planning and environment act panel report/media/files/strategic planning/heritage... · the panel...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Moonee Valley Planning Scheme

Amendments C142 and C143

Thematic Heritage Studies

2 December 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendments C142 and C143

Thematic Heritage Studies

Alison Glynn, Chair

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendments C142 and C143 Panel Report 2 December 2014

Contents

Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Amendments..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background to the Amendments ............................................................................. 1 1.3 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 2

2 Strategic planning context.............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 3 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................... 3 2.4 Strategic assessment ............................................................................................... 4

3 1A Warrick Street, Ascot Vale (HO362 – Amendment C142) ........................................... 5 3.1 The issues ................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Is the building sufficiently significant and intact? ................................................... 5 3.3 Should the imposition of an overlay be delayed pending consideration of

the 1920s shopfronts? ........................................................................................... 10 3.4 How should the external walls of the hall be addressed if they form

internal walls to non significant fabric? ................................................................ 11 3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 13 3.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 13

4 Ascot Vale Hotel (HO367 – Amendment C142) ............................................................. 14 4.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 14 4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 14 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 15

5 Ascot Vale Housing Estate (HO372 – Amendment C143) .............................................. 16 5.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 16 5.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 17 5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 18 5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 19 5.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 20

6 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 21 6.1 Summary of conclusions ........................................................................................ 21 6.2 Consolidated recommendations ........................................................................... 21


List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Ascot Vale Housing Estate as labelled by DHS and further marked and reproduced in David Helms' evidence. .......................................................... 16

List of Abbreviations

DHS Department of Human Services

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Amendment Summary The Amendment Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendments C142 and C143.

Common Name Thematic Heritage Studies.

Subject Site Amendment C142 ‐ various places identified in the Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012‐14.

Amendment C143 ‐ Part of the Ascot Housing Commission Estate Precinct, Epsom Road, Ascot Vale.

Purpose of the Amendments

Amendment C142 is to conserve various places identified in the Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012 – 2104.

Amendment C143 is to implement findings of the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study as it relates to the Ascot Housing Commission Estate.

The Proponent Moonee Valley City Council.

Planning Authority Moonee Valley City Council.

Authorisation 8 May 2014 DTPLI confirmed no authorisation needed.

Exhibition 5 June to 11 July 2014.

Submissions Amendment C142:

Nick Luciani for the Ascot Vale Hotel,

Andrew Gray of ARG Planning for Bagan Pty. Ltd, and

Bruce May.

Amendment C143:

Mr Max Ginn for DHS.

Panel Process The Panel Alison Glynn.

Directions Hearing Moonee Valley City Council Offices, 25 September 2014.

Panel Hearing Clocktower centre, Mt Alexander Road, Moonee Ponds, 13 November 2014.

Site Inspections An accompanied inspection of 1A Warrick Street was undertaken on 14 November 2014. Other unaccompanied inspections were undertaken on 13 and 14 November, 2014.

Appearances Moonee Valley City Council represented by Ms Louise Hicks, barrister on direct brief, with Ms Bridget Maplestone, town planner of Moonee Valley City Council. Ms Hicks called evidence from Ms Natica Schmeder – Heritage Consultant and Mr David Helms – Heritage Consultant.

Bagan Pty Ltd represented by Mr Andrew Gray, town planner of ARG Planning. He called evidence from Mr Bryce Raworth, heritage architect.

Department of Human Services (DHS) represented by Ms Kim


Roberts.

Date of this Report 2 December 2014.


Page 1 of 22

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendments

Amendments C142 and C143 seek to apply the Heritage Overlay to sites that Moonee Valley City Council considers have local heritage significance. Council’s basis for this consideration is the Moonee Valley City Council’s Thematic Heritage Study 2012 – 14 (for sites in Amendment C142) and the Moonee Valley City Council’s Post War Thematic Heritage Study 2012 – 14 (for Amendment C143).

Amendment C142, as exhibited, proposes to:

Amend the schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) and the corresponding maps to introduce additional overlays to sites identified in the Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012 – 2014.

Introduce the Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012 – 2014 as a reference document to Clause 21.05 of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme.

Amendment C143, as exhibited, proposes to amend the schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) and the corresponding map to introduce the heritage overlay to part of the Ascot Vale Housing Estate.

As a result of exhibition of the Amendments, four submissions were received, three relating to Amendment C142 and one relating to Amendment C143. At its meeting of 26 August 2014, Council resolved to:

Refer the submissions to a Panel.

Change Amendment C142 as requested by one submitter, and therefore not apply the Heritage Overlay to 43 Nimmo Street, Essendon.

As a result, a Panel to consider submission to each Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 11 September 2014 and comprised Alison Glynn (Chair).

1.2 Background to the Amendments

In 2012 Council undertook a Thematic Environmental History of the Moonee Valley municipality. As a result of this history, it resolved to develop a heritage study of key places identified in the history, as well as examining other potential places. After consultation on places identified in draft work of 2013, the study was split into two parts. The Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012 – 14 refers to nine individual places of significance, one serial listing of shops in Ascot Vale and one precinct in Levien Street, Essendon. This study is the basis of Amendment C142.

The second part of the study, the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Heritage Study 2012 – 14 refers to post war housing precincts.

At its meeting on 22 April 2014, Council adopted the Moonee Valley Thematic Places Heritage Study 2012 – 14 and noted the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Heritage Study 2012 – 14. As a result of consultation and debate, Council determined not to proceed further with most of the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Heritage Study 2012 – 14. Council also resolved not to proceed with a Heritage Overlay to a large section of the Ascot


Page 2 of 22

Vale Housing Estate. The resolution of Council was formed as a result of concerns of land owners of the economic implications of applying a Heritage Overlay to broad post war housing areas.

1.3 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it, as well as its observations from inspection of relevant sites. This included an accompanied visit inside 1A Warrick Street and the restaurant to its front at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale. An unaccompanied inspection was also undertaken by the Panel of the Ascot Housing Estate and the Ascot Vale Hotel.

No submission questioned the overall integrity of the heritage studies underpinning the amendments, or the general application of the Heritage Overlay. Submissions sought to specifically question the application of the overlay to particular properties.

This report therefore addresses issues raised in submissions according to the sites to which the submissions relate, being:

1A Warrick Street, Ascot Vale (Amendment C142),

447 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale (Amendment C142), and

Ascot Housing Estate, Ascot Vale (Amendment C143).

The report makes no assessment of 43 Nimmo Street, Essendon. As a result of the submission opposing the listing of this property, Council resolved at its meeting on 26 August 2014 to change Amendment C142 as requested and therefore not proceed with applying the Heritage Overlay to this site. This was based on a number of non‐reversible changes that had occurred to the exterior of the property. Given this resolution of Council, the Panel makes no further evaluation of the property, other than to note that Ms Schemer’s evidence to the Panel was that she supported Council’s resolution given the changes that had occurred to the property since the heritage study was undertaken.

Before addressing issues relating to specific properties in detail, the Panel has addressed the relevant strategic planning context affecting the Amendments. This is provided in the following chapter.


Page 3 of 22

2 Strategic planning context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Reports.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

2.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendments are supported by Clause 15.03 Heritage in the SPPF.

2.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Panel has also reviewed the Clause 21.05 existing local planning objectives.

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones

The sites affected by the amendments are subject to a variety of zones. Most sites affected by Amendment C142 are in a Commercial 1 Zone (mapped B1Z or B2Z) located generally along Mt Alexander Road. The Clocktower centre at 750 Mt Alexander Road, Moonee Ponds is in a Special Use Zone. The Ascot Vale Housing Estate (Amendment C143) is in a General Residential Zone (mapped R1Z).

2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

(i) Ministerial Direction No 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments)

Ministerial Direction No. 11 sets out the requirements a planning authority must meet when preparing an amendment to ensure a comprehensive strategic evaluation of a planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.

(ii) Practice Note No 01 (Applying the Heritage Overlay – Revised September 2012)

This practice note provides information and guidance to councils on what places should be included in a Heritage Overlay including the recognised criteria to assess the heritage values of a place.

The criteria in the Practice Note are based on the 1998 Conference on Heritage (HERCON) that are in turn based on the Australian Heritage Commission criteria for the Register of the National Estate. The criteria as listed in Practice Note 01 are:

Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).

Criterion B: Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity).


Page 4 of 22

Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential).

Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness).

Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance).

Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance).

Criterion G: Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance).

Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history (associative significance).

2.4 Strategic assessment

The Panel concludes that the Amendments are supported by, and implement, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. The Panel is also satisfied that the 2012 – 14 studies are sufficiently rigorous to form the basis of Amendments C142 and C143. The specific question of whether the studies provide sufficient justification to identify the properties in dispute, as detailed in submissions is addressed in subsequent chapters of this report.


Page 5 of 22

3 1A Warrick Street, Ascot Vale (HO362 – Amendment C142)

3.1 The issues

ARG Planning, on behalf of Bagan Pty Ltd opposes the application of the Heritage Overlay (HO362) to 1A Warrick Street, Ascot Vale (and the mapping of HO362 to 488 – 500 Mt Alexander Road that form part of the same title). Council maintains that:

the site should be identified in the Heritage Overlay as it contains the former Essendon and Flemington Borough Hall constructed in 1862.

this building is of local historical and architectural significance that should be protected.

The former municipal hall sits behind shopfronts constructed in the 1920s. The lower half of the façade and part of the side walls of the hall form the rear walls of a restaurant at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road. This restaurant and the adjoining shopfronts (between 488 and 500 Mt Alexander Road) are currently the subject of a separate heritage ‘gap’ study, being undertaken by Council.

The submissions of Mr Gray on behalf of ARG Planning lead to three questions being identified by the Panel:

Is the former municipal hall of sufficient significance and intactness to warrant protection under a Heritage Overlay?

If so, should the overlay apply to all of the site, particularly if the 1920s shops to the front of the building are currently the subject of a separate heritage review?

Are there potential adverse implications to listing the building if part of its heritage significance now forms internal walls to the abutting restaurant?

3.2 Is the building sufficiently significant and intact?

3.2.1 Evidence and submissions

The Thematic Places Heritage Study, 2012 – 14 states, in summary, that the site is significant because:

Of its rarity value as the first municipal building to be constructed in the Moonee Valley area, and therefore a tangible reminder of this early and now defunct municipality.

Historically: its location reflects the early growth of Flemington Hill. Its location on Mt Alexander Road also reflects the pre‐eminence of this road up until the 1880s as a site for commercial and civic development.

Aesthetically: it is a very early example of bichrome brickwork in Melbourne and the earliest identified in the City of Moonee Valley. Whilst most of its bulk is now concealed from Mt Alexander Road, fine detailing is still visible, such as the oculus widow to the front gable and the moulded bricks of the raking cornice.

Mr Gray’s submission firstly questioned why the former municipal hall should be protected when it had previously been the subject of Amendment R25 (Part 2) to the Essendon


Page 6 of 22

Planning Scheme in 1990, but rejected by the Panel to that amendment. The Panel report evaluated the proposed listing of the building as follows:

Inspection of the building reveals little evident (sic) of architectural quality, little Iikelyhood (sic) of the facade ever being exposed, and very little of the original building remaining unchanged or intact. This observation is confirmed by the citation of the building in the Conservation Study which indicates a low degree of integrity, architectural significance based on dichrome brickwork which is no longer visible and may no longer exist, and historical significance based on its temporary occupation by a defunct municipality. The panel therefore recommends that reference to the building at 494 Mt. Alexander Rd. be removed from the proposed Table to Division 3E.

Mr Gray submitted little had changed since this 1990 Panel finding. He submitted the place was still understood to be the former municipal building, the physical attachment and arrangement of the building was the same, and the evidence of bichrome brickwork appears to remain the same. This includes that the brickwork is visible from Warrick Street, but not generally from Mt Alexander Road. It is the loss of setting that he considers leads to a view that the building is not sufficiently intact to warrant protection.

Mr Raworth’s evidence on behalf of the submitter was that the hall has some local historical and architectural interest but that the building has irreversibly lost its original setting, including views to its primary west elevation from Mt Alexander Road. He contended that given the architectural significance has been highly compromised, and in all likelihood permanently obscured, it does not warrant an individual heritage control.

Mr Raworth accepted the historical background included in the heritage citation for the building as sound. However, it is the extent of fabric having been altered that he bases his opinion that the overlay should not apply. In his verbal evidence, Mr Raworth commented that the heritage overlay is a built form control. As such, his opinion is that historic interest is an indicator of significance but, as a built form control, the overlay relies on a building being able to be read in its physical context.

Ms Hicks, on behalf of Council maintained that while the building is largely hidden, its historical significance outweighs the lack of original setting. Council relied on evidence of Ms Schemer that:

The extent of knowledge about the history of the site is materially different to that of previous panel. Much more research is now known of the history of the building as part of the history of the municipality.

Much of original fabric remains. This includes the slate roof to the main hall, its two chimneys, all visible exterior tuck pointed brickwork except the south wall of the south annex where the brickwork remains, but is sandblasted. The upper level of the main building is all exposed, parts of which can be seen from Warrick Street and along Mt Alexander Road in oblique view.

Being visible to the public is not a critical issue to define historical significance. Ms Schmeder acknowledged it would be better to have an intact setting but this did not diminish or take over its identified heritage significance and its early architectural merit.


Page 7 of 22

A comparative analysis undertaken as part of the 2012 – 14 Thematic Study identifies that there are few bichrome brickwork buildings remaining of this early time and that the site is one of the few municipal halls remaining of this period.

3.2.2 Discussion

Mr Gray’s submissions commented that a key question is what has changed since the previous consideration of the building for heritage protection through Amendment R25 (Part 2) in 1990.

The proposed listing in 1990 was based on a three page description and assessment as part of the Essendon Conservation Study in 1985. The significance statement says:

Architecturally, an internal inspection is needed to verify the extent of external walls and existence of fittings related to its use: of regional interest as an early use of dichrome brickwork.

Historically, of high local importance and regional interest as a hall of one of the few defunct municipalities in Melbourne (see Hotham and Flemington and Kensington municipalities).

Recommendations

Inspect to ascertain surviving extent; investigate feasibility of detaching sufficient additions for a view of the building, if verified as sufficiently intact, referent and repaint as original or typical across remaining boundary (refer Aldous P. 33).

The 1990 Panel report does not indicate if any further inspection was undertaken, but the comments of the panel suggest it was unknown as to how much fabric remained. More about the physical status of the building is now known. This was confirmed by an inspection of the Panel on 14 November 2014 to the site. This included a view inside of the restaurant in front of the hall and the inside of the hall itself. This confirmed that:

From inside the restaurant: - The bluestone footings of the hall façade and side walls remain visible, as does

much of the façade and side wall brick work and tuck pointing, although it is bagged and/or painted.

- The outline of the northern blind arch of the west facade is visible, but clearly bagged so there is no recession inside the arch, and is painted.

- The outline of the centre doorway, is not visible, nor its footings, that are hidden behind a cupboard.

- The outline of the southern blind arch of the façade is partly visible, but appears to have been modified to form a rectangular recess. This is based on the location of the bluestone footing recess that is visible, but the recessed brickwork above is then square at its top, not an arch.

From inside the hall, architraves and fixtures suggest the building was renovated internally in the 1920s or 1930s.

The centre front doorway / arch remains visible and intact, but what would have been the opening is blocked up and painted / wallpapered.


Page 8 of 22

The exterior of the upper level of the building remains generally intact, with the bichrome brickwork visible from various side and rear angles. There are also glimpses of it from along Mt Alexander Road.

The south annex has been sandblasted and has an iron roof, but retains its bichrome brickwork form.

As noted by Mr Raworth, the northern annexe has been partly removed. The western façade wall has been removed to form part of the kitchen to the restaurant. The northern wall has also been modified to include additional glazing to a courtyard.

The oculus to the centre of the upper façade is partly visible from the street, but it is not possible to ascertain if original louvers remain as it is covered over.

More extensive historical research has also been undertaken by Council providing greater certainty of the historical significance of the building.

The criteria under which buildings are assessed, through Practice Note 01, has also been extensively revised since 1990 and clarifies that there are different criteria of significance. This includes that a site may be considered significant due to its importance to the course or pattern of the local cultural history (Criterion A – Historical Significance). It separately identifies that a building may be considered significant by exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance‐Criterion E), or its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance‐ Criterion F).

The Panel considers there have been significant changes in knowledge and assessment of heritage significance since the 1990 Panel. It therefore does not agree with Mr Gray’s submission that the findings of the previous Panel need be adopted again, without addressing the significance based on the criteria put by Council in the 2012 – 14 Thematic Study. The criterion identified by the study that Council uses as the basis for listing are historical and aesthetic, as assessed below.

(i) Historical significance

Mr Raworth did not dispute the history of the site, other than to state that he did not think that Mt Alexander Road formed a significant gold route. In any event, his evidence was that any association with such a gold route was diminished by the fact that the building was no longer set to the street, but hidden by the 1920s shops.

As noted by the Panel at the hearing, the thematic study of 2012‐14, that forms the basis of the listing, identifies that it was the fact that the gold route led to a commercial and community hub that became important to the settlement history, with the municipal hall being established next to the Prince of Wales Hotel as the first public building of the municipality.

As Mr Raworth’s evidence stated, the primary question is whether the unsympathetic changes to the presentation and setting of a building undermine the historical significance of the building to such an extent that it makes its ongoing protection unwarranted.

Whilst there are some elements of the building that have been lost, notably the front door and part of the northern annexe, much remains intact and visible. The lower part of the façade exists, but has been altered through bagging and painting to form the rear of the


Page 9 of 22

restaurant wall. The critical question is whether this loss of setting or context to the building is so significant that the historical significance is lost.

Ms Schmeder tabled a copy of the Australian Icomos Practice Note – Version 1, November 2013 at the hearing. This comments that “for any place the significance will be greater where the evidence of the association survives at the place or where the setting is substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. However, some events or associations may be so important that the place retains significance regardless of such change or absence of evidence” (page 3).

The practice note then establishes some useful questions to understand historic value. This includes identifying if the building is important in showing patterns in the development of history locally.

The Heritage Overlay has objectives that include:

To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.

To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.

The overlay does not direct that the fabric must be visible or that historical significance alone cannot form the basis of protection. Nor does the criterion in the Practice Note indicate that heritage significance must lie in the visibility of built form. The significance of the place is primarily in its historic association to the area.

Ms Schmeder commented on a number of other sites that have been listed in other planning schemes where the fabric is not visible from the street. Mr Gray also referred to the Panel report to Amendment C153 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme. That Panel recommended a building at 29 Roslyn Street, Hawthorn East not be listed as it was not visible from the street. However, the statement of significance under which that site was to be listed was because of its evidence as part of the development of Tooronga Road as a prestigious residential address, although the dwelling no longer had such an address or presentation.

In Amendment C142, part of why the site is considered significant is because of its location on Mt Alexander Road, but also because of its rarity as the first municipal building and its association with the early growth of the area. If the only reason why the building was significant was its association with Mt Alexander Road, the debate would be skewed away from listing the site. However, the significance of the building is not solely derived from a Mt Alexander Road setting, as acknowledged by the statement of significance. It is its broader historical significance that is identified. There are many places where heritage fabric is not visible to the street. A number were referred to the Panel. The Panel is aware of others.

Generally speaking, is not easy to compare the proposed listing with others given the difference in approaches taken by other municipalities to heritage studies and overlay mapping over time. However, it is clear that other buildings have been identified as individually significant even though they are not visible from the street.

While the building would benefit from an original setting and retention of an unaltered lower facade, the Panel is satisfied that the building retains a strong connection to cultural history the local area, that outweighs its compromised setting. The Panel is therefore


Page 10 of 22

satisfied that the building has local heritage significance that warrants protection under this criterion.

(ii) Aesthetic and representative significance

The second basis of significance for the listing is a combined designation under the aesthetic, representative and rarity value of the bichrome brickwork use in the building. This is due to the rarity of examples of this form of work for this era, combined with the form of the building a public building of this time. Again Mr Raworth’s evidence was that because it could not be well seen and the façade has been altered, its aesthetic and representative significance was lost.

The significance statement acknowledges that little is publicly visible, but the building remains a good example of the style. Ms Schmeder’s evidence was that being constructed in the 1860s it would have been a very early example of this form and the only example known to remain in the municipality.

The Panel accepts that the aesthetic and representative significance of the building is compromised due to the alterations to the façade. The attachment of the building at the front does make it difficult to ascertain how much of the original architectural form and detailing survives or could be fully restored. The Panel is satisfied that the building, however, retains some aesthetic and representative significance due to the detailing that does remain and the rarity of this early form of brickwork in the local area. This adds to the heritage significance, that is identified as worthy of protection.

3.3 Should the imposition of an overlay be delayed pending consideration of the 1920s shopfronts?


Mr Gray submitted that if the building is considered worthy of listing, it should delayed pending the findings of a current ‘gap’ study being undertaken by Council that includes consideration of the 1920s shops. This could then lead to a comprehensive listing of the whole site, including both the 1920s buildings in front of the building, and the former municipal hall.

Mr Raworth commented that the 1920s buildings to the front of the former municipal hall presented a coherent architectural form in their own right, although he did not identify them of particular significance in their own right.

Council submitted that it did not support delaying listing the hall until the ‘gap’ study was completed. Ms Hicks advised the ‘gap’ study was in its early stages and that the listing of the 1862 building did not rely on any significance that may lie in the 1920s buildings. Council did however, submit that it may be appropriate to alter Amendment C142 to reduce the overlay area to contain the 1862 building, its north and south courtyards as well as an area, one metre to the west of the original façade, that is now part of the restaurant at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road. This is to protect what was the original façade of the hall.


Page 11 of 22

3.3.2 Discussion

From submissions made it is apparent that the ‘gap’ study is in early stages and has not reviewed any specific elements to determine if the shops to the front have significance worthy of identification in a heritage overlay, either individually or as part of a precinct.

The Panel does not see that the listing of the municipal hall relies on the 1920s shopfronts also being identified of significance. The statement of significance is clear that it is the 1862 building that is of value. Any works to non significant material should require a planning permit but be identified as not significant by listing through Amendment C142.

At the hearing, Council offered to reduce the extent of mapping of the overlay to that around the building. There are complications with such an approach. Firstly, as Mr Gray put, it would be difficult to ascertain where works could start and stop without a permit, given the connected nature of the buildings, and that they are all on one title. Secondly, works to the shops in front of the building may further hide or obscure views of the building that may further impede interpretation of the building. Having the non‐contributory fabric included in the overlay enables works to non‐contributory areas to have regard to the significant elements of the site.

Mr Gray submitted that the Practice Note directs that all of a site should be listed. The Panel’s reading of the Practice Note is different. The critical question is whether all of the site forms part of the historical significance of the site. Whilst all of the title would have formed the original setting of the hall, the Panel accepts that the capacity to reinstate this garden setting is highly unlikely, and in any event would be a reproduction. What is identified as significant, and capable of being retained, is the 1862 building itself.

Mr Gray submitted that part of the concern of his client was the need to apply for permits for works to the six shopfronts along Mt Alexander Road when they are not in themselves currently identified as significant. The Panel notes that it is specifically the shopfronts that make up the restaurant at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road that sit in front of the hall, and have abuttal to the hall walls. Reducing the overlay extent to apply to these tenancies, along with 1A Warrick Street could reduce the need for permits for shopfronts that have little impact on the heritage fabric identified as significant. The Panel therefore considers the listing could be reduced to these two sites, but not further as suggested by Council.

3.4 How should the external walls of the hall be addressed if they form internal walls to non significant fabric?


Mr Raworth’s written evidence was that as the lower part of the façade had been altered so as to form the rear wall of the restaurant, the lack of internal controls meant that further changes could occur to the original façade of the 1862 building internal to the restaurant without a planning permit. This is because internal works are to be exempt in the proposed listing of the property under HO362.

The Panel raised this issue with parties at the commencement of the Hearing to enable discussion of whether listing the property would or should protect the lower part of the original façade that now forms part of the restaurant wall.


Page 12 of 22

Mr Raworth’s evidence was that the lower part of the façade was lost. Ms Schmeder’s view was that it remained unclear if the lower part was completely lost, as the internal view from the hall indicated the opening had simply been blocked up and the patterning in the restaurant wall indicated that removal of paint and bagging could reveal much of the original façade.

Mr Raworth also acknowledged that the roof of the restaurant was possibly attached with lightweight fixing and flashing that would have little impact on the original fabric. Ms Schmeder’s evidence was that the roof of the restaurant sat below the window line of the upper level. This was evident on the Panel’s view out the windows at the upper level on its inspection.

Council indicated that its intent would be to protect what had been external walls. Ms Hicks submitted initially that it was Council’s view that the original walls of the 1862 building would be considered external, and therefore protected. Ms Schmeder verbal evidence likewise suggested that as the 1862 walls formed an edge to a tenancy they could be seen as external walls.

On reflection later in the day Ms Hicks submitted that her review of VCAT decisions indicated she could not find any cases where such an issue had been discussed or determined. She acknowledged that it was open to debate if a wall that forms the external wall of the heritage fabric, but is an internal wall to a non contributory element would be considered internal or external for the purposes of determining the need for a permit. She therefore submitted that to avoid any doubt, internal walls should be included in the schedule.

3.4.2 Discussion

The Panel is of the view that if a wall has no current external façade, it could be considered an internal wall for the purposes of assessment under the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. Clause 62.02‐2 of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme exempts various works from the need for a planning permit unless a specific provision directs that a permit is required. This includes “the internal rearrangement of a building”. The Heritage Overlay then states that a permit is required to ”Internally alter a building if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as one where internal alteration controls apply”.

The Panel agrees that a debate could be had as to whether “the building” is the entire entity of the hall and restaurant as a connected structure on the one title, or two buildings that share a party wall. Even if they are considered two buildings, the party wall may still be viewed as having no external façade.

The significance of the 1862 building would be enhanced through works to restore more of its façade. The Panel accepts that it is highly unlikely that the original garden setting would be restored. However, it can conceive that the restaurant to its front may in the future (through future tenancy or combination of tenancy with the hall) be restored to reveal more of the original façade of the heritage building either externally or internally to an altered building at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road. This conceivably may include opening up of the doorway to combine use of the two parts of the site.

This reinforces to the Panel the need to list both the hall tenancy and the restaurant tenancy as the mapped area of significance, whilst acknowledging that the shopfront façade is not


Page 13 of 22

identified as significant in Amendment C142. This would also ensure that any potential subdivision between the tenancies would be subject to a permit that may also impact the hidden lower façade wall of the hall.

The Panel is of the view that internal alterations should apply to the site so as to avoid any debate or confusion as to whether the façade walls of the hall can be amended or not without a planning permit. However, the Panel considers the listing of internal alterations in the table should be limited to only internal walls that form party walls to the hall. This can be notated in the schedule table, similar to the way that tree controls are confined. It can also be noted in the statement of significance, if needed.

3.5 Conclusions

The Panel finds the 1862 former Essendon and Flemington Borough building has sufficient local heritage and architectural significance to warrant its listing as HO362 to the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. Whilst much of the façade is obscured from Mt Alexander Road, the Panel is satisfied that its significance as documented by Council in the 2012 – 14 Thematic Study does not rely on the building forming a streetscape to this road.

The Panel finds that as the 1920s shops to the front are not part of the heritage citation forming Amendment C142, the extent of the overlay mapping can be reduced to that of the former hall at 1A Warrick Street and the restaurant at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale. Including the whole of both of these tenancies is considered important to protect what was external fabric of the 1862 building that now shares party walls with the restaurant tenancy. The Panel also considers that internal walls need to be protected where they form party walls that were external walls to the hall.

3.6 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

In Amendment C142: a) Amend maps 12HO and 15HO to apply HO362 to only 1A Warrick Street and

492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale. b) Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, as exhibited to:

i. Identify the address of the heritage place as including 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale.

ii. Replace “No” with “Yes” under the “Internal Alteration Controls Apply?” column with a notation next to “Yes” to state “only to walls that were originally external to the former Essendon and Flemington Municipal Hall at 1A Warrick Street”.


Page 14 of 22

4 Ascot Vale Hotel (HO367 – Amendment C142)

4.1 The issue

The owner of the Ascot Vale Hotel at 447 – 455 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale made written submission to Council opposing the listing of this site as HO367 in Amendment C142. Council maintains the site is of local significance worthy of being listed in the Heritage Overlay.

4.2 Evidence and submissions

The Thematic Places Heritage Study, 2012 – 14 states the site is significant in summary because:

Of its historical significance as a tangible illustration of the shift in the commercial centre of gravity along Mr Alexander Road from the southern end around the Prince of Wales Hotel and the Flemington and Essendon Borough Hall during the 1860s and 1870s.

It is the second oldest hotel building in the City of Moonee Valley to still retain its original use, opening in 1875.

The written comments of the submitter to Council opposing the listing states the ground floor verandah has been filled in and changed completely. All original ground floor decorative features have been removed. This was not disputed by Council.

The written comments of the submitter to Council states the first floor level of the hotel has a large metal screen that is bolted on to the brick work by “huge metal posts that have caused significant changes to the front of the building”. The submitter states the screen was put in place as a sound barrier and holds a large promotional advertising sign that is leased out and is of high market value, “so there is no chance that it is coming down”.

Ms Schmeder’s evidence was that, whilst it was acknowledged the ground floor had been substantially altered, the building overall retained local significance due to its historical and social connection as identified in the citation.

She commented in writing and verbally that whilst damage may have been done to the upper façade where the screen is bolted on, it remains entirely reversible and the intact upper floor is visible on close inspection. It is its presentation to the street, not its intactness that has been affected. She therefore considered the building fabric is worthy of protection over the long term.

4.3 Discussion

The Panel viewed the site before the Hearing. The Panel shares Ms Schmeder’s view that the bolts holding the screen to the building could be removed. The poles holding the screen are substantive, but they are fixed as small points to the building by bolts connecting a base plate. Standing on the street in front of the building it is possible to view up under the screen and see that the original upper façade remains quite intact.

The significance of the building is derived less from its architectural significance but more from its association as a long standing, early hotel of the area.


Page 15 of 22

The Panel also accepts that whether the sign and screen is ever taken down is a matter to be addressed at the permit application stage for any buildings and works that may be proposed to the site. It does not detract from the fact that the upper level, behind the screen remains extensively intact.

4.4 Conclusions

The Panel finds the Ascot Vale Hotel at 447 – 455 Mt Alexander Road, proposed to be listed as HO367 through Amendment C142 is worthy of protection. No change to the amendment is recommended in relation to this site.


Page 16 of 22

5 Ascot Vale Housing Estate (HO372 – Amendment C143)

5.1 The issue

Amendment C143 proposes to identify part of the Ascot Vale Housing Estate in a Heritage Overlay (HO372). The Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14 identified all of the housing estate comprising over 1000 dwellings including over 800 flats and almost 200 houses set within landscape grounds, established between 1947 and 1955 as significant. At its meeting on 22 April 2014, Council resolved to include only part of the housing estate in HO372, being the areas marked with a typed ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in Figure 1 Ascot Vale Housing Estate as labelled by DHS and further marked and reproduced in David Helms' evidence. DHS opposes the extent of area to be included in the overlay, stating that only an area marked ‘A’, at the south west of the estate should be included in the overlay.

Figure 1 Ascot Vale Housing Estate as labelled by DHS and further marked and reproduced in David Helms' evidence.


Page 17 of 22

5.2 Evidence and submissions

Council submitted that it determined to apply the Heritage Overlay (HO372) only to areas where it would ensure protection of flats that have been designated as significant within the estate and the surrounding contributory land.

The statement of significance identifies that it is the ‘Type A’ flats designed by Best Overend that are of particular architectural and aesthetic significance. This was because of their rarity of features such as stepped form, rooftop drying areas and private balconies. These are circled in Figure 1 with a hand notated and circled ‘A’.

Mr Helm’s evidence was that his primary position was that all of the estate was worthy of listing, as identified in the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14. However, based on the reduced area exhibited by Council his evidence was that whilst the Type ‘A’ flats are specifically mentioned in the statement of significance there is evidence that they were not the only flats designed by Best Overend and not the only flats worthy of protection.

He contended other flat types with similar design features to ‘Type A’ (e.g. rooftop drying areas and laundries and balconies) distinguish them from later flats in the estate and therefore also make them significant. These distinctive features suggest they were also designed by Best Overend, but he had been unable to confirm this. The flats of interest were:

Type 2, notated in Figure 1 as a hand notated and circled ‘2’. These are distinguished by a centrally located rooftop drying area and found only within Area A.

Type 3, notated in Figure 1 as a hand notated and circled ‘3’. These are distinguished by a rooftop drying areas in an almost detached wing at one end found only within Area B.

Mr Helms also noted an error in the citation, with identification of one building at the south west of Area ‘A’ that should be noted as contributory rather than significant. This is marked in Figure 1.

Ms Roberts submitted on behalf of DHS that it acknowledged that all of the estate had some heritage significance. However, she submitted that the acceptance by Council to take a pragmatic approach to the estate by only seeking to include sections of the estate into the overlay was preferred. This was important given the likely future need to update the estate, potentially through public and private partnerships. DHS submitted that applying the overlay only to Area A would enable the greatest proportion of Type A flats to be protected and a good representation of the estate setting and flat types to be retained. Ms Roberts also tabled photographs identifying that Area A was the earliest section constructed in the estate, completed in 1949, compared to Area B, completed in 1951/1952 and C completed in 1950/51.

DHS did not dispute the findings of the heritage study. Its view was simply that as the exhibited amendment had reduced the area of overlay, from the whole estate as first proposed, it could be further reduced to only Part A as it has a good representation of flat types, notably Type A. This would leave Areas B and C free of constraint. DHS identified Area B as having the greatest potential for future development. Its submission does not


Page 18 of 22

dispute the heritage citation, merely that it will impede reasonable management of the large estate.

DHS’s submission did not identify what specific social or economic impact there may be to the area or to the State as a result of applying the overlay. Its submission however, was that applying the overlay too broadly may limit its capacity to upgrade the estate in the future in a manner that can meet user needs and provide housing options consistent with its current social housing framework.

Council contended that the net benefit lay in identifying the areas proposed and then managing these through appropriate controls. Having said this, the reduced area of overlay exhibited in the amendment was made by Council despite the findings of the heritage study and from the submissions of Council it appears to have occurred as a result of submissions to the study that there were significant adverse economic implications for listing post war buildings.

Council also acknowledged that it was willing to work with DHS to consider the use of an incorporated plan to manage elements of the estate to be included in the overlay. This could enable some buildings and works to occur without a planning permit. No such incorporated plan has yet been prepared.

5.3 Discussion

The Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14, which is the strategic basis of the amendment identifies that the Ascot Housing Estate is significant because:

It is a master planned housing estate that incorporates a range of housing types.

The variety of flat designs that demonstrate experimentation with different building types and the inclusion of design features such as roof top drying areas and balconies based on European models. Of note it makes reference to Best Overend designed flats (Type A).

As one of two ‘Metropolitan Feature Estates’ it was intended to be a model example for affordable housing.

It is an intact example of a post war Housing Commission of Victoria estate laid out in accordance with ‘Garden City’ principles and the Commission’s own philosophy of ordered variety.

Based on the statement of significance, it is evident that the basis of significance is not simply in the representation of Type A flats. Although the statement of significance specifically refers to these, it is the variety of flats in a planned estate form that combines to establish the significance of the place.

The Panel accepts that the Type A flats are specifically referenced in the statement of significance. This was not disputed by DHS. It also accepts that type 2 and 3 flats, as referred to on Mr Helms’ notated plan (Figure 1) relevant features including roof top drying areas, balconies as well as pram and bicycle storage that are referred to in the statement. It remains unclear if Best Overend designed the Type B flats, or simply formed part of the panel of architects, based on title block stamped at the corner of all plans referred to the Panel. Based on the submissions and evidence put, it may be more the unusual and


Page 19 of 22

experimental typology of these elements, rather than the specific designer that is of relevance.

The resolution of Council to not include all of the estate was made at a Council meeting and is not clearly explained in any Council report. The Panel agrees that it appears to have taken a pragmatic approach that applying the overlay to the entire estate was too onerous, so sought to confine the listing to a representative example of the estate that comprises the elements of greatest significance. The estate setting of the flats forms the identified significance, in combination with the typology of the buildings themselves. Having determined to remove a large section of the central part of part of the site the significance of place, as described in the statement of significance, has been substantially altered. In particular Area C is now an isolated small pocket that on its own does not clearly exhibit the planned, estate form of the statement of significance. The Panel accepts that Area A and Area B present such a setting that can justify listing in the Heritage Overlay. The statement of significance is clear that it’s the setting of the flats in an estate form, with surrounding landscape that makes the area significant. Both Areas A and Area B, can clearly relate to the reasons why the estate is significant, particularly when combined together.

Retaining Area C, that is a much smaller part of the estate at the opposite end to Areas A and B is more difficult to rationalise as significant in its own right, based on the overall estate statement of significance. By truncating the area of significance, it has isolated Area C to form three Type A buildings with two non contributory buildings in an area well away, physically and visually from Areas A and B. The Type A buildings in Area C are identical in design four Type A buildings in Precinct A. In Areas A and B the combined elements of layout, form and variety of flats can be identified. This is not apparent when Area C is considered in isolation. At its closest point, Area C is 320 metres away from Area A and more than 500 metres from Area B. The topography of the land is such that Area C has no visual connection to the other two areas.

5.4 Conclusions

Given the limited capacity to read the Type A flats in Area C as part of an estate of a variety of flats in a planned form, the Panel concludes that Area C should be removed from HO372. Areas A and B can be clearly read as an estate of a variety of experimental flat types in a landscaped setting as it is described as a fundamental part of the basis of significance of the estate. The Panel considers these have sufficient merit to be placed in the overlay. Whether future redevelopment of Area B should occur, and the extent that it warrants demolition of any significant or contributory elements is a matter that can be assessed at the planning permit stage.

No draft incorporated plan was presented to the Panel but the Panel agrees with Council and DHS that in principle this may be a useful tool to manage works within the areas identified in the proposed overlay. The Panel notes this is a matter that Council could discuss further with DHS.

Finally the Panel notes that Mr Helms acknowledged an error in the citation for significance in the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14 in identifying one significant building in Area A should be identified as contributory. This is identified in


Page 20 of 22

Figure 1. This is an error in what is proposed to be a reference document to the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. It should be corrected prior to adoption of the amendment.

5.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

In Amendment C143 amend map 15HO to remove the part of HO372 that is bounded by Dunlop Avenue, Ascot Vale Road and Wingate Avenue, east of Rothwell Street, Ascot Vale.

Correct the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14 to identify the south west building of Area A, as marked in Figure 1 of this report to be a contributory not significant building.


Page 21 of 22

6 Summary of conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Summary of conclusions

The Panel concludes that:

The Amendments are supported by, and implement, relevant policy. The Moonee Valley Thematic Heritage Studies, 2012 – 14 are sufficiently rigorous to form the basis of Amendments C142 and C143.

The 1862 former Essendon and Flemington Borough building has sufficient local heritage significance to warrant its listing as HO362 to the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. This is enhanced with some aesthetic and representative significance. The extent of the overlay mapping for this site can be reduced to that of the former hall at 1A Warrick Street and the restaurant at 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale. The Panel also considers that internal walls need to be protected where they form party walls, that were external walls to the hall.

The Ascot Vale Hotel at 447 – 455 Mt Alexander Road, proposed to be listed as HO367 through Amendment C142 is worthy of protection. No change to the amendment is recommended in relation to this site.

In relation to the proposed listing of HO372, the area marked Area C in Figure 1 to this report should be removed from HO372. Areas marked A and B can be clearly read as an estate of a variety of experimental flat types in a landscaped setting. The Panel considers these have sufficient merit to be placed in the overlay. No draft incorporated plan was presented to the Panel but the Panel agrees with Council and DHS that in principle this may be a useful tool to manage works within the areas identified in the proposed overlay. The Panel notes this is a matter that Council could discuss further with DHS.

The Panel makes no formal findings on 43 Nimmo Street, given Council resolved to remove the overlay from this property before referring the matter to a Panel.

6.2 Consolidated recommendations

For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendments C142 and C143 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications:

1. In Amendment C142: a) Amend maps 12HO and 15HO to apply HO362 to only 1A Warrick Street and 492 –

494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale. b) Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, as exhibited to:

i. Identify the address of the heritage place as including 492 – 494 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale.

ii. Replace “No” with “Yes” under the “Internal Alteration Controls Apply?” column with a notation next to “Yes” to state “only to walls that were originally external to the former Essendon and Flemington Municipal Hall at 1A Warrick Street”.


Page 22 of 22

2. In Amendment C143 amend map 15HO to remove the part of HO372 that is bounded by Dunlop Avenue, Ascot Vale Road and Wingate Avenue, east of Rothwell Street, Ascot Vale.

3. Correct the Moonee Valley Post War Thematic Precincts Heritage Study 2012 – 14 to identify the south west building of Area A, as marked in Figure 1 of this report to be a contributory not significant building.

planning and environment act panel report/media/files/strategic planning/heritage... · the panel...

Documents