with the status of the property, its potential for future use and development, its market appeal and value and the freedom of owners to deal with it.

The heritage designation does not prohibit any land use normally allowed in an area. It does, however, set a context for assessment of a proposal which recognises the heritage character of the place in question or of the precinct or surrounding area.

Heritage controls encourage development which respects the heritage context and are in accordance with the Council’s responsibility to facilitate the retention and enhancement of places identified as having heritage values. The controls do not seek extensive renovation nor prohibit development or redevelopment. The overlay seeks to ensure that any works undertaken take into consideration and respect the heritage significance of the building and its surrounds.

It is acknowledged that under the overlay and the parameters imposed by it, some loss of freedom and flexibility may result. This is true with other planning restrictions such as medium density controls or within the Special Landscape Overlay already existing in the Blackburn area. However, the overriding benefit is that of retaining heritage buildings and precincts and guiding appropriate development of the sites.

In other parts of Melbourne with heritage classification, such as Albert Park, St Vincents Place, Grace Park, St James Park, it can be seen that buildings have been modified to meet current standards of living and people purchase in such areas with the confidence that any development which may occur will respect the heritage contribution of the street, precinct or area.

12. POSITIVE RESPONSES AND OPPORTUNITIES

12.1 Not all submissions or correspondence received by the Council in response to exhibiting the proposed Amendment objected to the proposal. Many were in support of the overlay and considered heritage recognition and protection as being positive. Many considered that the overlay would be of benefit to them especially those who have invested extensively in restoring or renovating their homes.

Many supporting the overlay also expressed concerns about earlier inappropriate developments and regarded the controls as having a future positive impact on the area.

They strongly encouraged the Council to implement the proposed heritage protection of places already identified in the Heritage Reviews (past and future) and supported the workable approach of the Council.

The Panel would like to add its own words of praise to the positive approach and attitude of the Council in its work on identifying, protecting and preserving places with heritage value within the municipality.

12.2 The Council informed the Panel that a variety of support schemes are available to the owners of properties concerned with the costs of maintaining or renovating their heritage listed property. The Council said “Heritage Victoria provides short-term loans and grants for properties individually identified in local Planning Schemes. The short terms loans are provided at reduced rates of interest for capital works involving conservation, restoration or enhancement of historic buildings, gardens, and structures within the

Planning Scheme. Therefore, should the individually significant A and B graded places be listed in the Planning Scheme under a Heritage Overlay, they would be eligible for funding subject to approval from Heritage Victoria.

The Commonwealth also provides the Cultural Heritage Projects Program that provides financial assistance to support the conservation of heritage places on the Register of the National Estate. Individual project funding ranges from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $250,000. In assessing applications, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage would consider significance of the place, urgency of works, management of the project, other funding, past funding, additional project benefits and heritage listing. It is considered that the majority of A and B graded places within Amendment C3 would be eligible for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate, enabling application of such funding.

It should be noted that owners of such properties would be well aware of maintenance issues and costs involved in the upkeep of an older house, which is a factor taken into account when purchasing such a property. By placing heritage control on a property, Council is not indicating that extensive renovation has to occur, simply that any works conducted on the building should respect its period, character and integrity.”

In addition, the Council has just appointed (February 2001) a heritage advisor available to the community and providing free advice on undertaking restoration, repairs, alterations and additions to heritage buildings.

13. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

13.1 The proposed Amendment has its strategic base in and implements Clause 15.11 Heritage of the SPPF referred to in Section 5.2 of this Report and in the Explanatory Report to the Amendment included as Attachment 1.

In the Panel’s view, the Amendment is consistent with all relevant parts of the SPPF in that it identifies those places deemed to be significant for aesthetic, historical or cultural reasons and seeks to conserve them.

13.2 Relevant sections of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) are set out in Section 5 of this Report and also in the explanatory report to the Amendment included in Attachment 1. These include Clauses 21.05 and 21.07 of the MSS.

The Amendment more than adequately seeks to implement the very specific direction and further work set out in those clauses and is in total accord with the MSS strategies relating to heritage.

No change to the MSS is sought nor, in the Panel’s view, is needed.

13.3 There is at present no local policy relating to Heritage. However, the Amendment seeks to introduce a new Heritage Buildings and Precincts Policy at Clause 22.11. The Panel approves this policy with the amendment recommended in Section 2.3.4 of this Report.

A full copy of the policy is included in Attachment 1. It has a direct policy base to Clause 21.07 of the MSS. In the Panel’s view, it will provide certainty for property owners, developers and the community about how new development and works can be managed while conserving the heritage values of the place.

The Policy responds to the demonstrated need to protect and preserve places of heritage significance in the municipality and by being heritage specific in its nature, it gives the Council a wider range of discretions in relation to heritage places than otherwise provided.

It is important to note that the application of the HO to the properties and precincts listed in the Schedule does not change the zoning of the land. It merely identifies what special circumstances apply to the land. Also a permit is not required for repairs and routine maintenance that do not change the appearance of the building.

13.4 There are no relevant Ministerial Directions.

13.5 The Panel is satisfied that the proposed Amendment accords with all relevant strategic guidelines and approves the Amendment as modified by this Report.

14. CONCLUSION

The Panel considers that the Amendment is satisfactory and should be adopted with the appropriate modifications as recommended.

It is a good positive response to the Council’s obligation in Section 4.1(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 “to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas and other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest or otherwise of special cultural value.”

The Council is to be commended especially for: • Its consultative approach to the preparation of the Amendment. • Its ongoing work in identifying places of heritage values; and • Its appointment of a Heritage Advisor.

The Heritage Overlay and the proposed Heritage Buildings and Precincts Policy are worthy and invaluable inclusions into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

15. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that: (1) Amendment C3 (Part 2) to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited with the following amendments:

(a) The removal of Overlay controls for external painting and internal alterations and tree controls for properties included in the Victorian Heritage Register, namely: • 166-172 Burwood Highway, Burwood (former Wesleyan Day School) • 14 Federation Street, Box Hill (former Standard Brickworks) • 1020 Riversdale Road, Burwood (Wattle Park) • 656 Mitcham Road, Mitcham (Wunderlick Terra Cotta Tile Works) • (Section 6.1)

(b) The removal of the following properties which have been or are to be demolished from the Schedule to the Overlay, viz: • 519A Station Street, Box Hill • 78 Middleborough Road, Burwood • 10 Blackburn Road, Blackburn • 60-64 Railway Road, Blackburn (Section 6.2)

(c) The removal of the requirement for a planning permit for previously painted surfaces of properties included in the Schedule to the Overlay except for those properties included within the Combarton Street Heritage Precinct and the Mont Albert Shopping Heritage Precinct. (Section 6.3)

(d) The insertion of the word “no” on the Schedule to the Overlay in the outbuilding column in respect of property 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn. (Section 7.2).

(e) The removal of reference to the outbuildings at property 63 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North in the Schedule to the Overlay and the specific exclusion of 1930s

building within the Overlay by stating so in the definition of the “Heritage Place”. (Section 7.4).

(f) The removal of reference to the fence at property 6-8 Meerut Street, Mitcham from the Schedule to the Overlay. (Section 7.3).

(g) The change of name from “Granthorn” to “Glenhowan” at property 456-460 Mitcham Road, Mitcham and the removal of the fence at the property from the Schedule to the Overlay. (Section 7.6).

(h) The changes to the Schedule to the Overlay outlined in Section 7 of this Report in respect to properties: 1201-1205 Riversdale Road, Box Hill South 17-21 Junction Road, Blackburn 18 Gordon Crescent, Blackburn 63 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North 6-8 Meedut Street, Mitcham

(i) The changes to the Schedule to the Overlay outlined in Section 8 of this Report in respect to the properties:

• 500 Burwood Road, Vermont South – Aust. Road Research Board • 144-169 Burwood Highway, Burwood – Presbyterian Ladies College • 181-195 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn – Blackburn Primary School • 58-74 Station Street, Nunawading – Daniel Robertson Brickworks • 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North – former Wesleyan Chapel • 355 Station Street, Box Hill - Kingswood College

(j) A change in the wording in the Heritage Policy from “all planning permit applications must be accompanied ….” to “all planning permit applications should be accompanied …” (Section 9.3.4).

(k) Amendment of the Schedule to the Overlay in order to retain Wattle Park in the Heritage Overlay, and to activate the prohibited uses column at this site, pending further discussion with the owner.

(l) Amendment of the Schedule to the Overlay in respect of property 14 Federation Street, Box Hill (former Standard Brickworks) to allow prohibited uses and the adoption within the Overlay of the same extent of registration as on the Victorian Heritage Register. (Section 10.1).

(m) The amendment of the boundary of property 310 Elgar Road, Box Hill (Tyneholme) by reducing the extent of the Overlay to the front set back and land within a 5m set back to the building on all sides. (Section 10.8).

(2) (a) In relation to property 58-74 Station Street, Nunawading (Daniel Robertson Brickworks) Council’s Heritage advisor be asked to consider the impacts of the reduced HO and of an enlarged area to be considered for inclusion in a HO at a later stage. (Section 8).

(b) Council undertake additional research to determine what heritage values may be placed on the trees at property 129 Mount Pleasant Road, Forest Hill. (Section 10.2). (c) Council advise Heritage Victoria as soon as practicable of all places identified as level A (State) significance in order to expedite their protection under the Heritage Act.

(d) Council undertake additional research to determine: • What heritage values may be placed on the trees on the boundary of property 347 Blackburn Road, Burwood East; and what heritage or other values, including archeological, may be placed on properties 449 Springvale Road, Forest Hill and 142 Boronia Road, Vermont. (Section 10.10). • What heritage values may be placed on the trees at 5 Longland Road, Mitcham (Montana). (Section 10.11).

• What heritage values may be placed on the whole of the site at Hethersett, 141- 169 Burwood Highway, Burwood and Blackburn Primary School, 181-195 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn and 58-74 Station Street, Nunawading (Daniel Robertson Brickworks) (Section 10).

(e) Council and the owners of 14 Federation Street, Box Hill (former Standard Brick Works site) cooperate in order to achieve at the earliest possible date an agreed maintenance programme for expeditious implementation together with a Conservation Management Plan for the site. (Section 10.1).

(f) Council determine the heritage or other values of trees through • Council undertakes additional research to determine what heritage values may be placed on the trees at Longland Road. • Council notifies the Body Corporate of 5 Longland Road of this proposed heritage tree assessment. • The Body Corporate be requested to ensure that none of the pine or cypress trees at 5 Longland Road be removed or heavily pruned pending the assessment. (Section 10.11).

DATE: 26/4/01

MR RAY ROOKE –(CHAIRPERSON)

MAGGIE BARON (MEMBER)

Appendix 1

Proposed Amendment and Explanatory report

Attachment 2

List of Submitters

Attachment 3

Mont Albert heritage precinct

Attachment 4

Combarton Street heritage precinct

Attachment 5

Vermont Park Precinct