proposed multipurpose building former college church, 149 ... · building at the site. in...

Proposed Multipurpose Building Former College Church, 149 Royal Parade, Parkville

Heritage Impact Statement

May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Location 1 1.3 Heritage Status 2

2 Site Details 2.1 Summary History 4 2.2 Description 7 2.3 Context 10

3 Heritage Impact 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Heritage Considerations 12 3.3 Proposal 14 3.4 Demolition 14 3.5 New Multi-Purpose Building 14 3.6 Associated Landscaping 15 3.7 Conservation Works 16 3.8 Conclusion 16

Appendix A Statements of Significance

Appendix B Condition Report

Appendix C Business Plan for the Conservation of the Mar Thoma Church Parkville

149 ROYAL PARADE, PARKVILLE HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT

RBA ARCHITECTS + CONSERVATION CONSULTANTS 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

This heritage impact statement accompanies a heritage permit application for a proposed multipurpose building beside

the north and west sides of the former College Church at 149 Royal Parade, Parkville. The former College Church is

included on the Victorian Heritage Register (H0394).

This document has been prepared by RBA Architects + Conservation Consultants on behalf of the Melbourne Mar

Thoma Church and provides an assessment of the heritage impact of the proposal on the heritage values of the former

College Church. It has been prepared in accordance with the Heritage Impact Statement Guidelines adopted by the

Heritage Council of Victoria (June 2004).

Background Consultation has taken place with Heritage Victoria in relation to previous schemes for a multipurpose amenities

building at the site. In developing the current proposal, the architect and church congregation have sought to respond

to the feedback received from Heritage Victoria.

1.2 Location

The subject site is bound on the east side by Royal Parade (formerly known as Sydney Road), and on the west side by

The Avenue.

Aerial photograph showing approximate boundaries of the subject site (Source: Nearmap, showing December 2016)



1.3 Heritage Status

The former College Church is included on the following heritage lists/registers. Refer to Appendix A for the Victorian

Heritage Register and the National Trust statements of significance.

List/Register Identification Statutory/Non-Statutory

Victorian Heritage Register 'Former College Church'

H0394

Statutory

(responsible authority)

Melbourne Planning

Scheme – Schedule to the

Heritage Overlay

'Former College Church'

HO312

Statutory

Register of the National

Trust of Australia [Victoria]

'Former Presbyterian College Church & Organ'

B4060

Non-Statutory

Register of the National

Estate

'Parkville Uniting Church'

ID: 5299

Non-Statutory Archive

1.3.1 Victorian Heritage Register

The following diagram shows the extent of registration associated with the VHR registration (H0394). Registration

includes the church building (B1) and all of the land (L1).

Extent of Registration Diagram (Source: VHD)



1.3.2 Melbourne Planning Scheme

The following detail from the Heritage Overlay Map shows HO312.

Heritage Overlay Map No. 5HO, showing HO312 (Source: Planning Schemes Online)



2 SITE DETAILS

2.1 Summary History

The College Church congregation (Presbyterian) was formed in 1891 and meetings were held in Wyselaskie Hall,

Ormond College.1 In 1895 they purchased the subject site on Sydney Road (now Royal Parade).2 At that time, there

was a plantation on the land now occupied by the reserve, the church and the tennis club.

MMBW detail plan no.1148, dated 1899 (the new church is not represented on this plan though completed the year before). The star represents the approximate location of the church. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

A design competition was held for a new Presbyterian church, which was won by the architect R A Lawson. The church

was constructed by Lang Brothers of Parkville at a cost of £2,170. It was opened in August 1898.3 The following

description was provided in the Leader:

The dimensions of the church are 84 feet by 42 feet external measurement, and the tower at its south-eastern angle is 16 feet square, seating accommodation being provided for 300 by present arrangements; but at small comparative expenditure provision is made for extensive enlargement. The principal entrances are on the eastern front, facing Sydney-road, through central porch and tower, into a spacious vestibule, which is divided off from the main body of building by a pierced gothic screen, with folding doors leading into aisles. The floor falls from the screen towards the western end, so as to give the seats full command of the platform. The design is that of the later style of decorated gothic, the tower terminating with that peculiar feature known as the crown spire, of which there are few, if any, examples in the colonies, those best known in Scotland being that of St Giles, in Edinburgh, and that of College Chapel, in Aberdeen.4

A timber picket fence was erected to the boundary and a small brick and stone outbuilding (extant)5 was built to the

rear of the church.

1 Weekly Times, 13 August 1898, p13 2 VHR citation for the Former College Church 3 Weekly Times, 13 August 1898, p13 4 Leader [supplement], 13 August 1898, p7 5 The outbuilding contained two closets (male and female) and two urinals



College Church in 1898 (Source: Weekly Times, 13 August 1898, p12)

MMBW detail base plan no.1148, dated 1899. The current land parcel is defined. (Source: Public Record Office Victoria)



Internal layout, dated 1942 (Source: PROV, Public Building File (no.5990), VPRS 7882, P1, unit 739)

The church's distinctive crown tower was the choice of the first minister, the Reverend Alexander Yule. It is based on

that of the King's College Chapel (1498-1509) at Aberdeen University in Scotland, of which Rev. Yule was a former

student. It is the only example of a crown tower in Victoria, and is possibly unique in Australia.

In 1903, five years after the church was opened, the pipe organ was completed and installed in the central recess. It

was built by George Fincham and Son (Richmond), with Professor Franklin Peterson as consultant.

The College Church was the only parish church in Parkville until 1934.

Kings College Chapel, Aberdeen University, Scotland (Source: https://linneea.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/university-of-aberdeen/)

College Church, Parkville, 1978 – prior to the dismantling of the crown spire. (Source: J T Collins, SLV, H98.250/1482)



During the 1940s and again in the 1960s some minor internal alterations were undertaken by prominent church

architect, Louis Williams. In 1942 the organ was moved to its current position in the north recess, and the doors behind

permanently blocked.6 It is believed that Williams designed some new joinery and furniture pieces at this time (such as

the panelling in the sanctuary, pulpit and lectern). In 1963, the fretwork in the upper panels of the screen to the narthex

was removed and replaced with glass, and the ceiling to the narthex was introduced.7

In 1977, the church became part of the Uniting Church of Australia. Ownership subsequently passed in 2008 to the

Melbourne parish of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, a Syrian Christian church from the state of Kerala, India. Members

of the Mar Thoma Church began to arrive in Australia from the late 1960s, initially meeting in members' homes and

later in local churches – the former College Church in Parkville was their first own church building in Australia.8

Robert Arthur Lawson (1833-1902) The Scottish born architect Robert Arthur Lawson trained under James Gillespie Graham, who was closely associated

with the eminent architect Augustus Pugin (one of leading proponents of the Gothic Revival style). Lawson migrated to

Victoria in 1854 where for the next seven years he engaged in various occupations, including as an architect.9

In 1862 Lawson won a competition for the design of the First Church of Otago and moved to Dunedin, New Zealand,

where he stayed for twenty-eight years. He undertook a range of ecclesiastical, commercial, public and domestic work,

however he was foremost a church architect, designing over 40 churches.

In 1890, he returned to Melbourne for a period of ten years, during which time he won the competition for the design of

the College Church at Parkville. Other commissions included a warehouse for Moran and Cato in Fitzroy, and in

partnership with Frederick Williams Grey, Earlesbrae Hall in Essendon.

In 1900 Lawson returned to Dunedin, where he continued practicing, until his death in 1902.

Louis Reginald Williams (1890-1980) Tasmanian born Louis Williams was a prominent church architect from the 1920s to the 1970s who worked in the Arts

and Crafts tradition. His practice was based in Melbourne and later Brighton, although he worked in all states. His

primary client was the Anglican Church and he was diocesan architect for Bathurst and Grafton in NSW.10

2.2 Description

The design of the church is influenced by the English 'Free Decorated Style' (14th century). The church is largely

rectangular in plan and constructed primarily of red brick with decorative dressings (crown, finials, tracery, copings) in

Oamaru limestone.11 The walls are English bond, and there is evidence of black tuck-pointing and a red wash.

The slate-clad gable roof (recently re-clad) is steeply pitched, with smaller transverse gables to the sides. There is

decorative metal cresting to the ridges, ventilating dormers to the main roof, and fleches to the side gables (note the

fleches were not part of the original design).

The composition is broadly symmetrical, with a typically offset tower at the south east corner. The stone crown spire is

a distinctive feature (although it has has been partially dismantled due to poor condition), as is the carved

representation of the 'burning bush' above the main entrance (the burning bush is symbolic of the Presbyterian Church

in Australia). Each elevation is well articulated with openings in the Gothic pointed arch style, parapeted gables, and

obelisk like finials to corners. The lancet windows are either single or grouped in twos or threes, some with upper

quatrefoils, and have settings of relatively plain tracery. The paired timber doors have decorative hinges.

6 Correspondence dated 1942, PROV, Public Building File (no.5990), VPRS 7882, P1, unit739 7 Plan dated February 1963 'Alterations to Narthex', PROV, Public Building File (no.5990), VPRS 7882, P1, unit739 8 Melbourne Mar Thoma Church website, accessed 10.04.2017,

http://melbournemarthomachurch.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=27 9 This section derived from: Johnathon Mane-Wheoki, 'Lawson, Robert Arthur', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the

Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30.10.2012 10 Philip Goad and Julie Willis (eds), The Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture, p765 11 Oamaru is a town on New Zealand's south island. R A Lawson used Oamaru stone for many of the buildings, including churches, he

designed during his time practicing in New Zealand.



Front façade

Rear

North elevation, note tennis court fencing.

South elevation

Apart from the very poor and dangerous condition of the stone crown spire, the church is in an otherwise reasonably

good condition. There are some areas of deterioration such as mortar loss, stone damage and cracking to the rendered

plinth. In addition to the crown spire, various other original decorative stone elements are missing, such as the cross to

the façade. A recent condition report for the site (RBA, 2016) is attached at appendix B.

Site The boundaries of the site are unusual in that they are not all readily defined and there are no associated fences. To

the east and west there are footpaths, and to the north there is the tennis court fence however it is not built to the

actual boundary. The land to the south blends with the reserve.

Interior The interior of the Church has a largely rectangular plan, with shallow transepts and a side entry porch. At the western

end there are three Gothic arch recesses. In the north recess there is a pipe organ, initially installed in the sanctuary in

1903, and moved to its current position in 1942. The organ essentially remains in its original state, although it is no

longer playable. The sanctuary/apse is in the central recess. In the south recess there is a door leading to the rear

porch and vestry. At the eastern end of the church there is a narthex.

The timber ceiling (possibly Kauri) is arranged in a herringbone pattern and has arch braces and decorative vents (part

of former gas light units). There are many stained glass windows, the two largest being dedicated to Mungo Scott and

his wife, Scott having been a benefactor of the Church. The smaller windows have diamond quarrels with some

coloured glass. The floor to the nave is raked, and there is carpet throughout.



The western wall. The organ is on the right.

The joinery and furniture date to various times. The pews, the low screen wall on the north side of the chancel, and the

panelling in the south recess appear to date to the original construction. The pulpit, lectern, panelling to the apse, and

narthex partitioning date to the 1940s when internal changes were made by architect Louis Williams.

The interior, eastern wall. Note the glazed narthex partition.

Toilet Block The toilet block, like the church, has red brick walls in English bond, with two separate courses of stone banding

(probably also Oamaru limestone). The original roof (corrugated iron at least partly hidden behind parapeted walls) has

been altered and replaced with a visible flat roof of corrugated sheet metal atop an open-sided timber frame. The

arched brickwork at the base of the west wall indicates the original location of the pans.



The toilet block

2.3 Context

Adjacent to the north of the subject site is the Parkville Tennis Club, who have occupied the location since 1912.

Surrounding the three tennis courts, including along the full length of the northern boundary of the subject site, is a

cyclone wire fence several metres in height. The fence is prominent in views of the church from the north. In views from

the south, the fence and green sheeting, is visible forward of, and to the rear of, the church building.

Adjacent to the south is a reserve of open lawn with a centrally placed stone WW1 memorial.

View of the church building from the south, with the reserve and the WWI memorial in the foreground. The tennis court fencing is visible behind the church.

Opposite the subject site is the University of Melbourne, and to the west is Royal Park. Both Royal Parade and The

Avenue are tree lined.



The following table lists the places adjoining the subject site which have been identified either in the Victorian Heritage

Register or the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

Adjoining Place Listings

The Reserve and Memorial

(161-163 Gatehouse Street)

Victorian Heritage Register (Royal Park, H2337)

Heritage Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme (Royal Park, HO1093)

Royal Parade Victorian Heritage Register (Royal Parade, H2198)

Heritage Overlay (Royal Parade, HO977)

The Avenue (section adjacent to the

subject site)

Victorian Heritage Register (Royal Park, H2337)

Heritage Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme (Royal Park, HO1093)

Parkville Tennis Club

(151-153 Royal Parade)

Heritage Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme (Parkville Precinct, HO4)



3 HERITAGE IMPACT

3.1 Introduction

This section provides an assessment of the proposal's impact upon the heritage values of the former College Church

(VHR - H0394, Heritage Overlay HO312). It also considers the impact on the surrounding heritage places (Royal Park

– VHR H2337 / Heritage Overlay HO1093, Royal Parade – VHR H2198 / Heritage Overlay HO977, and the Parkville

Precinct – Heritage Overlay HO4).

3.2 Heritage Considerations

3.2.1 Heritage Act

As the church is included on the VHR, Heritage Victoria is the responsible authority. The following provisions from

Section 73 of the Heritage Act (1995) are relevant in relation to determining applications:

(1) In determining an application for a permit, the Executive Director must consider—

(a) the extent to which the application, if approved, would affect the cultural heritage significance of the registered place or registered object;

(b) the extent to which the application, if refused, would affect the reasonable or economic use of the registered place or object, or cause undue financial hardship to the owner in relation to the place;

(f) any matters relating to the protection and conservation of the place or object that the Executive Director considers relevant.

(1A) In determining an application for a permit, the Executive Director may consider—

(a) the extent to which the application, if approved, would affect the cultural heritage significance of any adjacent or neighbouring property that is—

(i) subject to a heritage requirement or control in the relevant planning scheme; or

(ii) included in the Heritage Register; and

(b) any other relevant matter.

As outlined in the statement of significance (refer appendix A), the former College Church is '… architecturally

significant as an unusual example of a late Victorian, Gothic revival church. The church is particularly significant for its

rare crown steeple surmounting the tower …'. It is also '… of architectural significance for its particularly fine

ecclesiastical furniture and fittings …, the stained glass windows and the stone carving of a Burning Bush in the

parapet of the porch ...'. In addition, it is also … 'socially significant for the prominent part it continues to play in the life

of the Parkville community and as a landmark building on one of Melbourne's premier boulevards ... [and] historically

important as a rare example of a building constructed at the height of the 1890s depression …'.

There are no permit policies or exemptions applicable to the former College Church.

3.2.2 Melbourne Planning Scheme

The subject site is affected by a heritage overlay (HO312) and as such the heritage provisions of the Melbourne

Planning Scheme which are principally outlined at Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy)12 and Clause 43.01 (Heritage

Overlay) are relevant. There are also heritage provisions at Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and at Clause

21.06 (Municipal Strategic Statement).

Clause 22.05 The relevant parts of Clause 22.05 are reproduced below.

Objectives

To conserve all parts of buildings of historic, social or architectural interest which contribute to the significance, character and appearance of the building, streetscape or area.

12 Amendment C258, currently on public exhibition, proposes to revise clause 22.05 and provide a new statement of significance for

the Parkville Precinct HO4 (amongst other changes).



To ensure that new development, and the construction or external alteration of buildings, make a positive contribution to the built form and amenity of the area and are respectful to the architectural, social or historic character and appearance of the streetscape and the area.

Demolition Before deciding on an application for demolition of a graded building the responsible authority will consider as appropriate:

The degree of its significance.

The character and appearance of the building or works and its contribution to the architectural, social or historic character and appearance of the streetscape and the area.

Whether the demolition or removal of any part of the building contributes to the long term conservation of the significant fabric of that building.

Whether the demolition or removal is justified for the development of land or the alteration of, or addition to, a building.

Designing New Buildings and Works or Additions to Existing Buildings Form The external shape of a new building, and of an addition to an existing building, should be respectful in a Level 1 or 2 streetscape, or interpretive in a Level 3 streetscape. Facade Pattern and Colours The facade pattern and colours of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should be respectful where visible in a Level 1 streetscape, and interpretive elsewhere. Materials The surface materials of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should always be respectful. Details The details (including verandahs, ornaments, windows and doors, fences, shopfronts and advertisements) of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should preferably be interpretive, that is, a simplified modern interpretation of the historic form rather than a direct reproduction. Concealment of Higher Rear Parts (Including Additions) Higher rear parts of a new building, and of an addition to an existing graded building, should be concealed in a Level 1 streetscape, and partly concealed in a Level 2 and 3 streetscape. Also, additions to outstanding buildings (‘A’ and ‘B’ graded buildings anywhere in the municipality) should always be concealed. In most instances, setting back a second-storey addition to a single-storey building, at least 8 metres behind the front facade will achieve concealment. These provisions do not apply to land within Schedule 5 to the Capital City Zone (City North). Facade Height and Setback (New Buildings) The facade height and position should not dominate an adjoining outstanding building in any streetscape, or an adjoining contributory building in a Level 1 or 2 streetscape. Generally, this means that the building should neither exceed in height, nor be positioned forward of, the specified adjoining building. Conversely, the height of the facade should not be significantly lower than typical heights in the streetscape. The facade should also not be set back significantly behind typical building lines in the streetscape. These provisions do not apply to land within Schedule 5 to the Capital City Zone (City North). Building Height The height of a building should respect the character and scale of adjoining buildings and the streetscape. New buildings or additions within residential areas consisting of predominantly single and two-storey terrace houses should be respectful and interpretive. Sites of Historic or Social Significance An assessment of a planning application should take into account all aspects of the significance of the place. Consideration should be given to the degree to which the existing fabric demonstrates the historic and social significance of the place, and how the proposal will affect this significance. Particular care should be taken in the assessment of cases where the diminished architectural condition of the place is outweighed by its historic or social value.

Design and Development Overlay The subject site is also affected by a Design and Development Overlay (DDO35 - Area A1) with the objective of

maintaining the setting and character of Royal Park and Royal Parade. The DDO sets out maximum building heights

and minimum setbacks, the relevant sections as follows:

Height Setbacks

10m within a distance of 30m from Royal Parade.

10m within a distance of 19.5m from The Avenue.

13.5m from Royal Parade and The Avenue.

6m from all side boundaries.



3.3 Proposal

In developing the current proposal, the architect and church congregation have sought to respond to feedback received

from consultation with Heritage Victoria in relation to previous iterations of the proposal for a second building at the

site, and have worked to resolve a low impact solution. Previous schemes have included a much larger part two, part

three storey building incorporating a vicarage, and a single storey building (greater in height than the current proposal)

involving interventions to the existing church and prominent fencing.

Overview of Current Proposal The current application is outlined on a set of drawings prepared by Whitnall Designs and dated 15.04.2017 (revision

R2). In summary, the proposal would involve:

Demolition of the extant brick and stone toilet block,

Construction of a single storey (partially sunk), freestanding multipurpose building sited to the west/rear and north

sides of the existing church,

Landscaping.

There are no alterations/interventions being proposed to the former College Church building.

In addition, it is intended to carry out a program of conservation works to the former College Church building.

3.4 Demolition

It is proposed to demolish the extant toilet block to make way for the new multipurpose building. Although

contemporary with the church, it has been altered (the roof was originally hidden behind parapets) and is a modest and

relatively undistinguished ancillary building. Moreover it is in a relatively poor condition and does not meet current

standards/expectations for toilet facilities. It has not been identified in the statement of significance or the extent of

registration.

The stone and bricks, which match the church building, would be retained for potential reuse in repairs to the church.

The removal of the toilet block would have limited impact on the heritage values of the former College Church.

3.5 New Multipurpose Building

The proposed multipurpose building would provide much needed amenities for the sizable church community of about

320 families, including updated toilet facilities, a kitchen, and meeting/multipurpose spaces. The existing toilet facilities

(housed in a separate block to the rear of the church) are in poor condition and do not provide for universal access.

Currently, there is no kitchen at the site to prepare morning tea etc. and there is no space for socialising or meetings

apart from inside the church itself. A separate amenities building is required as it is not appropriate to introduce toilet

and kitchen facilities inside the church building, nor are the existing spaces in the church suited to meetings or

socialising.

Siting and Setbacks The subject site presents a relatively unusual situation in that there is no opportunity to conceal a new addition. The

church is exposed on all sides and is able to be, and was designed to be, viewed in the round. Nonetheless, the front

and south sides, which incorporate the tower and have broad views due to the adjacent reserve, are arguably the key

elevations.

The proposed siting of the new addition, to the north-west and north side of the church (i.e. away from the key

elevations), was selected to have the least impact on the heritage values of the church, and also views from Royal

Parade. It is noted that the extant 1898 toilet block is an historical precedent for a service/ancillary building sited to the

north-west of the church - although a comparatively smaller building, the toilet block demonstrates the original solution

to siting an amenities addition so as to have the least impact on key views to the church as possible.

The multipurpose building would be freestanding, set back from the north side of the church between 1.2m and 1.65m

and set back 2m from the west side. Steel mesh screens would lightly meet the church at two points, to secure the



walkway between the church and the new building. As a freestanding building not requiring any interventions into

significant fabric, the building could be readily removed if required in the future.

At the eastern end, it would be set back over 5m from the front of the church (a depth of one and a half bays), allowing

the front part of the church to maintain its prominence.

To the rear, the new building would occupy much of the north-west corner of the site, to the north corner of the vestry.

A lightweight pergola would extend southward in front of the vestry to provide some weather protection for people

moving between the church and the multipurpose building.

Height The proposed building would be partially sunk below ground level to reduce its impact on views to the north side of the

church, and would have higher and lower components. The ground would be excavated to a depth of between 1.2m

and 0.4m (the natural ground level falls to the rear part of the site).

While the screen component at the eastern end would be about 2.9m high, the majority of the eastern part of the

building, at about 1.8m, would sit below the stone banding at the base of the windows on the church's north elevation.

The low height would allow for the retention of views to much of the north elevation. The western part of the building, at

the rear/ of the church, would step up in height to between 2.9m and 3.5m.

Materials and Detailing The proposed building would have a flat roof and a restrained contemporary appearance that would be deferential to

the church. The material palette for the walls would primarily consist of black steel mesh screens (fixed and foldable)

and Colorbond sandwich wall panels in four colours (in the blue/grey spectrum). In addition, the coloured patterned

walls to the north-west section (beneath the foldable mesh screens) would be a contemporary interpretation of stained

glass. The distinct concrete plinth would relate to that of the church.

The proposed 'green' (vegetated) roof would provide a delightful aspect to the otherwise modest and restrained

building and would help to integrate the proposed building into its park surroundings.

Design and Development Overlay The Design and Development Overlay which applies to the site (as well as other properties in the vicinity) requires

minimum setbacks of 13.5m from Royal Parade and The Avenue and 6m from all side boundaries. With regard to the

subject site, compliance with these requirements as they stand is problematic as they seemingly make any form of new

development at the site an impossibility (applying the setbacks would only allow development upon the area already

occupied by the church).

However a separate amenities building is essential to the ongoing viable/reasonable use of the church building by the

Mar Thoma Church community. Continuation of the church use of the building is in turn fundamental to its significance

and care. The proposed new building would be modest and recessive, and would not negatively impact on the setting

and character of Royal Park and Royal Parade, which is the objective of the DDO.

The height of the proposed building would be well below the 10m maximum required by the Design and Development

Overlay.

3.6 Associated Landscaping

In addition to the green roof, low plantings would be introduced at ground level around the perimeter of the proposed

multipurpose building, further helping to blend it into the park setting.

It is proposed to largely adapt the existing paving to the front and rear of the church with some rearrangement to

accommodate the entrances to the proposed multi-purpose building – the existing predominantly lawn setting would be

retained.



3.7 Conservation Works

It is intended that a program of conservation works to address areas of deterioration will be undertaken to the church

building in stages over the course of the next 12 years, subject to funding availability. Refer to appendices B and C for

a condition report on the church building and the Mar Thoma Church's plan for conservation works.

The first of the works to be addressed would be to make safe the crown spire which is in a poor and dangerous

condition – the effectiveness of the existing scaffolding and restraints, which have been in place for some time, is

questionable. In addition to securing the safety of the site, this would also assist in preventing further loss of fabric and

preparing the tower for future conservation/reconstruction work. Subsequent stages would include works such as

repairs to the stonework, reinstatement/reconstruction of missing elements, and repointing areas of mortar loss.

3.8 Conclusion

Overall, the works proposed, including demolition of the existing toilet block and construction of a single storey

(partially sunk), freestanding multipurpose building, would have limited negative impact on the heritage values of the

former College Church (VHR - H0394, Heritage Overlay HO312) and adjacent heritage listed places.

A separate amenities building at the site is an essential and reasonable requirement for the ongoing viable use of the

church building for its original church purpose. While the subject site presents many challenges to locating a new

addition, including the exposed nature of the site and its context of adjacent heritage listed sites, the proposed modest

multipurpose building responds respectfully to the heritage sensitivities of the site and context, and balances heritage

and amenity imperatives. The building would be freestanding, set below the height of key features to the church's

northern elevation, and of a simple neutral design that would not compete with the church.



Appendix A – Statements of Significance

VHR Statement of Significance – Former College Church

What is significant?

The College Church congregation initially worshipped in Ormond College in 1891. In 1895 they purchased the site of the present

building. A committee set out certain specifications (including the crown tower), and a competition for the best design was won

by architect RA Lawson. The building, constructed by Lang Brothers of Parkville at a cost of 2,170 pounds, was opened in 1898.

College Church remained the only parish church in Parkville until 1934. The outstanding element is the crown tower, a choice of

the first minister, the Reverend Alexander Yule. It is a copy, albeit on a reduced scale, of King's College Chapel, Aberdeen

University, of which Reverend Yule was a former student. This crown tower is the only example in Victoria and is possibly unique

in Australia.

The church is constructed of red brick and Oamaru sandstone with a steeply pitched slate roof and parapeted gables. Windows

are in the Gothic pointed arch style. The interior of the Church has a fine timber ceiling with arch braces. There are a number of

quality stained glass windows, the two largest being dedicated to Mungo Scott and his wife, Scott having been a benefactor of

the Church. The late nineteenth century pipe organ was built by George Fincham and Son (Richmond), with Professor Franklin

Peterson as consultant, and was completed in November 1903. In the 1940s College Church was internally re-ordered and this

work was designed by prominent church architect, Louis Williams. The church became part of the Uniting Church in Australia in

1977, and ownership subsequently passed to Mar Thoma Syrian Church in 2008.

How is it significant?

The former College Church is of architectural, social and historical significance to the State of Victoria.

Why is it significant?

The former College Church is architecturally significant as an unusual example of a late Victorian, Gothic revival church. The

church is particularly significant for its rare crown steeple surmounting the tower, the only known example in Australia and a rare

example internationally. The building is important as an example of the work of the architect Robert A Lawson who designed a

number of buildings in Victoria for the Presbyterian Church. The church is of architectural significance for its particularly fine

ecclesiastical furniture and fittings such as the pulpit, lectern, communion table and fixed seating and panelling in the apse

designed by Louis Williams in the 1940s. Additionally, the stained glass windows and the stone carving of a Burning Bush in the

parapet of the porch are significant architectural elements to the composition.

The former College Church is socially significant for the prominent part it continues to play in the life of the Parkville community

and as a landmark building on one of Melbourne's premier boulevards, Royal Parade. The building, which maintains strong

associations with the nearby Theological Hall of Ormond College, is historically and socially important as a manifestation of the

development of the Presbyterian faith in Victoria in the twentieth century.

The former College Church is historically important as a rare example of a building constructed at the height of the 1890s

depression when virtually all building operations ceased in Victoria.

National Trust Statement of Significance – Former Presbyterian College Church and Organ

Church Statement of Significance

A church of great interest for its crown tower, inspired by mediaeval Scottish precedents and thought to be unique in Australia. It

was designed by the Scottish born architect R A Lawson and built in 1898 of red brick with Oamaur limestone dressings. The

interior includes numerous stained glass windows and an intact pipe organ built in 1903 by Fincham & Son. (Classified:

18/05/1989 Revised: 03/08/1998)

Organ Statement of Significance

A two-manual organ of 16 stops built in 1903 by George Fincham & Son, (shortly after Fincham took his son into partnership),

and remaining in essentially original state apart from being moved from the central apse to a side porch c.1940 when minor

physical adaptations took place. The instrument, which retains its original tubular-pneumatic action employing large-bore tubing

and cone tuning, exhibits all of the hallmarks of excellence of the firm's late 19th century instruments with only subtle differences

in the design of the console components. (Classified: 01/10/1990)



Appendix B – Condition Report (RBA, 2016)

Limitations: The advice provided in this report by the authors is for the internal use of the project team as indicated above for this project only. Its contents are copyright and not

intended for broader circulation, unless issued under the cover of the Principal Consultant | Contract Administrator.


HERITAGE ARCHITECT’S SITE VISIT REPORT

Project: College Church (fmr) Project No: 2015.27A

Location: 149 Royal Parade, Parkville Stage: Pre-Design

Owner: Mar Thoma Church, Melbourne HASVR No: 01

Victorian Heritage Register / Heritage Overlay

H0394 (VHR), HO312 (Melbourne Planning Scheme).

Place of Visit: Project Site

RBA Personnel: Roger Beeston + Alistair Ravenscroft

Date of Visit: 02 February 2016

Pages: 12 Weather: Clear skies.

Distribution:

☒ Owner att: Rev’d Thomas Joseph (Building Committee Convenor)

☒ Architect att: Ben Whitnall (Whitnall Design)

cc.

☐ Heritage Authority att: XXXX (HV) ☐ Planning Authority att: XXXX (CoM)

Subject

01 Crown Tower + Main Church Building: Visual Observations 01.1 Summary

RBA were engaged by the Owner to undertake a high-level non-destructive site visit to report on the current condition of the main church building (from ground level) and the crown (from an elevated work platform). We did not investigate the condition of the out-building and building services generally. Our observations are summarised below. We draw specific attention to the parlous condition of the temporary propping of the crown steeple and its deteriorated state – it is evident no conservation works have occurred recently and unlikely beyond the previous stabilisation/propping of the crown steeple. We urge a safety audit and conservation approach be promptly undertaken by specialist heritage personnel (architect and structural engineer) for the place, with focus upon the substantial crown steeple/tower. It is recommended a budget allowance in the order of $500,000 excl GST is set-aside for conservation works to the crown steeple/church tower. Ahead of this, it is recommended urgent works to manage public + occupant safety are undertaken – this may involve the installation of a fixed scaffold or crash-deck.

01.2 Building Description

The place is identified as being of significance to the state of Victoria.1 Heritage Victoria identify the building, constructed by the Lang Brothers to designs of R A Lawson,2 opened in 1898. The church is identified as being of architectural significance as an unusual example of a late Victorian, Gothic revival

1 Heritage Council of Victoria: Heritage Database, place id: H0394, accessible at: http://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/905 2 The Scottish born architect Robert Arthur Lawson trained under James Gillespie Graham, who was closely associated with the Gothic Revival

architect Augustus Pugin. After initial migration to Victoria in 1854, he returned in 1890 following a 28 year period in Dunedin (New Zealand). During this time, he undertook a range of ecclesiastical, commercial, public and domestic work, however he was foremost a church architect, designing over 40 churches. Upon his return to Melbourne, he won the competition for College Church, ahead of his later return to Dunedin in 1900 – refer: Johnathon Mane-Wheoki, 'Lawson, Robert Arthur', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30.10.2012.


Project: College Church (fmr) Project No: 2015.27

Stage: Pre-Design HASVR No: HASVR-01

2 RBA ARCHITECTS + CONSERVATION CONSULTANTS

style and in particular, for its rare crown steeple (identified as a facsimile - albeit of a smaller scale - to one at King's College Chapel, Aberdeen University) surmounting the tower (thought to be the only example in Australia, and rare internationally). It is recognised as being constructed of tuck-pointed English (cross) solid-wall bond red brick with Oamaru (New Zealand) limestone3 dressings, a steeply pitched slate roof with parapeted gables and, pointed-gothic arch stained lead-light windows. The interior of the Church has a fine timber ceiling with arch braces and generally appears in good condition.

01.3 Site Visit Observations

NOTE: Timeframes: U = Urgent (<6 months), E = Essential (between 6 months - 24 months), R = Recommended (< 5yrs). Budget Allowance excl. are indicative, raw-trade price allowances and do not take account of site specific factors/ works staging, based on the limited information known..

REF Element Observations

$Bud

get

Allo

wan

ce

(exc

l GST

)

Prio

rity

Photograph [App 1]

EXTERIOR

CS Crown Steeple

1. The medieval crown supported on flying buttresses emanating from a castellated parapet atop the tower is thought to have consisted of an octagonal, colonnaded drum (ornamental cresting, entablature, blind trefoil niches, base) surmounted with an open medieval crown topped with a cross-mounted orb (all no longer extant).

2. The extant portions of the crown (buttress with croquette cresting, stepped piers surmounted by decorative pedimentted finials (varying levels of decoration/corbelled bases), terminated by bosses and pinnacles) appears of variable condition. This has been capped (at the level of the top of the crown base) by sheet metal where the medieval crown is no longer, with the remainder propped by tubular metal scaffold components atop timber planking (refer below).

3. There are several portions of stone missing/substantially deteriorated to the finials and ornaments are missing from piers. The internal stone beading to the buttresses has become delaminated in parts and is loose. The pinning/ connection detail between remnant blocks is unknown and should be further investigated.

4. The remnant dimensioned/ carved stone exhibits substantial deterioration in the form of: cracking/ fracturing (variable extent, incl. suspected structural cracking of blocks/ elements), previous mortar repairs (local), splitting, blistering/ bursting/ de-lamination of surface/ case-hardened layer,

$400,000 – $600,000

E 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

3 HV identify its construction as being of sandstone, though the region is known for its (neutral white/cream) limestone deposits which have been

quarried since the 1860s.






$Bud

get

Allo

wan

ce

(exc

l GST

)

Prio

rity

Photograph [App 1]

erosion of carved portions, crumbling/ powdering, pitting, splintering, fragmenting/ peeling, spalling/ erosion.

5. The yellow/mustard crust appears to be well established to the principal weather exposed/projecting portions of the finials (where extant).

6. The extent of weathering soiling/biological growth to stone appears reflective of the apparent age of the stone and generally appears undisturbed by previous works.

7. Suspected lighting conductor rod/cable fixing points (incl holes) + wire remains, though is extensively rusted and is likely to be ineffective.

SP Crown Steeple – Propping

1. Scaffold extensively rusted and residual load capacity/ effectiveness questionable.

2. Restraint/integrity questionable as appears to be insecurely placed on deteriorated/decayed sections of timber packing.

$50,000 – fixed scaffold, refer Summary.

U 6, 7, 8, 9

LB Dimensioned Limestone blocks, copings + dressings

1. Similar to the crown steeple, the castellated parapet stone, buttress finials, tower stones, coping stones and stone dressings exhibit deterioration in the form of: missing portions (esp. caps/ornaments), cracking/ fracturing (variable extent, incl. suspected structural cracking of blocks/ elements), blistering/ bursting/ de-lamination of surface/ case-hardened layer (to recesses within carved portions) crumbling/ powdering, pitting, splintering, fragmenting/ peeling, spalling/ erosion of run-carved portions, especially at projecting/rain shield locations.

2. Rust staining (leeching from scaffold) to stone (from scaffold).

3. The extent of weathering soiling/biological growth to stone appears undisturbed by previous works.

4. Surface discolouration of wall dressings where flush/abutting brickwork and metallic content of window grilles, possibly due to erosion/leeching of stopping mortar, especially at lower level.

$50,000 – $100,000

E 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22

MP Dimension Stone – Mortar pointing

1. Cracking, crumbling, dislodgement and substantial loss of pointing mortar to pointed/articulated joints, resulting in loose/ dislodgment of dimensioned stone blocks.

$10,000 (Allow $100/ lin. m)

E 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

BW Brickwork construction (incl. mortar)

1. Brick construction appears sound and no obvious fatigue/mis-alignment is evident.

$10,000 R 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21






$Bud

get

Allo

wan

ce

(exc

l GST

)

Prio

rity

Photograph [App 1]

2. There is local cracking/erosion of bricks at arises and dislodgement of partial bricks where abutting stone dressings, which also demonstrates rough-cut original construction.

3. Locally, there is vertical cracking to random bricks, as well as underlying brick fabrication/ (under-)firing cracking/fatigue evident due to the age/weathering of the bricks.

TP Brick tuck-pointing.

1. Variable rate of fading/ erosion of black-lines (suspected as a result of weather exposure/orientation – local sections evident in well protected locations).

2. Substantial loss of coloured stopping mortar (nom. 10-15mm set-back from brick face), revealing coloured stopping and/or construction mortar.

$25,000 R 10, 14, 17

SR Slate Roof Tiles

1. Owner advises re-slating works recently completed (scope unknown, incl. breathable membrane), incl. replacement of cappings (metal unknown?) and under-flashings. Step-flashings to brickwork appear not to have been re-worked as part of these works.

2. Slate appears new (<5 yrs old), though there is local dislodgement/mis-alignment and narrow (<3mm) or too large (>10mm) gaps between slates and local loose slates where appears only a single fixing used for cut slates at multiple locations, especially about vents.

$2,500 R 15, 16

CV Cresting + Vents

1. Iron cresting re-instated atop ridge cappings.

2. Appears metal vents and ridge finials have been replaced as part of re-slating works.

Incl. in SR R 15, 16

RW Rainwater Goods

1. Quad profile metal gutters (painted) with surface-mounted circular metal/plastic downpipes and small, square profile rainwater heads are in place – these are likely to be replacements (of original), possibly at original locations.

2. Sections of iron (original) circular surface-mount down-pipes remain at the west elevation.

3. Size + Capacity of RW goods not verified and it was also observed some DP’s are not connected to site stormwater system (ie. not discharging into sumps), with water discharging in the immediate vicinity of the plinth.

$10,000 R 21

CP Cementitious plinth

1. Substantial cracking to cementitious render plinth (variable hairline through structural integrity failure).

$10,000 R 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23






$Bud

get

Allo

wan

ce

(exc

l GST

)

Prio

rity

Photograph [App 1]

2. Substantial bursting/loss of fragments with evidence of exfoliation/ delamination from brick substrate, with audible drummy-ness when tapped.

3. Ruled ashlar coursing lines appears faint.

4. Local previous patches evident.

5. Damp-profile/salt-metering not undertaken – this should be undertaken ahead of any repair action being developed.

VB Terracotta and metal vent blocks

1. Vent blocks at low-level of alternating terracotta and metal construction, being of two-brick course height.

2. Horizontal splitting of some low-level metal vents, high-level metal vents remain and appear in fair condition.

$1,500 R 2, 18, 21, 23

DC Damp course 1. Bituminous damp-proof course (DPC) visible where cementitious plinth deteriorated/missing @ nom. 3c below top of plinth, aligning centre of terracotta vent blocks and top/bottom of metal vents (dependent upon location around the building) – condition/performance not investigated. Note: Where dislodgement of plinth has occurred, no obvious damp was observed.

2. Ground levels (turf covering) are variable and appear to have been raised facing the park. Concrete pavers abut the main building at entries and north-west.

$1,500 R 18, 19, 21

TL Timber frame louvre windows

1. Louvre timbers subject to high weather exposure, causing dislodgement, expansion, splitting and warping.

2. An applied coating is evident at discreet, protect local locations, though this has extensively deteriorated/blistered, causing it to loose surface adhesion with timber and fall off – it is apparent no works have occurred to the exterior of the windows for a considerable period.

3. Rodent mesh is evident behind some openings.

$10,000 E 13, 14

GW Timber frame Lead-light and stain-glass windows

1. Cleaning to all windows required.

2. Lead-light appears to be the original glazing of the building – no evident examples of lead failure requiring immediate action.

3. Several broken glass panes to lead-light windows and incompatible previous repairs which require replacement (repair in-situ possible)

4. Metal screens of varying quality and condition, incl. some original and visually sympathetic

$5,000 R 2, 17






$Bud

get

Allo

wan

ce

(exc

l GST

)

Prio

rity

Photograph [App 1]

replacements – un-sound and un-sympathetic screens be replaced to match original details.

Nb. These comments have been prepared in conjunction w/ Bruce Hutton (Almond Glass).

TD Timber frame, timber doors

1. Not inspected. $5,000 E 22, 24

SG Surface Tagging

1. Two locations of graffiti (aerosol paint) tagging present to dimensioned stone sill course.

2. Keyed/scratch tagging present to dimensioned stone door archways/ dressings

$2,500 E 23, 24

INTERIOR (main space)

HP Internal hard-plaster.

1. Generally surfaces appear in good condition to the main space.

2. Local falling damp staining and vertical cracking observed above cross-axis arch window (south) – no corresponding cracking to external brickwork was observed.

$2,500 R 26

TF Timber-frame, timber floor

1. A pronounced slope (to the naïve) was observed, which is consistent with the sloping chair rail observed to the longitude walls.

$25,000 R -

GW Timber frame Lead-light and stain-glass windows

1. Refer above. 17

TC Timber frame ceiling + lining

1. Not inspected. 25

OTHER COST ALLOWANCES

XX 1. Works Scaffold

2. Contractor’s Preliminaries

3. Consultant Fees

4. Statutory Charges + Fees

5. Contingencies (Design + Construction)

15 - 20% of works allowance

ITEMS NOT INSPECTED AS PART OF THIS REPORT

1. Building services

2. Signage

3. NCC, BCA + AS Compliance

4. Accreted ground levels

5. Internal spaces/back-of house + organ spaces.

6. Integrity of metal propping/ timber planking at tower parapet.

-





Appendix I: Photographs of Observations Note: The following photographs provide a representation of the building condition – they provide a general/ typical indication of our non-invasive, visual observations for the areas as identified in this report.

Photograph 1: View of crown tower from SE (1978). Source: J T Collins, SLV, H98.250/1482)

Photograph 2: View of church from SE – Note: loss of crown steeple to tower.





Photograph 3: Metal cap atop base of crown steeple (previously removed) – note: cross to apex of front elevation ridge coping resting on timber deck and multiple types of stone deterioration/failure evident. [west]

Photograph 4: General view of current condition of crown tower – note extent/condition of propping and multiple types of stone deterioration/failure. [south-west]

Photograph 5: View of castellated tower parapet – note: weathering to prevailing elements. [south-west]

Photograph 6: Extensive rusting to metal propping and deteriorated timber planking – note: fixing details unknown. [west]





Photograph 7: General condition of dimensioned/carved stone to crown buttress – note missing elements of finial. [west]

Photograph 8: General deterioration to stone crown buttresses – note: run moulds loose (RBA removed one by hand). [west]

Photograph 9: Loss of pointing to dimensioned stone – note: loose lighting conductor cable. [south-west]

Photograph 10: Rust staining to stone cornice (metal propping) and erosion of tuck-pointing to brickwork. [west]





Photograph 11: Vertical cracking + loss of stone fragments at buttress junction. [south-west]

Photograph 12: Weathering/deterioration to carved stone to cornice below tower parapet. [south]

Photograph 13: Timber frame timber louvres– note deterioration to projecting/weather facing stone dressings. [west]

Photograph 14: Timber frame louvre windows – note variable condition of timber. [west]

Photograph 15: Slate Roof w/ridge cresting. [south]

Photograph 16: Slate roof w/metal vents – note: local slate dislodgement and variable spacing. [south]

Photograph 17: Detail of stone window dressings – note staining + screens to lead-light/ stained glass windows.

Photograph 18: Spalling section of cementitious plinth – note: metal vent cover (variable condition). [north]





Photograph 19: Detail of spalling cementitious plinth – note DPC. [north-west]

Photograph 20: Cracking of cementitious plinth – note: ruled ashlar jointing. [south]

Photograph 21: Replacement rainwater goods (metal quad gutters + PVC (painted) down-pipe) – note: cast-iron rainwater goods remain in-part at the west elevation. [north]

Photograph 22: Timber frame, timber doors [typical] with decorative iron hinges/straps – note: weather/decay at base and previous patching to/ discolouration of basalt steps. [east]





Photograph 23: Graffiti to stone dressings [north]

Photograph 24: Scratching to stone dressings [east]

Photograph 25: Timber frame, timber ceiling lining. [east]

Photograph 26: Vertical hard-plaster crack above arch window. [south]

End of Report



Appendix C – Business Plan for the Conservation of the Mar Thoma Church Parkville

Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Conservation & Development of 149 Royal Parade, Parkville Business Plan for the conservation of the Mar Thoma Church, Parkville

03-Jan-17

Conservation & Development of 149 Royal Parade, Parkville

Page 1 of 5

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is highlight the maintenance works planned for 149 Royal Parade, Parkville

along with the planned extension of the toilet block. This report will outline the expected timeframes,

estimated cost and other outcomes associated. This report incorporates parts of the Heritage

Architect’s Site Visit Report dated 02/02/2016.

Currently, the parish anticipates a conservation project that is expected to take 12-15 years to

complete. It is also expected that net expenditure of the project will exceed $1,200,000 which will be

derived from various sources such as member contributions, charitable donations, state grants and

banks loans.

Melbourne Mar Thoma Parish

The Melbourne Mar Thoma Parish is a strong community of believers that have sought to enrich the

cultural fabric of Australia through faith, prayers and generosity of spirit.

Since 1966, Marthomites have migrated to Australia and maintained their cultural identity through

worship and prayer. In March 1998 the Melbourne parish was incorporated as alegal entity as per the

Associations Incorporation Act 1981 of the State of Victoria under the name ‘The Mar Thoma Syrian

Church Australia Incorporated’.

In 2008, the parish acquired 149 Royal Parade, Parkville which transformed into the regional hub of

our spiritual worship and community events. The common activities conducted for our 900 strong

membershipis:

Weekly services on Sunday

Weekly Choir practices on Saturday and Sun

Sunday classes on Sunday afternoons

Weekly Women’sprayer meetings

Monthly youth meetings

Monthly worship sessions for younger families

Monthly Senior Citizens meeting

Xmas Easter and other holiday celebrations

Children after school programs such VBS, Bible study, spiritual competitions and other prayer

centred activities

The project is expected to transform the cultural existence of the parish in Victoria through the

appreciation of the church and its links to the Victorian era. The renovation of the toilet block and

development of the church hall will provide a venue that will be usable and loved by the community.


Page 2 of 5

Plan of Works

The planned maintenance works will be spilt into three stages:

1. Crown Steeple – Propping

2. Essential Maintenance tasks

3. Review and completion of Conservation works

Stage 1: Crown Steeple – Propping

1.Scaffold extensively rusted and residual load capacity/ effectiveness questionable. 2. Restraint/integrity questionable as appears to be insecurely placed on deteriorated/decayed sections of timber packing The crown steeple and tower needs to be bolstered to ensure the safety of the site and for further

conservation works to begin. It is expected that this stage would be completed within 8 months from

application approval.

Milestones $Budget Allowance (excl GST)

Estimated Timeframes

Quotation for installation of a fixed scaffold or crash-deck.

N/A 3 months

Installation of fixed scaffold or crash-deck

$50,000 5 months

Stage 2: Essential Maintenance tasks

Further to propping the crown steeple, essential maintenance works such as dimensioned limestone,

window and door frame repairs need to be conducted. This stage is the integral part of the process

and is estimated to take 5-10 years to complete.

It is expected that the initial budgeting and planning process will take close to three months, followed

by a 3 year or $1 million fundraising activity by the parish. The funds for the repair works is expected

to be raised from member contributions, charitable donations, state grants and bank loans. The

conservation works will begin in the second year of fundraising and will complete in an estimated

timeframe of 3 years. Stage 2 is estimated to be completed after10 years from application approval.

Dimensioned Limestone blocks, copings +dressings The medieval crown supported on flying buttresses emanating from a castellated parapet atop the tower is thought to have consisted of an octagonal, colonnaded drum (ornamental cresting, entablature, blind trefoil niches, base) surmounted with an open medieval crown topped with a cross-mounted orb (all no longer extant). 1. The extant portions of the crown (buttress with croquette cresting, stepped piers surmounted by decorative pedimentted finials (varying levels of decoration/corbelled bases), terminated by bosses and pinnacles) appears of variable condition. Thishas been capped (at the level of the top of the crown base) by sheet metal where the medieval crown is no longer, with the remainder propped by tubular metal scaffold components atop timber planking (refer below).


Page 3 of 5

2. There are several portions of stone missing/substantially deteriorated to the finials and ornaments are missing from piers. The internal stone beading to the buttresses has become delaminated in parts and is loose. The pinning/ connection detail between remnant blocks is unknown and should be further investigated. 3. The remnant dimensioned/ carved stone exhibits substantial deterioration in the form of: cracking/ fracturing (variableextent, incl. suspected structural cracking of blocks/ elements), previous mortar repairs (local), splitting, blistering/ bursting/de-lamination of surface/ case-hardened layer, erosion of carved portions, crumbling/ powdering, pitting, splintering, fragmenting/ peeling, spalling/ erosion. 4. The yellow/mustard crust appears to be well established to the principal weather exposed/projecting portions of the finials (where extant). 5. The extent of weathering soiling/biological growth to stone appears reflective of the apparent age of the stone and generally appears undisturbed by previous works. 6. Suspected lighting conductor rod/cable fixing points (incl holes) + wire remains, though is extensively rusted and is likely to be ineffective 7. The extent of weathering soiling/biological growth to stone appears reflective of the apparent age

of the stone and generally appears undisturbed by previous works.

8. Similar to the crown steeple, the castellated parapet stone, buttress finials, tower stones,

coping stones and stone dressings exhibit deterioration in the form of: missing portions

(esp.caps/ornaments), cracking/ fracturing (variable extent, incl. suspected structural cracking of

locks/ elements), blistering/ bursting/ delamination of surface/ case-hardened layer (to recesses

within carved portions) crumbling/ powdering, pitting, splintering, fragmenting/peeling, spalling/

erosion of run-carved portions, especially at projecting/rain shield locations.

9. Rust staining (leeching from scaffold) to stone (from scaffold).

10. Surface discolouration of wall dressings where flush/abutting brickwork and metallic content of

window grilles, possibly due to erosion/leeching of stopping mortar, especially at lower level.

Dimension Stone –Mortar pointing

1. Cracking, crumbling, dislodgement and substantial loss of pointing mortar to pointed/articulated

joints, resulting in loose/ dislodgment of dimensioned stone blocks.

Brickwork construction (incl. mortar)

Brick construction appears sound and no obvious fatigue/mis-alignment is evident There is local

cracking/erosion of bricks at arises and dislodgement of partial bricks where abutting stone

dressings, which also demonstrates rough-cut original construction.

Locally, there is vertical cracking to random bricks, as well as underlying brick fabrication/ (under-

)firing cracking/fatigue evident due to the age/weathering of the bricks.

Brick tuck-pointing

Variable rate of fading/ erosion of black-lines (suspected as a result of weatherexposure/orientation

– local sections evident in well protected locations).Substantial loss of coloured stopping mortar

(nom.10-15mm set-back from brick face), revealing coloured stopping and/or construction mortar

Timber frame louvre windows


Page 4 of 5

1. Louvre timbers subject to high weather exposure, causing dislodgement, expansion, splitting and warping. 2. An applied coating is evident at discreet, protect local locations, though this has extensively deteriorated/blistered, causing it to loose surface adhesion with timber and fall off – it is apparent no works have occurred to the exterior of the windows for a considerable period. 3. Rodent mesh is evident behind some openings 4.Two locations of graffiti (aerosol paint) taggingpresent to dimensioned stone sill course. 5. Keyed/scratch tagging present to dimensioned stone door archways/ dressings The milestones affecting this stage are detailed below:



Budgeting for Stage 2 works N/A 3 months

Fundraising for Stage 2 works N/A 3 years

Stage 2 works $1,000,000 10 years(works begin in the second year of fundraising activities)

Stage 3: Review and completion of Conservation works

Iron cresting re-instated atop ridge capping. It appears metal vents and ridge finials have been replaced as part of re-slating works. RW Rainwater Goods 1. Quad profile metal gutters (painted) with surfacemounted circular metal/plastic downpipes and small, square profile rainwater heads are in place – these are likely to be replacements (of original), possibly at original locations. 2. Sections of iron (original) circular surface-mount down-pipes remain at the west elevation. 3. Size + Capacity of RW goods not verified and it was also observed some DP’s are not connected to site stormwater system (i.e. not discharging into sumps), with water discharging in the immediate vicinity of the plinth. Cementitious plinth 1.Substantial cracking to cementitious render plinth (variable hairline through structural integrity failure). Substantial bursting/loss of fragments with evidence of exfoliation/ delamination from brick substrate, with audible drummy ness when tapped. 3. Ruled ashlar coursing lines appears faint. 4. Local previous patches evident. 5. Damp-profile/salt-metering not undertaken – this should be undertaken ahead of any repair action being developed. VB Terracotta and metal vent blocks


Page 5 of 5

1. Vent blocks at low-level of alternating terracotta and metal construction, being of two-brick course height. 2. Horizontal splitting of some low-level metal vents, high-level metal vents remain and appear in fair condition. DC Damp course 1. Bituminous damp-proof course (DPC) visible where cementitious plinth deteriorated/missing @nom. 3c below top of plinth, aligning centre of terracotta vent blocks and top/bottom of metal vents (dependent upon location around the building) condition/performance not investigated. Note: Where dislodgement of plinth has occurred, no obvious damp was observed. 2. Ground levels (turf covering) are variable and appear to have been raised facing the park. Concrete pavers about the main building at entries and north-west. After the completion of the essential works, a review and audit of the conservation by a Heritage

Architect is planned to identify future conservation works and review the actions undertaken. It is

expected that any significant build or conservation issues will be identified during this process. The

review is estimated to take up to 1 year. The parish anticipates that further conservation actions will

emanate from review and will be cornerstone for future conservation outcomes.

Based on current estimates, further conservations works identified as recommended in the Heritage

Architect’s Site Visit Report dated 02/02/2016 will be completed within a period of 10 years. Stage 3

is estimated to have a completion date of 12 years after the approval of the heritage application.

The milestones affecting this stage are detailed below:



Review and audit of structure by Heritage Architect

$50,000 6months

Identification any new maintenance or conservation works

N/A 6 months

Stage 3 works $50,000 5 years

proposed multipurpose building former college church, 149 ... · building at the site. in...

Documents