Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Extent of notification 3. Assessment of Submissions 4. Planning Scheme Amendment C186 Documents FUTURE MELBOURNE (PLANNING) COMMITTEE REPORT Agenda Item 5.3 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C186 HERITAGE OVERLAY 6 December 2011 Presenter: David Mayes, Manager Strategic Planning Purpose and background 1. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the public exhibition of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186 - Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review, and to request the Minister for Planning appoint a panel to consider the submissions. 2. On 26 July 2011, the Minister for Planning authorised exhibition of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186. The Amendment was exhibited between September and October 2011. Of the 28 submissions received six were in support. Attachment 2 outlines the extent of notification. Management’s response to each submission is in Attachment 3. 3. Due to inconsistencies between the mapping data used by City of Melbourne and the Department of Planning and Community Development, some mapping errors were discovered whilst the Amendment was on exhibition. The maps have been corrected and all affected owners were notified immediately and issued the correct maps. The owners of affected properties were also given additional time to make a submission. The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay has been updated to include alternative street addresses where corner properties are also known by the other street address. Key issues 4. Some submitters were concerned that the Heritage Overlay will limit future redevelopment. Other submitters disputed that their property had heritage significance. However, they have generally not provided sufficient heritage information to warrant a change to the Amendment. The Amendment should therefore be referred to an independent panel for review and consideration of these submissions. 5. Some submitters have pointed out that they hold existing planning permits for re-development of their property. Application of a Heritage Overlay will not disqualify existing permits but if they are not acted upon and lapse, then any further permit applications would require heritage considerations. 6. Council’s presentation to the panel will be based on the revised version of the Amendment documentation including the revised Planning Scheme maps and Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Attachment 4). Recommendation from management 7. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolve to: 7.1. note management’s assessment of the submissions as set out in Attachment 3 of this report; 7.2. request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Panel to consider the submissions to Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186; and 7.3. note that the form of the Amendment to be presented to the Independent Panel will be in accordance with Attachment 4 of this report. Page 1 of 62
Transcript
Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Extent of notification 3. Assessment of Submissions 4. Planning Scheme Amendment C186 Documents
F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( P L A N N I N G ) C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T
Agenda Item 5.3
PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C186 HERITAGE OVERLAY 6 December 2011
Presenter: David Mayes, Manager Strategic Planning
Purpose and background
1. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the public exhibition of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186 - Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review, and to request the Minister for Planning appoint a panel to consider the submissions.
2. On 26 July 2011, the Minister for Planning authorised exhibition of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186. The Amendment was exhibited between September and October 2011. Of the 28 submissions received six were in support. Attachment 2 outlines the extent of notification. Management’s response to each submission is in Attachment 3.
3. Due to inconsistencies between the mapping data used by City of Melbourne and the Department of Planning and Community Development, some mapping errors were discovered whilst the Amendment was on exhibition. The maps have been corrected and all affected owners were notified immediately and issued the correct maps. The owners of affected properties were also given additional time to make a submission. The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay has been updated to include alternative street addresses where corner properties are also known by the other street address.
Key issues
4. Some submitters were concerned that the Heritage Overlay will limit future redevelopment. Other submitters disputed that their property had heritage significance. However, they have generally not provided sufficient heritage information to warrant a change to the Amendment. The Amendment should therefore be referred to an independent panel for review and consideration of these submissions.
5. Some submitters have pointed out that they hold existing planning permits for re-development of their property. Application of a Heritage Overlay will not disqualify existing permits but if they are not acted upon and lapse, then any further permit applications would require heritage considerations.
6. Council’s presentation to the panel will be based on the revised version of the Amendment documentation including the revised Planning Scheme maps and Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Attachment 4).
Recommendation from management
7. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolve to:
7.1. note management’s assessment of the submissions as set out in Attachment 3 of this report;
7.2. request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Panel to consider the submissions to Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186; and
7.3. note that the form of the Amendment to be presented to the Independent Panel will be in accordance with Attachment 4 of this report.
Page 1 of 62
1
SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT
Legal
1. Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 deal with Planning Scheme Amendments, setting out provisions in relation to the exhibition and notification of proposed planning scheme amendments and the consideration of submissions.
Specifically, sub-section 23(1) of the Act provides that:
“After considering a submission which requests a change to the amendment, the planning authority must –
(a) change the amendment in the manner requested; or
(b) refer the submissions to a panel appointed under Part 8; or
(c) abandon the amendment or part of the amendment.”
The recommendation made in the report is therefore consistent with the Act.
Finance
2. The costs associated with the recommendation to proceed to an Independent Panel are estimated to amount to $30,000. The 2011-12 Annual Plan and Budget includes provision for this expenditure in the operational budget for Strategic Planning.
Conflict of interest
3. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.
Stakeholder Consultation
4. Attachment 2 to this report provides detail on the statutory notification and community consultation undertaken as part of the exhibition of the amendment.
Relation to Council policy
5. The amendment will fulfil Council’s commitment to heritage in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS).
Environmental sustainability
6. The Planning Scheme Amendment will not have any adverse environmental impacts. The maintenance, restoration and re-use of heritage buildings is an efficient use of urban infrastructure.
Amendment C186 was exhibited in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 between 1 September 2011 and 14 October 2011. As some maps were revised during the exhibition, submissions were received until 26 October 2011.
Specifically:
Public notices were placed in the following publications:
o Government Gazette (1 September 2011)
o Herald Sun (30 August 2011)
o The Age (30 August 2011)
o City Weekly (25 August & 29 September 2011)
o Melbourne Leader (29 August & 3 October 2011 )
The amendment and supporting information were available at the City of Melbourne Planning Counter (Council House 2), City Library, City of Melbourne website and the Department of Planning and Community Development website;
Notice of the Amendment and the Amendment factsheet (outlining the key details) were sent by direct mail to all property owners affected by this amendment;
Notice of the Amendment and the Amendment factsheet were sent to the Prescribed State Government Ministers, relevant authorities and relevant stakeholders including community groups.
Following changes to some of the maps, a letter and corrected map were sent to all affected property owners.
Attachment 2Agenda Item 5.3
Future Melbourne Committee6 December 2011
Page 3 of 62
AMENDMENT C186 – HERITAGE OVERLAY
TABLE OF SUBMISSIONS
No Submitter Details
Issue Summary of Submission Response and recommended changes
1 Gwenda Robson Supportive Property – 130 Flinders Street
Supportive, therefore no change.
2 Dr Harry Chua Lack of significance
Properties – 118 Queen Street and 111-129 Queen Street Supports the inclusion of 118 Queen Street (ACA building). Objects to the inclusion of 111-129 Queen Street Melbourne for the following reasons: -The building is a. nondescript, common and unremarkable 1960's building. Aesthetically it is rather plain looking. Similar looking buildings such as the Gas and Fuel Buildings since demolished, were once described as an eye-sore, - Much of the building's exterior (with the exception of the common brown bricks) has been substantially altered. Even the Heritage Assessment in 2002 downgraded its heritage significance from C to D. The building sits on a significant potential development site of more than-1800 sq meters and its inclusion to the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay would undermine this.
Past reviews had been conducted by the City of Melbourne in 1985, 1993 and 2002. The three studies all included 111-129 Queen Street as a significant building. No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should be included in a Heritage Overlay. Even though the property has undergone alterations, it has still met the criteria of a locally significant building. Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay does not mean that a site cannot be redeveloped. When a permit for redevelopment is considered heritage becomes a further consideration.
3 Randall Smith (on behalf of ISPT)
Properties – 267-271 Spring Street and 25 Little Lonsdale Street ISPT is supportive of the inclusion of 25 Little Lonsdale Street.
Supportive of the inclusion of 25 Little Lonsdale Street in the Heritage Overlay.
Attachment 3 Agenda Item 5.3
Future Melbourne Committee 6 December 2011
Page 4 of 62
ISPT is not supportive of the inclusion of 267-271 Spring Street, based upon the building’s low architectural significance, the issue of the previous permit which allowed the demolition of the building, and the specific practical circumstances affecting the development of the land. It is the opinion of ISPT’s heritage consultant, that while the hotel’s exterior is relatively well preserved, its appearance makes little contribution to the understanding of architectural styles in the inter-war period, as its design was outmoded at the time of the building’s construction. Planning permit 2000-68 (now lapsed) was issued in 2001 by the Minister for Planning. The Permit allowed for the demolition of the existing building on the site and the construction of an office building on a consolidated site which included the 267-271 Spring Street site. The issue of the Permit involved consideration of the heritage matters relevant to the consolidated site, including whether demolition of the existing building was appropriate. The issue of the Permit evolved from a detailed consideration of the physical constraints of the site including: The location of electrical sub-station and associated easements; The consolidated site is affected by the City Loop train line with
two underground tunnels, which limits development potential; The existing Church of England Mission Hall (which is close to
the land) is already in the Heritage Overlay; and The consolidated site is relatively small such that future
development necessarily involves demolition. In light of the above constraints and the issue of the Permit, ISPT submits that the demolition of the site is inevitable to enable any feasible commercial redevelopment of the consolidated site.
This submission was referred to the Heritage Consultant. The hotel has a high integrity to the period of construction as there are no others in the CBD from the 1920s which have this degree of integrity, and hence, the strong expression of the era. (Only the ‘hotel’ is cited as significant, not the flanking buildings, as in map p.585) Stylistic analysis is provided, as ‘Old English or Neo-Tudor mode’ (p.584), The examples provided by the submitter are Edwardian Freestyle (termed as ‘free arts and crafts style’) and Edwardian Baroque: they are different and more ornate styles although in the case of the Freestyle, sharing similar origins. Hence the statement holds that it is a well preserved and successful custom design in a prevailing architectural style of the inter-war period. The subject property 267-271 Spring Street is on the corner of Spring and Little Lonsdale. The dotted line at Figure 417 of the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review shows the property with an aerial view. This picture omits the building further south (number 267) and also does not show the building fronting Griffin Lane). This aerial picture with the dotted line provided by the Consultant is incorrect. Figure 416 shows the proposed heritage overlay on the property (note this base map does not show Griffin Lane). The Planning Scheme Map showing the Heritage Overlay applies to the property bounded by Spring Street, Little Lonsdale and Griffin Lane and this is the correct map applying to all of 267-271 Spring Street.
Page 5 of 62
There appears to be inconsistency with the Heritage Overlay citation for 267-271 Spring Street and the extent of mapping shown for the Heritage Overlay. Figure 399 in the citation of 267-271 Spring Street shows the extent of the Heritage Overlay as a dotted line. However, the mapping for the Heritage Overlay appears to include the adjacent building on to Little Lonsdale Street. The inclusion of the adjacent building in the Heritage Overlay is also not warranted as it has no heritage significance. Whilst ISPT maintains its objection to the Heritage Overlay for this site, it submits that the error should be corrected so that the extent of the Heritage Overlay map is reduced to that indicated in Figure 399.
4 Jim Duff Property – 9-13 Drewery Lane The submitter provided further information about the history of the property.
The information provided does not impact the recommendation to include the property in the Heritage Overlay.
5 Peter Soding (Tixxis)
Lack of significance Building modification
Property – 95-101 Flinders Lane The owner objects to the inclusion of 95-101 Flinders Lane. 1. There have been a number of previous reviews and these have concluded that heritage protection is not warranted. 2. There has been no intervening circumstance(s) that would change this position. In these reviews the building has been graded as either C (1993 & 2002) or D (1985). It is understood that the recent work has graded the building C and keeps the building in a Level 3 streetscape. 3. The statement of significance cites the building location in Flinders Lane and its long association with the clothing industry as the basis for the introduction of heritage controls. Therefore the statement of significance does not place any social or historic significance on the café/restaurant use.
Past reviews had been conducted in 1985, 1993 and 2002. The three studies assessed 95-101 Flinders Lane as a significant building. The past reviews have recommended heritage protection. No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should be included in a Heritage Overlay. Even though the property has undergone alterations, it has still met the criteria of a significant building. In the planning permit application process referred to by the submitter, heritage could not be a factor when deciding on the application, as the property was not in the Heritage Overlay. This amendment proposes to include this property in the Heritage Overlay, so any future planning permit applications
Page 6 of 62
4. The building is not a rare or unusual example of Edwardian era buildings that warrant protection. 5. The building has been substantially altered and is not considered reasonably intact. 6. The 1980's alteration to create a café is of no heritage significance. 7. The alterations to the building at that time do not assist in contributing to the basis of the buildings' significance as stated (which we do not agree with). 8. The citation does not support planning controls over the internal elements of the building rather it supports further investigation. 9. None of the internal fittings specifically identified relate to the period from which its alleged significance is derived. Over the past twelve months the owner has achieved a negotiated permit through the mediation process at VCAT. To this end the front 10 metres of the building has been retained. At no stage did Council (or its officers) seek to protect the interior of the building.
would consider the heritage elements and significance of the building. Although the main body of the Study states that the interiors need further investigation, this work was undertaken and was appended to the Review.
6 Adrienne Agg Supportive Fully supportive of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186. We must protect our heritage buildings or Melbourne will lose its charm very quickly.
Supportive of the amendment.
7 Kristy Tame Supportive Supportive of the review and would like to see the proposed heritage listing go ahead.
Supportive of the amendment.
8 Emily Hillebrand Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd (on behalf of Goodyear Property Pty Ltd)
Contributory values
Property – 441-447 Elizabeth Street - the former Royal Saxon Hotel
Since 1983 the building has been identified with varying heritage gradings, but mostly a C-grading. The Heritage Review now nominates the site as a B-graded heritage which is inappropriate.
The Royal Saxon Hotel was constructed in 1858. The building is a relatively simple example of a Victorian Regency architectural style.
This submission was referred to the Heritage Consultant who commented as follows: The Regency style is not common in Victorian-era Melbourne and Regency style hotels are very rare. Of bluestone and brick construction, this three storey Victorian
Page 7 of 62
Much of the heritage value ascribed to the building is derived from its use as a meeting place for groups associated with the founding of the nearby Queen Victoria vegetable market. Significant alterations have been made to the façade of the building to accommodate its conversion from a hotel into various commercial and retail tenancies.
The former Royal Saxon Hotel demonstrates limited heritage value as a meeting place. The role of the building as a general meeting place associated with the founding of the nearby vegetable market is contributory in nature and is of marginal value.
The Queen Victoria vegetable markets are an important Melbourne institution of regional significance. The limited contribution of the Royal Saxon Hotel to the founding of the markets does not justify inclusion of the building within the Heritage Overlay. The building was used as a meeting place for some of the groups that went on to found the market. This small contributory role does not justify protection of the building.
The building currently supports a number of different commercial and retail uses. As such it is inappropriate to ascribe any heritage value to the discontinued hotel use.
The building is of limited architectural or aesthetic value due to its simple demonstration of a common mid-1800’s building style. Additionally, the building has been subject to considerable modification and alterations including changes to the building façade. .
As the building is of negligible social importance. The site was a simple meeting place for groups that went on to found the nearby vegetable market.
Regency style hotel building is aesthetically significant for its elegantly simple and symmetrical facade composition. The changes to the façade are reversible or insignificant and given the hotel’s great age are relatively few. The submitter offers no evidence for the claim that the building is of marginal cultural, historical or social value. The building is one of a small number of 1850’s hotels within central Melbourne to have survived with a relatively original exterior. A rare and distinctive feature is the pitched carriage lane off Elizabeth Street over which the first and second floors of the hotel have been constructed. It was the venue for the meeting that established the Queen Victoria vegetable wholesale market, as part of its evident lasting connection with the produce market sector at the top of Elizabeth Street. This was not contested in the submission, but is considered a contributory value.
Page 8 of 62
The Royal Saxon Hotel is a simple, moderately intact example of a relatively common 1850’s and 1860’s building style. It is not a key example of its era or architectural style, nor is it of exemplary quality;
The characterisation of the building as an important heritage site, due to its function as a meeting place for groups associated with the founding of the Queen Victoria vegetable market, overstates the cultural and historical contribution of the building;
The building fails to achieve the proposed ‘B’ heritage grading. This grading makes no reference to cultural or historical significance and stresses the contribution of architectural importance. Given the limited architectural significance of the building it is not considered to achieve this grading; and
the requirements for a ‘B’ grading also state that many
buildings will be ‘already included on or recommended for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate’. The Royal Saxon Hotel was removed from the interim list of the Register of the National Estate as it was no longer considered to demonstrate any National Heritage Values. This further reinforces the unsuitability of a ‘B’ heritage grading.
9 Warren Samuel (on behalf of Lynnlea Nominees Pty Ltd)
No specific details
Property – 217 Queen Street Lynnlea Nominees Pty Ltd objects to the proposed changes to the planning restrictions in respect of (Amendment C186). Lovell Chen will be submitting a submission in respect of our objection. This will also provide details as to the reasons for our objection.
No specific details included regarding the objection.
Page 9 of 62
10 Jennifer Loulie Supportive No specific property. Congratulations Council on its initiative in commissioning the Heritage Review and the recommendations. This amendment in taking a positive step in maintaining the heritage and history of the Melbourne. As Melbourne population grows, and our built form landscape is ever changing - protecting elements of our past becomes of greater importance.
Supportive.
11 Randall Smith (on behalf of ISPT)
Property – 433-455 Collins Street In summary, the reasons for the objection are: A valid planning approval is in place for demolition and
redevelopment of the subject site (allowing commencement up to 2 December 2015), was issued by the Minister and supported by the City of Melbourne, with Council applauding the design; and
The condition of the existing building means it is not feasible to retain the existing building in its current form.
ISPT’s heritage expert Professor Miles Lewis considers that: The building was at one time notable for creating the largest
private plaza in Melbourne at a time when plazas and forecourts were fashionable; and
There is no recognised or recognisable distinct category of ‘insurance architecture’ as referred to by Butler.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the building does not have sufficient historical or architectural significance to warrant inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. In 2006, the Minister for Planning granted planning permit No.2006/0419 which allows for the partial demolition of the existing building and significant redevelopment of the site. The Permit
This submission was referred to the Heritage Consultant. The building is the best example of private plaza developments in the CBD. The prestige of the design meant that although this method cost more (marble clad as well as occupiable balconies) it was utilised here and on no other CBD contemporary office tower. Many of the existing listed buildings in the heritage overlay reflect the Victorian-era and Edwardian-era with very little representation of a major development stage of the CBD, the 1960’s. The building has been valued at C. This is the lowest level of individual significance but nevertheless represents the threshold of local significance.
Page 10 of 62
specifically allows the demolition of the façade of the existing building, demolition of the existing open court plaza, and redevelopment of the site for an 11 storey office building, two storey icon building for restaurant use, and a pedestrian laneway to be used for retail. The heritage significance of the building was rigorously considered when the Minister for Planning assessed the merits of the proposed demolition and redevelopment of the site. The attempt to include the existing building in the Heritage Overlay fails to recognise the physical condition of the building. ISPT’s advice is that the building is at the end of its design life.
12 MacroPlan (on behalf of Celtic Club)
Property – 316-322 Queen Street Of the 99 properties that are the subject of this amendment, the Celtic Club site is the only site to have had a site specific report prepared. The preparation of the report specifically for the Celtic Club site was initiated following the lodgement of a planning permit application for the redevelopment of the Celtic Club site in September, 2010. The Celtic Club wishes to raise its concerns regarding the reactive nature of the proposed amendment, and questions whether there is sufficient justification for the application of a site specific heritage control given that the site was not identified in the preparation of the original 2010 Hoddle Grid study. Lovell Chen Architects and Heritage Consultants observe that in their view, "the B grading appears to be higher than might be warranted, and the building more appropriate warrants a C grading''. There is a current (second) planning permit application that is under consideration by DPCD for the redevelopment of this property,
The property has been graded in past studies conducted in 1985, 1993 and reviewed in 2002 and 2011. In all of these studies the property has been graded and recommended for inclusion in the Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay. The Celtic Club was subject to an earlier study conducted to ascertain the significance of the building as a planning permit had been lodged. Due to the time delay in receiving authorisation, the Celtic Club study was included in Amendment C186. The site was not included in the list for the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review as the Celtic Club assessment had already been conducted. When Council provided comments to the Department of Planning and Community Development on the planning permit, no heritage matters could be considered as the building was not included in the Heritage Overlay.
Page 11 of 62
which incorporates the retention of the existing building facade. Given the visual interest that the existing building adds to the streetscape, it was determined by all parties that the most appropriate outcome was to retain the existing building facade as a part of the redevelopment. This application is currently progressing, and to date the current proposal has received positive feedback from both DPCD and Council Officers. It is submitted that the application of a site specific heritage overlay on this property is not warranted. It is currently proposed to apply the overlay to the entire property of No.316-322 Queen Street. This property comprises two land parcels: Lot 1 on TP874263B; and Lot 2 on TP644R.
The Former West Bourke Hotel is located on Lot 1 on TP874263B. Accordingly, if a Heritage Overlay is to be applied to this site, it should only apply to this parcel, and not to Lot 2 TP644R.
It is proposed that the Heritage Overlay applies to both of the lots comprising of 316-322 Queen Street.
13 Michael Brett Young (on behalf of Law Institute of Victoria)
Property – 468-470 Bourke Street 1. The LIV objects to the inclusion of the LIV’s premises in a
Heritage Overlay. 2. The LIV submits
4.1 A Heritage Overlay ought not to extend beyond the multi-level building at the Bourke Street end of the property. The Overlay ought not to encompass the northern half of the property (upon which there is merely provision for carparking under a skillion roof).
This submission was referred to the Heritage Consultant. The extent of the heritage overlay lies with the title boundary as the only legal entity available. The Statement of Significance can be amended to clarify which part of the building are non-contributory parts. With respect to internal controls, the ground level stair lobby is the extent of inspection and assessment. The stated, changes to the lobby are noted (stainless steel balustrading, white marble to
Page 12 of 62
4.2 If internal alteration controls are to apply, the controls ought not to extend beyond what appears as part of the description of the Heritage Place in Amendment Clause 43.01 Schedule entry for HO1006 . Such an approach would be consistent with that reflected by a combination of the Schedule entries for HO1006 and HO1092 in the form of the Amendment the subject of the Resolution of the Future Melbourne Committee on 7 June 2011 and which was the subject of the Authorisation sought by the Council, something having occurred between that time and the exhibition of Amendment C186 to change the wording and presentation of the Schedule entries in relation to the LIV’s premises.
If the intention is for the Amendment to restrict internal alteration controls to what is the description in the column headed “Heritage Place” then that could have been clearly achieved by relocating that wording to the “internal alteration controls” column so that it appeared after “yes” but preceded by the words “but only to the extent of” It is submitted that Heritage Overlay controls could extend no further than what is visible from the front street, ie. The entry and foyer immediately inside the front doors and the steps running from that entry point to the ground floor reception area, especially as most of the premises is not publically accessible. Indeed, much of that component of the building is not original fabric, having been modified and replaced in
stars and lobby floor – but similar elements and finishes appear in a 1959 image of the ground level). Contributory fabric need not be from the creation date but can include fabric that is contributory to the character of the building. It was at the instruction of the Department of Planning and Community Development that the separate schedule listing was combined into one property listing detailing the internal elements subject to the heritage controls.
Page 13 of 62
the extensive renovations of the LIV’s premises. In particular, as to the component described in the proposed entry HO1006, the lobby/foyer refurbishment included the installation of the stainless steel balustrading and the laying of rubber flooring and white marble tiles in the entrance, on the stairs and in the lobby. Thus, very little of the interior of the building and, in particular very little of the area described in the proposed amendment schedule entry predates 2004. That being the case, it does not have sufficient significance to warrant being subject to heritage controls in the proposed Overlay. 4.4 There is, thus, clearly no justification whatsoever for the application of internal alteration controls to any other part of the building.
On the basis of the above, the LIV submits that Amendment C186 should be modified so that Heritage Overlay HO1006 does not proceed in the form proposed by the Council.
14 James Goulding (Urbis) (on behalf of Vapold Pty Ltd)
Property – 104-110 Exhibition Street There is an inconsistency within the documentation exhibited for Amendment C186 in relation to the ‘HO’ numbers which identify the subject site. The inconsistency is between the exhibited ‘Planning Overlay Map’ and Attachment 1 to the Amendment C186 Explanatory Report, which provides different HO numbers for the site i.e. HO1028 and HO1029 respectively. Please review and amend accordingly. The subject site is not considered to be of sufficient heritage value or significance to be worthy of inclusion within a Heritage Overlay.
This submission was referred to the heritage consultant. Places graded A, B and C are defined as of local individual significance and worthy of the Heritage Overlay. Previous assessments were based only on architectural values and no Statement of Significance was prepared. In the 2011 Statement of Significance the historical values of the building have been included unlike in the 2000-2002 review. Both Statements of Significance (2002 and 2011) found the building to be of local importance. Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay does not mean that a site
Page 14 of 62
As stated within the Central City Heritage Review 2011, the site has been provided with a B Grade Heritage listing, which is the second highest heritage grading. This signifies that the site is not of the highest heritage value. Furthermore, in the Central City Heritage Reviews conducted in the years 1985, 1993 and 2002, the site was provided with a ‘C’ Grade heritage listing, which signifies a lower level of heritage significance for the site. The 2011 review does not articulate why the building should be elevated from a ‘C’ grading to a ‘B’ grading. What has changed in the space of 9 years to warrant the elevation of the building grading? Considering that the Central City Heritage Review 2011 states that further investigation is required to define the internal contributory elements of the building, it is deemed that the inclusion of the site in a Heritage Overlay is premature. The provision of formal heritage controls will unduly restrict the future renovation or redevelopment of the property.
cannot be redeveloped. When a permit for redevelopment is considered heritage becomes a further consideration. The internal elements that are proposed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay are considered significant. This has been assessed by the Heritage Consultant due to area being publically accessible. In addition, the consultant has identified other interior elements may be significant however the consultant has not had permission to assess these areas. There was a mapping discrepancy and this has been rectified. HO1029 is the correct number and is displayed as so on the final maps.
15 Saul Siritzky (Urbis) (on behalf of Enwerd Pty Ltd and S.H.L. Nominees Pty Ltd)
Property – 430-442 Collins Street By virtue of the modern nature of the building, and abundance of similar examples of mid-1960s commercial office buildings within the Central City, the site is not of substantial heritage significance. If a Heritage Overlay is applied to the site, this would severely limit the feasibility of future redevelopment opportunities. Due to the number of similar style buildings being present within the Central City, the inclusion of the site within Amendment C186 is not justified and is unnecessary. Other buildings of a comparable nature will ensure that examples of the style of architecture, and heritage significance prevail.
This submission was referred to the heritage consultant. Past reviews had been conducted by the City of Melbourne in 1985, 1993 and 2002. The three studies included 430-442 Collins Street as a significant building The number of CBD buildings from this era underscores the strong development surge at that time and makes this building, as a medal winner and judged by many architectural historians as a prime example and even more significant within the CBD. Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay does not mean that a site cannot be redeveloped.
Page 15 of 62
16 Saul Siritzky (Urbis) (on behalf of Tackelly No.6 Pty Ltd)
Property – 114-128 William Street As highlighted within the Central City Heritage Review 2011,
the subject site is 1 of 3 examples of 1970s commercial office buildings designed by architect Yuncken Freeman, which are all located within Melbourne's Central City.
The other two examples being the Eagle Star Building (473
Bourke Street) and Former BHP House (130-149" William Street), are both already included within the Heritage Overlay, and on the Victorian Heritage Register.
The high level of heritage-listing of the before mentioned
buildings, signifies that Melbourne’s Central City already has heritage protected examples of 1970s commercial office buildings designed by architect Yuncken Freeman.
Due to the modern nature of the building, and other already heritage listed architectural examples of 1970s the site does not warrant heritage protection.
This submission was referred to the heritage consultant for review and his comments are summarised below. The number of CBD buildings from this era underscores the strong development surge at that time and makes this building, as a medal winner, even more significant within the CBD. The Yuncken Freeman recognition on the Victorian Heritage Register underscores their achievements as designers of international modern buildings. Heritage conservation is not necessarily preoccupied with keeping only one of each building type and style. There may be many significant places of similar style and type which together make up an even stronger architectural theme.
17 Jean Nankin (on behalf of Housing Choices Australia)
Building modification Redevelopment
Property – 538-542 Little Collins Street Melbourne Affordable Housing is the owner of 24 affordable rental apartments, located above ground level, within the subject building. We object on the following grounds: The building has been significantly modified with the inclusion
of additional levels and façade alterations; An upgrade from building grading level “C” to “B” is
unjustified and unwarranted; The Heritage Overlay unnecessarily encumbers the site for the
future development.
No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should be included in a Heritage Overlay. Even though the property has undergone alterations, it has still met the National Estate Criteria of a significant building and should be included in the Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay. Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay does not mean that a site cannot be redeveloped nor will its inclusion encumber any future affordable housing in the City of Melbourne.
18 Professor Roz Property – 372-378 Little Lonsdale Street This submission was referred to the heritage consultant for
Page 16 of 62
Hansen (Hansen) (on behalf of Victoria University)
Victoria University strongly opposes Amendment C186 as it relates to its Little Lonsdale Street property. In terms of the pattern of history, the rise in the number of Melbourne women with venereal disease after the war resulted in the construction of the red brick two storey building on the site in 1919 as the Women’s Venereal Disease Clinic. It is noted that the use of the property as the Women's VD Clinic was one of a number of uses of this building since its construction and the external appearance of the building itself does not inform the community of such a past use. It is our opinion there is no convincing documentation or sustained community expression of value for this place. Furthermore the subject property's location in a part of a government built precinct may be of interest but, again, this is not a compelling reason for inclusion in an individual heritage overlay or a C grading. The specific National Estate Heritage Value relied upon by the Council’s heritage consultants: E. 1 Aesthetic importance to the community or cultural group, typically judged as representing an architectural style. Whilst the architect of the red brick double storey building was the Public Works Department's Chief Architect at the time, E. Evan Smith, this is a relatively early example of his work and not one which can be acclaimed to be one of his better works or a building of architectural merit. Furthermore, just because a building may represent an architectural style, as many buildings do, it is the quality and integrity of that architectural style which is important when assessing an individual
review and his comments can be summarised as follows. The external appearance of the building was purpose built and designed as a Women's VD Clinic and hence must be an exemplar of this uncommon building type given a relatively high external integrity (despite any subsequent use). Heritage studies are done to uncover lost aspects of the history of the City and allow them to be appreciated by the present and future communities. Without the building, the subject of VD would not be evident in the physical environment to allow understanding of the history of VD and its built manifestation. The building is one of the first by the architect, Smith, in his favoured Georgian revival style and hence a precursor to the larger works that followed.
Page 17 of 62
building. It is submitted that the subject property is a poor example of the Georgian Revival-style. Even the Statement of Significance for the subject property recognises that the building itself has elements which are not typical of the Georgian Revival style.
19 Withdrawn 20 Cat McConkey
(on behalf of Victoria Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd)
Lack of significance
Property – 415-419 Bourke Street The owners of the property strongly object to Amendment C186 as the building does not have heritage significance.
The property met the criteria of a significant building and should be included in the Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay.
21 Rupert Mann (on behalf of Melbourne Heritage Action)
Supportive Melbourne Heritage Action congratulates the City of Melbourne for undertaking this review and the subsequent amendment. This is an excellent first step in the process of fully reviewing and protecting the rich heritage of the central city. We are also extremely pleased to see that interiors in the CBD are proposed for protection for the first time. We would also like to commend the City of Melbourne for their proposed protection of several post WWII buildings for the first time. Melbourne Heritage Action supports these lists however they can only be seen as a start.
Supportive of the amendment. Council understands this amendment is a start and heritage work is currently being undertaken to assess other buildings in the municipality.
22 Gary Wissenden (Hansen) (on behalf of Ace Body Corporate Management)
Property – 473-481 Elizabeth Street The inclusion of the entirety of the site within Heritage Overlay 1025 is inappropriate. Portions of the site that demonstrate important heritage values should be identified and protected, whilst heavily altered or contributory buildings should be excluded from the overlay.
This submission was referred to the Heritage Consultant whose comments are summarised below The evolution over time is not of itself a prohibition of heritage values. The building exteriors have changed little since first identified despite internal use changes (interiors not proposed for heritage overlay).
Page 18 of 62
The site contains the former Currie & Richards showrooms and warehouses as well as various associated buildings and a central accessway. Generally the site can be viewed as a collection of shop frontages, buildings, warehouses, accessways and outdoor areas that have been utilised for a range of different uses. Subsequent additions, modifications and demolitions have been undertaken on the site as land use and ownership has changed. The assessment suggests that the subject site satisfies the following: A4: Association with important events that have had a significant role in the occupation and evolution of the nation, state, region or community. Much of the heritage value attributed to the site reflects the architectural value of the Edwardian-era showrooms and the Victorian-era workshop. The use of the land and associated buildings for the purposes of a hardware store and showrooms is of limited heritage importance. It is considered that the use of the land has had negligible impact on the occupation or evolution of the community and as such fails to satisfy the above criterion. It is also noted that the building has been significantly converted to accommodate varied retail, commercial and residential uses. The heritage value attributed to the site focuses on the architectural value of Elizabeth Street facing shop front and other buildings. The buildings have undergone extensive modification and alteration and there is limited association between the historic hardware use and current building form. The former Currie and Richards buildings are of minimal cultural significance and much of the site demonstrates limited architectural value. The inclusion of the entirety of the site within Heritage
The present use of the central courtyard is as it was originally- this significant element has not changed and neither has its use. The upper level facades of buildings on Elizabeth Street are unchanged since Currie & Richards and the ground level is visually related to the original, unlike many other ground level Victorian-era and Edwardian-era buildings in the CBD. Submission assessed against the Statement of Significance This showroom and warehouse complex is significant, historically, as an extensive Victorian and Edwardian-era complex built up over some 60 years, which nevertheless presents a homogenous 19th century warehouse character and contains elements and land use patterns created in the 1850’s by the original grantee. The combination of Edwardian-era showrooms facing Elizabeth Street, stores at the rear, a Victorian-era workshop, the courtyard and the carriageway which served them is not repeated as a courtyard-oriented complex in the City of Melbourne, although once more common in the early Victorian-era, and is now uncommon in the State
Page 19 of 62
Overlay 1025 is inappropriate and fails to appreciate the internal variation in heritage value across the site.
23 Lael Lea Lack of Significance
Property – 145 Russell Street Amendment C186 has recommended the inclusion of 179-183 Bourke Street and by implication 145 Russell Street; in the Heritage Overlay HO999. The owners of the property strongly object to Amendment C186 as the building does not have heritage significance.
No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should not be included in a Heritage Overlay. The property has met the criteria of a significant building and should be included in the Heritage Overlay.
24 National Trust No specific property. The National Trust commends the City of Melbourne for undertaking this review. It is pleased to see that for the first time some interiors in the CBD are proposed to be protected. It welcomes the inclusion of a number of post-WWII places for protection, as well as the first post-modern place, the extraordinary interior of Rosati's in Flinders Lane. The National Trust unreservedly supports the majority of the places proposed for Heritage Overlay controls. There are however a few places that the Trust has difficulty supporting unreservedly - certainly without some further work - and some that we feel should be re-examined for significance. There are also some corrections, and a discussion of further work that may be needed for interiors. 1 Buildings 1.1 Corrections Commonwealth Bank, 219-25 Bourke Street We note that this place was added to the Victorian Heritage Register. Prince of Wales Hotel (Markillie's Hotel), 562-564 Flinders Street.
A lot of the content included in the National Trust submission is outside the scope of this Amendment as the submission included recommendations for additional places and interiors. This report recommends the Heritage Overlay control for 562-564 Flinders Street, Melbourne. The exhibition version of the map did include the L shaped component of the property fronting Downie Street. This was incorrect and has been revised to show the Heritage Overlay apply to only the Flinders Street frontage. 30-40 Exhibition Street – the last addition to this building converted a once ‘stripped classical style’ to a simply treated Moderne one. The architectural significance is because of a sympathetic (rather than faithful) extension of the original building. The previous parapet form was changed to a new Moderne. As for most ‘interiors’ identified, these spaces are contiguous with the exterior of the building and have a potentially contributory role in the buildings integrity. The National Mutual Life Centre plaza has not been assessed except to note that it has a high integrity, neither have the statues, plaques. The Lewis statement is stronger than the
Page 20 of 62
The building, is L-shaped, with a later addition dating from 1921. The exhibited HO map includes this section; but not the address of 5-7 Downie Street. It should be clarified whether this section was intended to be included: Alley Building, 30-40 Exhibition Street We query its description as a 'Moderne style warehouse'. National Mutual Life Centre, 435-455 Collins Street The Trust strongly supports the inclusion of this place, but the status of the plaza and its landscaping needs to be clarified and; perhaps strengthened, as does the description and importance of the facade. The plaza is significant for its great size, providing a spacious setting for the tower in the modernist and heroic traction as well as being an area of great amenity. Its importance is also noted within, the quote from Miles Lewis, Melbourne - the City’s History and Development (1994), in the "What is, significant" section', where it is described as "the dramatic aspect was the creation of a large forecourt to Collins Street, unparalleled in another commercial development in the city," Some modification to the report may be required in regard to the façade. In the "Why" section, the new and unique qualities of the facade and its rich materials could be more strongly stated. 1.2. Places that may require more justification W.D. and H.O. Wills Tobacco Warehouse, 411-423 Swanston Street Statement of Significance notes that it is significant: .... historically for its long and close association with the tobacco firm W.D. and H.O. Wills within the Capital City Zone, as well as
existing The new and unique qualities of the façade and its rich materials could be more strongly stated – this is so but would not alter the meaning of the statement. 411-423 Swanston street was purpose built for Wills and is part of a tobacco warehouse precinct. The area does hold some industrial or industry related buildings (worker insurance schemes etc) of note that could form a precinct. 20 Queen Street – the financial institutions point is covered by the Statement of Significance. It could be made more specific to Queen Street. 299 Elizabeth Street – the current Review (and Bryce Raworth) have found some local significance in the place and graded it as C and it has not changed since. This example in an inner city context would be seen as uncommon as are other three storey shops. ‘Sgraffito’ decoration is rare in the CBD. The street façade was designed as a hotel in the late Victorian era, so it is expressive of a custom hotel design as well as, by its non-corner sites, its former role as a 1850’s store. 468-470 Bourke Street, the early image shows a similar stainless steel handrail and similar marble paved starts (made wider later).
Page 21 of 62
the controversy surrounding the architect, Davies, with another tobacco warehouse that collapsed shortly before the construction of this building. The early use of flat slab Turner reinforced construction method is also of historic interest. This states that the association is long, but there is no indication how long. It is not the only tobacco-related heritage place in the CBD. Aesthetically, the building is of interest as a prominent, well-preserved but conservative design more typical of the Edwardian-era and hence does not achieve the local significance threshold assessed within this value but it exemplifies the building type well." If this place is not found to be of sufficient significance to be worthy of individual listing, it would certainly be a contributory element to a future heritage precinct in this area. Yorkshire Insurance Company Building, 20 Queen Street, 1923 While quite handsome with some strong details, the building is plain, all windows now have frameless glazing, and there are many other examples by the architects. However, it is a relatively rare survivor of the once numerous inter-war and indeed Victorian era financial institutions in this area. Perhaps the statement could be revised to highlight this significance. Victorian era places that are similar to many found outside the CBD: While the following buildings have historical associations with the CBD, since they are located there, they are similar to many such places outside the CBD. Shop and dwelling, 1885, 299 Elizabeth Street This building is architecturally very similar in style to many
Page 22 of 62
Victorian era shop/houses found in the inner suburbs and country towns. Statement: The former Federal Club hotel is of aesthetic significance as a distinctive example of late nineteenth century hotel facade in an Italianate mode within Melbourne's Capital City Zone. …Historically the building had served as a hotel since the 1850s. Perhaps this is the only mid-block hotel with an early starting date that can be identified in the CBD. Pysent's stores, 299 Elizabeth Street, 1854, facade 1917 Statement: Pynsent's store is significant historically as one of the earliest group of stores in the Capital City Zone and for its location in the City's first commercial strip along the Sydney Road. ... The historical importance of what is said to be the City's first commercial strip along the Sydney Road needs to be more clearly established. It is also unusual to list a building for its rear elevation. These places are of a type found through the inner suburbs and indeed across Victoria. They are however relatively rare in the CBD, as they still are in the inner suburbs. Perhaps this rarity, rather than any high standard of design or early date should be highlighted as part of their significance. 1.3. Place not recommended for inclusion by the study Shops and Factory (former Cyclorama), 166-188 Little Collins Street. The research conducted by Graeme Butler clearly shows that the National Trust report on this place is substantially incorrect! The place is therefore certainly unique architecturally, with very few examples anywhere in Victoria, so we cannot agree that it does not
Page 23 of 62
have sufficient significance for HO controls. 1.4. Places not included in study We feel it is important to note the few obvious places 'missed' from the study namely: • Hoyts Cinema Centre Tower, 144 Bourke Street, 1969 (B grade); classified by the Trust at State level. • Total Carpark, 170-190 Russell St, 1966 (B grade); NT file only, but believed to be of high significance • Paterson's, 158 Bourke St, 1934 (C grade); no NT file. 2 Interiors We are not convinced that all the recommended interiors do warrant protection. 2.1. Assessment of Significance If interiors are to be included, that they should be described within the "What?" section of the Statement of Significance, and some assessment of their significance should also be included in the "Why?" There should probably be a general discussion of interiors in section 1 of the report. 2.2. Traegerwellblech The inclusion of the 217-219 Queen Street Traegerwellblech 'ceiling' as an 'interior' raises the important issue of whether it is an 'interior feature' or a structural one, and whether the 'interior' column of the HO schedule must be ticked for anything at all in the interior to be controlled. If found to be significant, its significance could not be diminished by later being covered over by a modern plaster ceiling. However, it is not certain how rare this structural element really is in the CBD; and there may well be many others in the city that exist, but are not currently visible.
Page 24 of 62
2.3. Statements proposed to be placed in the 'interiors' column Since this is the trigger control, it is important that these statements / descriptions are accurate. We have prepared the attached table of all the interiors for suggested alterations to the descriptions of the areas to be covered by controls, as well as more detailed assessments. 2.4. Interiors perhaps not locally significant Alley Building, 30-40 Exhibition Street, cnr Flinders Lane The interior here is described as: "Ground floor foyer with timber panelling with early brass fittings; lift lobby door; and a jarrah main stair with pressed metal sheeting on the stair and landing soffit." At a recent inspection however no brass fittings could be seen, and the timber panelling was not extensive, and painted black. With only a small amount of painted timber panelling, a pleasant lift door, and pressed metal to the underside of the stairs, this does not stand out as an interior of equal significance to others in the study. London Assurance, 468-470 Bourke Street This interior was extensively modified in 2003, leaving only the side travertine walls unchanged. Unless it can be shown that the original floor was white marble, this interior is not intact. The only reason to retain this as a protected interior would be if it were shown to be the only 1950s-60s lobby to remain at all intact, which indeed it might be. The submission also listed other interiors that could be included in a future study.
25 RMIT University No specific details
Properties – 411-423 Swanston Street, 63-67 Franklin Street and 427-433 Swanston Street This submissions relates to three buildings: W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust) Ltd tobacco warehouse – 411-
No objection to the inclusion of 427-433 Swanston Street. No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the other buildings should be included in a Heritage Overlay.
Page 25 of 62
423 Swanston Street (RMIT Building 37) Cylone Woven Wire Fence Co. factory – 63-67 Franklin
Street (RMIT Building 49) County Court Hotel, later Oxford Hotel, Oxford Scholar
Hotel – 427-433 Swanston Street (RMIT Building 81) Accept the recommendation that the County Court Hotel (427-433 Swanston Street) be individually included in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. However, object to the inclusion of 411-423 Swanston Street and 63-67 Franklin Street.
The address for the property on the corner of Franklin and Swanston Streets has been revised from 63-67 to 57-77 Franklin Street as the GIS team indicate that this is the most appropriate address to indicate the extent of the Heritage Overlay on the site.
26 Peter Barrett (on behalf of GormanKelly)
Property – 9-13 Drewery Lane The Sniders & Abrahams factory is identified to be of a C-grade (demonstrative of the development of an area and/or make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution to an area). Amendment C186 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme proposes to apply a site-specific heritage overlay to a site at 9-13 Drewery Lane Melbourne. The extent of this proposed heritage overlay, as shown in figure 96 of the ‘Central Melbourne (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review’, shows that in addition to the building at 9-13 Drewery Lane, the heritage overlay would also include a four-storey Victorian building, at 2-20 Drewery Lane, and a two-storey Victorian building, at 22 Drewery Lane. Both of these buildings have frontages to Sniders Lane. It is not clear whether this is a mapping error, or if these two additional buildings are to be included in the proposed heritage overlay. The building at 9-13 Drewery Lane has had a considerable amount of change made to its exterior. These changes have had a significant impact upon the original character of the building. In more recent years, a sculpture has been fixed to the east elevation of the building. This mural has impacted upon the integrity of the building.
This submission was provided to the Heritage Consultant to review. 9-13 Drewery Lane is relatively unchanged compared to other city warehouses. The painted brickwork can be reversed and the statue removed without impact on fabric or significance. Heritage is about preservation of fabric as a reminder of past events and persons. This building achieves this representation and the inherent association with Sniders & Abrahams as it is close to the form when the firm occupied it over a long period. The Heritage Overlay applies to 9-13 Drewery Lane only and the Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay map details the correct area.
Page 26 of 62
The building at 9-13 Drewery Lane is one of several buildings in this part of Melbourne that are associated with the tobacco merchant Sniders & Abrahams. By the 1920s Sniders & Abrahams had vacated this building, and since that time the building has served a variety of uses. The statement of significance incorrectly identifies the building at 9-13 Drewery Lane to be of a ‘Queen Anne Revival style’. Stylistically, the building on the subject site is more consistent with the Free Classical style. A heritage overlay upon this building at 9-13 Drewery Lane would impose unnecessary constraints upon future alterations and additions to the building.
27 Gordon Marolt (on behalf of Australian Budget Accommodation Group Pty Ltd)
Lack of significance Building modification
Property – 2-8 Spencer Street
The owners of the property strongly object to Amendment C186 as the building does not have heritage significance as the original fabric of the building has been modified and part replaced on many occasions. In particular the eastern part of the current building was added on some time later, the roof structure replaced by asbestos roofing while many renovations have deleted number of front entries and changed size of original windows of this old almost dilapidated hotel.
Past reviews had been conducted by the City of Melbourne in 1985, 1993 and 2002. The three studies listed 2-8 Spencer Street as a locally significant building. No new evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should be included in a Heritage Overlay. Even though the property has undergone alterations, it has still meets the criteria of a locally significant building and should be included in the Heritage Overlay.
28 Paris Kyne Supportive Property – 473-481 Elizabeth Street As the owner of 3/479 Elizabeth Street, I am in total agreement with the proposed Heritage Overlay on 473-481 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne. Objections have been received to oppose the inclusion of the property within Heritage Overlay. I do not agree with this. The property has been subject to a varied pattern of development and land uses over the past 170 years and as such should be
Supportive of the Amendment.
Page 27 of 62
considered as a single heritage site, as it shows the many uses these building have been put to, and thus how one small area has been a large part of the fabric/development of what is now the city of Melbourne. Much of the subject site still demonstrates much heritage value. Although some of the architectural features associated with the use as a hardware store have been removed or altered there is still much evidence of the historic uses of the site. As such it is my submission that the inclusion of the entirety of the site within Heritage Overlay1025 is very appropriate.
29 Jennifer Hartley (on behalf of Alex Kaar)
Lack of significance Redevelopment
Objects to the inclusion of 261 William Street, Melbourne. The building aesthetically does not display any heritage features or have heritage significance that justifies the proposed Heritage Overlay. The building has potential for development to further enhance the sustainability of the site whilst in keeping in the theme of the area as a whole.
Past reviews had been conducted by the City of Melbourne in 1985, 1993 and 2002. The three studies identified 261 William Street as a significant building. No evidence has been provided to undermine the conclusion that the building should be included in a Heritage Overlay. The property has met the criteria of a locally significant building and should be included in the Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay. Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay does not mean that a site cannot be redeveloped. When a permit for redevelopment is considered heritage becomes a further consideration.
Page 28 of 62
1
Planning and Environment Act 1987
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C186
EXPLANATORY REPORT Who is the planning authority? This amendment has been prepared by the City of Melbourne, the responsible authority for this amendment. Land affected by the amendment. The amendment affects land in the Capital City Zone as detailed in Attachment 1. What the amendment does. The amendment includes ninety nine (99) additional heritage places in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. External paint controls apply for 99 heritage places but none of the other requirements in the schedule will apply. Twelve (12) places include select building interiors. The Amendment also alters the policy at Clause 22.04 - Heritage within the Capital City Zone, so that the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010, are considered when making decisions relating to any of the 99 places which are the subject of this Amendment. Strategic assessment of the amendment Why is the amendment required? This amendment seeks to implement the recommendations of the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review to include 99 heritage places, including 12 select building interiors in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Inclusion of these properties in the Heritage Overlay is appropriate to recognise the local heritage significance of these places.
How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria? By including buildings of historic and aesthetic significance in the Heritage Overlay, the proposed amendment implements the following objective under Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value
How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any relevant social
The amendment is not expected to have any adverse economic or environmental impacts. The amendment will have positive social effects by recognising building fabric that represents the layers of development in the city. Heritage places also add character, appeal and interest to our city. Respect for our cultural heritage involves retaining and managing places that have importance to us as community. The inclusion of new places in the Heritage Overlay will ensure the conservation of Melbourne’s history for present and future generations.
Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction
applicable to the amendment?
The amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Act.
The amendment complies with Ministerial Direction No.9 – Metropolitan Strategy. The following aspects of the Metropolitan Strategy are relevant to the amendment:
The amendment is consistent with and supports Direction 5, A great place to be and seeks to implement Policy 5.4 - Protect heritage places and values.
How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework?
This amendment supports the objective of Clause 15.03 of the SPPF to assist the conservation of places that have historical significance. By including the identified places in the Heritage Overlay, Council will be fulfilling the State objective of identifying, conserving and protecting places of natural or cultural value.
How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework?
This amendment supports the objectives and implements the strategies of Clause 21.05-1 of the LPPF by conserving places of identified cultural heritage significance.
Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions?
The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is the proper VPP tool for the introduction of heritage controls over a place identified to be of heritage significance. The amendment addresses the requirements of the Planning Practice Note “Applying the Heritage Overlay”. This Practice Note states that places identified in local heritage studies should be included in the Heritage Overlay if the significance of the place can be established. The identification of heritage places using established criteria and documentation methods is an important consideration in proposing the inclusion of heritage places in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.
How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency?
The views of relevant agencies can be gained through the amendment exhibition process.
Is the amendment likely to have a significant impact on the transport system, as defined by section 3 of the Transport Integration Act 2010?
The Amendment is not likely to have an impact on the transport system.
Page 30 of 62
Are there any applicable statements of policy principles prepared under section 22 of the Transport Integration Act 2010?
There are no applicable statements of policy principles that apply.
What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority?
The inclusion of 99 additional places within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay may contribute to a minor increase in the number of planning permit applications on an annual basis. However, this increase can be accommodated within existing resources. These resource and administration costs will be off-set by a reduction in the need for individual responses to the possible demolition of significant heritage places which are not currently included within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Where you may inspect this Amendment The amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, on the City of Melbourne website and during office hours at the following location: City of Melbourne Level 3, 240 Little Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 The amendment can also be inspected free of charge at the Department of Planning and Community Development web site at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection.
HO993 104 A’Beckett HO994 111-125 A’Beckett HO995 185-187 A’Beckett HO996 160-162 Bourke HO997 164-166 Bourke HO998 168-174 Bourke HO1000 180-182 Bourke HO1001 193-199 Bourke HO1002 194-200 Bourke HO1003 219-225 Bourke HO1004 415-419 Bourke HO1005 418-420 Bourke HO1006 468-470 Bourke HO1007 336-338 Collins HO1090 340-342 Collins HO1008 404-406 Collins HO1009 409-413 Collins HO1010 430-442 Collins HO1011 433-455 Collins HO1012 464-466 Collins HO1013 615-623 Collins HO1014 9-13 Drewery Lane HO1015 21-23 Elizabeth HO1016 215-217 Elizabeth HO1017 299 Elizabeth HO1018 303-305 Elizabeth HO1019 351-357 Elizabeth HO1020 380 Elizabeth HO1021 384 Elizabeth HO1022 441-447 Elizabeth HO1023 453-457 Elizabeth HO1024 463-465 Elizabeth HO1025 473-481 Elizabeth HO1035 1-9 Exhibition HO1027 53-55 Exhibition HO1028 104-110 Exhibition HO1029 309 Exhibition HO1030 61-73 Flinders Lane HO1031 95-101 Flinders Lane HO1032 125-127 Flinders Lane HO1033 141-143 Flinders Lane HO1034 26-30 Flinders Street HO1026 75-77 Flinders Street HO1036 130-132 Flinders Street HO1038 508-510 Flinders Street HO1039 516-518 Flinders Street HO1040 520-522 Flinders Street HO1041 562-564 Flinders Street HO1074 566-580 Flinders Street HO1042 57-77 Franklin Street HO1043 96-102 Franklin Street HO1044 4-6 Goldie Place HO1045 106-112 Hardware Street
Page 32 of 62
HO1046 12-20 King Street HO1047 115-129 King Street HO1048 131-135 King Street HO1049 284-294 La Trobe HO1050 361-363 Little Bourke HO1051 362-364 Little Bourke HO1052 365-367 Little Bourke HO1053 373-375 Little Bourke HO1054 434-436 Little Bourke HO1055 68-70 Little Collins HO1056 392-396 Little Collins HO1057 538-542 Little Collins HO1058 25 Little Lonsdale HO1059 194-196 Little Lonsdale HO1060 198-200 Little Lonsdale HO1061 372-378 Little Lonsdale HO1062 523-525 Little Lonsdale HO1063 326 Lonsdale HO1064 439-445 Lonsdale HO1065 14-30 Melbourne Place HO1037 1-5 Queen Street HO1066 20-26 Queen HO1067 37-41 Queen HO1068 111-129 Queen HO1069 118-126 Queen HO1070 203-205 Queen HO1071 217-219 Queen HO985 316-322 Queen HO1072 42-44 Russell HO999 145 Russell HO1073 288-294 Russell HO1075 10-22 Spencer HO1076 66-70 Spencer HO1077 122-132 Spencer HO1078 267-271 Spring HO1079 135-137 Swanston HO1080 163-165 Swanston HO1081 309-325 Swanston HO1082 401-403 Swanston HO1083 407-409 Swanston HO1084 411-423 Swanston HO1085 427-433 Swanston HO1086 22-32 William HO1089 114-128 William HO1087 259 William HO1088 261 William
Page 33 of 62
Amendment C186 List of changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme
Clause / Map
Numbers
Change
Comment
PLANNING SCHEME MAP CHANGES
Map No. 8H01 Amend Planning Scheme Map No8HO1, as shown on the attached map marked “Melbourne Planning Scheme, Amendment C186”
Amends the planning scheme maps to apply the Heritage Overlay to 99 new heritage places and 12 select building interiors.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 22.04 Amend Clause 22.04 by inserting the following wording under Policy:
The recommendations for individual buildings and controls as detailed in the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010..
Include the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010 as Policy References.
Amends Clause 22.04, Heritage Places within the Capital City Zone, by including reference to the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010.
OVERLAYS Heritage Overlay
Schedule The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is amended to include 99 new places. External paint controls apply to 99 places, 12 places are select building interiors with interior controls but none of the other requirements in the schedule will apply.
Applies the Heritage Overlay to include an additional 99 new heritage places and 12 select building interiors.
LIST OF AMENDMENTS (Information to accompany amendment) List of
Amendments Insert: Amendment number “C186”, In operation from DATE with the brief description, “Amends Clause 22.04 by including the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010 as policy references and introduces 99 new heritage places to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.”
Updates list of amendments to the planning scheme
Page 34 of 62
Planning and Environment Act 1987
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C186
The planning authority for this amendment is the Melbourne City Council.
The Melbourne Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
Planning Scheme Maps
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of one attached map sheets:
Overlay Maps
1. Planning Scheme Map No. 8HO1 is amended in the manner shown on the attached map marked “Melbourne Planning Scheme, Amendment C186”.
Planning Scheme Ordinance
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
2. In Local Planning Policy Framework – Amend Clause 22.04 as follows:
Insert the following wording as the fifth dot point under the heading “Policy”: “The recommendations for individual buildings and controls as detailed in the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010.”
Include the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010 as Policy References.
3. In Overlays – insert the 99 new entries as shown on the attached document into the table to the Schedule to Clause 43.01.
End of document
Page 35 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LIST OF AMENDMENTS PAGE 1 OF 1
LIST OF AMENDMENTS
Amendment number
In operation from
Brief description
C186 DATE Amendment number “C186”. In operation from DATE with the brief description, “Amends Clause 22.04 by including the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review, 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010 as policy references; and introduces 99 new heritage places to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
Page 36 of 62
Planning and Environment Act 1987
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Notice of Preparation of Amendment
Amendment C186
Authorisation A01997 The Melbourne City Council has prepared Amendment C186 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme. In accordance with section 8A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Minister for Planning authorised the Melbourne City Council as planning authority to prepare the amendment. Amendment C186 introduces the 99 places and 12 select building interiors into the Heritage Overlay. The changes implement the recommendations of the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street, 2010. External paint controls apply for 99 heritage places and select internal controls for 12 places, but none of the other requirements in the schedule will apply. The Amendment also alters the policy at Clause 22.04 - Heritage within the Capital City Zone, so that the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010, are considered when making decisions relating to any of the 99 places which are the subject of this Amendment. You may inspect the amendment, any documents that support the amendment and the explanatory report about the amendment, free of charge, at the following locations during office hours:
At www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning
the office of the planning authority
City of Melbourne Level 3, 240 Lt Collins St MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Department of Planning and Community Development www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection
City of Melbourne – City Library 253 Flinders Lane MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Any person who may be affected by the amendment may make a submission. Submissions must be made in writing giving the submitter’s name and contact address. The City of Melbourne is committed to protecting your privacy. The personal information provided with your submission is being collected by Council for the purpose of future opportunities to be heard. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 21(2), your submission must be made available for any person to inspect during office hours free of charge until two months after the amendment comes into operation (approved) or lapses. To increase transparency, the City of Melbourne will upload your submission to its website until two months after the amendment comes into operation (approved) or lapses. If you are an individual, only your name will appear on the submission online (all other personal information ie phone, address, email etc will be removed). If you have any queries or concerns about the personal information you have supplied to City of Melbourne, please contact Council via telephone 9658 9658 or email [email protected]. The closing date for submissions is Friday 14 October 2011. A submission must be sent to: Coordinator Local Policy City of Melbourne P O Box 1603
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 1 OF 8
22.04 HERITAGE PLACES WITHIN THE CAPITAL CITY ZONE
This policy applies to the Capital City Zone.
Policy Basis
The heritage of the Capital City Zone area, comprising individual buildings, precincts, significant trees, and aboriginal archaeological sites, is a significant part of Melbourne’s attraction as a place in which to live, visit, do business and invest. It is also important for cultural and sociological reasons, providing a distinctive historical character and a sense of continuity. Much of Melbourne’s charm is provided by its older buildings, which, while not always of high individual significance, together provide cultural significance or interest, and should be retained in their three dimensional form, not as two dimensional facades as has sometimes occurred.
The identification, assessment, and citation of heritage places have been undertaken over decades, as part of an ongoing heritage conservation process and their recognition and protection have been a crucial component of planning in Melbourne since 1982.
Objectives
To conserve and enhance all heritage places, and ensure that any alterations or extensions to them are undertaken in accordance with accepted conservation standards.
To consider the impact of development on buildings listed in the Central Activities District Conservation Study and the South Melbourne Conservation Study.
To promote the identification, protection and management of aboriginal cultural heritage values.
To conserve and enhance the character and appearance of precincts identified as heritage places by ensuring that any new development complements their character, scale, form and appearance.
Policy
The following matters shall be taken into account when considering applications for buildings, works or demolition to heritage places as identified in the Heritage Overlay:
Proposals for alterations, works or demolition of an individual heritage building or works involving or affecting heritage trees should be accompanied by a conservation analysis and management plan in accordance with the principles of the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance 1992 (The Burra Charter).
The demolition or alteration of any part of a heritage place should not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that that action will contribute to the long-term conservation of the significant fabric of the heritage place.
The impact of proposed developments on aboriginal cultural heritage values, as indicated in an archaeologist's report, for any site known to contain aboriginal archaeological relics.
The recommendations for individual buildings, sites and areas contained in the Central City Heritage Study Review 1993.
The recommendations for individual buildings and controls as detailed in the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010.
All development affecting a heritage precinct should enhance the character of the precinct as described by the following statements of significance.
/ /20 C186
Page 39 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 2 OF 8
Regard shall be given to buildings listed A, B, C and D in the individual conservation studies, and their significance as described by their individual Building Identification Sheet.
Statements of Significance and Key Attributes for Heritage Areas within the Heritage Overlay
Bank Place Precinct
Statement of Significance
The character of the intimate space within Bank Place is created by the architectural variety of the comparatively small, individual buildings that enclose it. They vary in style from the English domestic of the Mitre Tavern (1865), through to the Victorian facades of Stalbridge Chambers and the romanesque revival of Nahun Barnett’s Bank Houses. The Savage Club, 12 Bank Place, was erected as a townhouse in the 1880s and is now on the Victorian Heritage Register. With its narrow entrances, flanked at the northern end by the impressive and ornately detailed Stalbridge Chambers on one side and on the other by a significant row of two-storey shops, representing the oldest legal offices in what was once Chancery Lane, it provides a pleasant and intimate space in the heart of the City. The area extends across Little Collins Street to include the Normanby Chambers, another sophisticated facade featuring Italian and English Renaissance design, another office long associated with the legal fraternity, and forming an architectural focus for Bank Place.
Key Attributes
The intimate scale and character of Bank Place, as well as its strong social and traditionally pedestrian role.
Architecturally interesting building facades and detailing throughout.
Bourke Hill Precinct
Statement of Significance
This precinct derives much importance from its association with Parliament House, which was built progressively from 1856. This 19th century complex dominates the Bourke Street vista from as far away as William Street, and is emphasised by the sympathetic scale of the buildings on either side of the Bourke Street Hill. The precinct also includes such stylish and prominent buildings facing Spring Street as the Princess Theatre (1886) and the Hotel Windsor (1883). These contribute to the high level of amenity of Spring Street and its gardens. The buildings on either side of Bourke Street reflect the variety of social activities that have taken place in this area since the mid-19th century. The scale of the City’s buildings prior to the boom era of the 1880s is seen in the simple design and low scale of the two-storey Crossley’s Building (1884-1853).
The area also comprises part of the entertainment precinct of the central city, and buildings such as the Salvation Army Temple (1890) reflect the interest of social reformers in the nearby ‘back slums’ epitomised by the nearby former Gordon House (1883-1884). A philanthropic venture built by a syndicate headed by the actor-manager and politician George Coppin, it was named after the martyr of Khartoum and was an ambitious venture intended to provide family accommodation for the respectable poor. However, the venture was not successful in achieving its purpose and Gordon House later became a shelter for homeless men and now a hotel. It survives as a unique social document in the narrow confines of Little Bourke Street, and is complemented by the low-scale of surrounding red brick buildings.
Page 40 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 3 OF 8
The juxtaposition of the Parliament, the former deprived areas of Little Bourke Street and the style of Bourke Street gives the precinct an unrivalled historic texture and overall the theatres, hotels, cafes and quality bookshops contribute to the relaxed and elegant character of the eastern end of the city.
Key Attributes
Low-scale Victorian buildings.
The visual dominance of the parliamentary buildings on the Bourke Hill skyline, and the vista along Bourke Street to Parliament House.
Bourke West Precinct
Statement of Significance
Architecturally diverse but coherent in scale and picturesque setting, this precinct contains highly expressive elements of the late 19th and early 20th century city. Apart from containing a rare and interesting mix of diverse functions and building types, this precinct includes a range of government services located in the western quarter of the City. Some buildings such as Unity Hall (1916), Hudsons’s Stores (1876-77) and the Old Tramways Building (1891) have important historical associations with transport and the Spencer Street railway yards. The comparatively low levels of even the tallest buildings contrast well with the single-storey structures on the southern side of Bourke Street, enabling the taller structures to be seen from their original perspective.
Key Attributes
A group of architecturally diverse 19th and early 20th century buildings that are consistent in scale and associated with public services and warehousing.
The dominance of the Tramways Building on the south side of Bourke Street and the Mail Exchange building on the north side.
The amenity of the garden around St Augustine’s Church.
Collins East Precinct
Statement of Significance
Collins Street has often been identified as Melbourne’s leading street. This is due, in part, to the pleasant amenity and distinctive character of its eastern end. Its relative elevation and proximity to the Government Reserve and points of access to the City provided for its development as an elite locale. Initially a prestige residential area, the Melbourne Club re-established itself here in 1857 and by the 1860s the medical profession had begun to congregate. By the turn of the century it was firmly established as a professional and artistic centre of Melbourne, with part of its fame due to its tree plantations in the French boulevard manner (hence the ‘Paris end’), which date from 1875.
A number of significant buildings come together in this precinct to form a series of prominent streetscapes. These include, at the western end, the Town Hall, Athenaeum, and Assembly Hall through to the Scots and Independent Churches, with the Regent Theatre through to the redeveloped T&G building opposite. The eastern end includes the early 19th century residential and artists’ studio buildings at the foot of No. One Collins, with the predominantly 20th century intact run to the north featuring Alcaston, Anzac Portland and Chanonry Houses, and Victor Horsley Chambers plus the nearby Melbourne Club.
Page 41 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 4 OF 8
At all times until the post 1939-45 war period, redevelopment took place in a quiet and restrained manner with an emphasis on dignity, harmony and compatibility with the intimate scale and pedestrian qualities of the street. These qualities are still embodied in significant remnant buildings and other artifacts, despite the intrusion of large developments. The qualities of the street are also embodied in the social functions of the buildings which include elite smaller scale residential, religious, social, quality retailing and professional activities.
Key Attributes
The buildings remaining from before the Second World War.
The boulevard quality of this end of Collins Street with street tree plantations and street furniture.
A consistent height, scale, character and appearance of the remaining 19th and early 20th century buildings.
The historic garden of the Melbourne Club.
Flinders Gate Precinct
Statement of Significance
This precinct comprises the City’s southern face, a major access point at Princes Bridge, and the specialised commercial district of Flinders Street. The area has been a gateway to the City from the south ever since the first Prince’s Bridge (1841) and Melbourne’s first railway were constructed, and Flinders and Spencer Street stations were linked by a viaduct in 1879. A grand new Princes Bridge (1886) confirmed the trend to redevelopment in the latter decades of the 19th century. The present Flinders Street Station (1906-10) also dates from this period. Proximity to the centre of Victoria’s railway system explains the location and the size of the Commercial Travellers’ Club (1899) in Flinders Street.
It was here, at Melbourne’s southern gate, that the Anglican community chose to build their grand new St Paul’s Cathedral (1880-91), replacing an earlier church on the same site. The choice was a logical one as many of them lived in the southern and eastern suburbs. More commercial motives saw the construction in Flinders Street of large retail emporia such as the former Mutual Store (1891) and Ball and Welch (1899).
This precinct offers evidence of all these changes, and also includes two of Melbourne’s earliest and best known hotels, the Duke of Wellington (1850) and Young and Jackson’s Princes Bridge Hotel (1854). An important feature of Flinders Street’s southern face of buildings is their uniform height facing the station, Federation Square and the Yarra River.
Key Attributes
The traditional gateway to the central city from the south and an area associated with retailing.
Major 19th and early 20th century buildings including Flinders Street Station, St Paul’s Cathedral and Princes Bridge.
Flinders Lane Precinct
Statement of Significance
Proximity to the Yarra River, Queens Wharf and the Customs House marked Flinders Lane as an appropriate location for the establishment of wholesaling businesses in the 19th
Page 42 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 5 OF 8
century. Up until the 1870s and 1880s, Melbourne was the centre of the colonial re-export trade. Overseas cargoes were received, re-packed and distributed to the southern colonies and New Zealand. This trade created a demand for functional warehouses offering large areas of space close to the ground without any need for external display. This generation of buildings were plain brick or stone, up to three storeys in height, and limited to one commercial occupant.
The international exhibition of 1880-81 helped change this. International agents were introduced into the commercial economy, together with a system of indented goods sent direct from manufacturer to retailer. As this system took hold and the southern face of the city became more accessible to rail and road (with the development of Flinders and Spencer Street stations, and the construction of the new Princes Bridge), it became uneconomic to maintain large areas of warehouse space in Flinders Lane. The new wholesaler was able to store his goods elsewhere, requiring only a rented office and sample room in the city proper. However, clothing manufacturers and designers did find the larger floor areas to their liking and a number of ‘Rag Trade’ activities were established in the area.
An intense period of building between 1900 and 1930 resulted in taller buildings incorporating large showcase windows to both ground and basement floors, characteristically separated by a floor line approximately 1 metre from the ground. The new buildings of the 1970s and 1980s were even taller, more architecturally pretentious, and presented a display to the street. Flinders Lane retains buildings from all three eras, and presents a striking physical display of the changing pattern of trading activity in Melbourne.
Key Attributes
The scale and character of the six and seven-storey office and warehouse buildings constructed in Flinders Lane before the Second World War and the predominant building forms and materials of the precinct.
The traditional association with ‘Rag Trade’ activities, other creative professions, or dwellings.
The large showcase windows at the ground and basement floors of the warehouse offices constructed before the Second World War.
Little Bourke Precinct
Statement of Significance
Chinese immigrants settled in Little Bourke Street as early as the mid 1850s. Chinese occupation in the city centre then extended north and west, creating a distinct enclave. The buildings that they occupied were not distinctively ‘Chinese’ in their appearance but were rather the typical small brick shops, dwellings, warehouses and factories of the less affluent areas of Victorian Melbourne (indeed the area was not known as ‘Chinatown’ until the 1970s).
A number of architecturally distinctive, community-oriented buildings were constructed in the heart of the precinct on Little Bourke Street. These included the Num Pon Soon Chinese Club House (1861) and the premises of leading Chinese merchant Sum Kum Lee (1888). However, the most obvious features of Chinatown were the Chinese themselves, their characteristic trades, and the often run-down general character of their quarter of the City. In the late 19th century, the overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic community stigmatised both the Chinese and their portion of the city for an association with vice but, for many Chinese, Little Bourke Street was a centre of trade and community life. Today, Chinatown’s shops, restaurants and distinctive character are popular with many Melburnians and tourists as well as the Chinese community.
Page 43 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 6 OF 8
The precinct is bordered on its northern boundary by taller strip development fronting Lonsdale Street. Many Victorian and Edwardian buildings survive in this location and they provide an important contextual link between the ‘back streets and lanes’ of the heart of the precinct and the more public areas of the City. Since the Second World War, Lonsdale Street has become a centre for Melbourne’s Greek community, further enhancing the cultural diversity of this cosmopolitan precinct.
Key Attributes
The small low-scale Victorian and Edwardian buildings densely located along Little Bourke Street and the adjoining laneways.
The traditional association with the Chinese community expressed through uses and signage.
The focus for Greek commercial, entertainment, professional and cultural activities on the southern side of Lonsdale Street.
The Swanston Street, Russell Street and Exhibition Street entry points to Chinatown.
The prominence of Sum Kum Lee (112-114 Little Bourke Street) and Num Pon Soon (200-202 Little Bourke Street) within Little Bourke Street.
The amenity of Little Bourke Street and the adjoining laneways for pedestrian use.
The attractiveness of the precinct for tourism and recreation.
Post Office Precinct
Statement of Significance
For the immigrant community of Victorian Melbourne, dependant on the mail for news of all kinds, the General Post Office (GPO) was an important social institution. The present building reflects this social standing in its imposing architecture and occupation of a prominent corner site. The present building replaced an earlier structure of 1841 and was constructed in three stages between 1859 and 1907. The importance of the post office ensured a variety of other commercial attractions in the vicinity, many of them of retail character. The confluence of omnibus and tramway facilities assisted this.
Overall, this precinct has maintained its place as a major retail centre for the metropolis, surviving the challenges of such suburban centres as Smith and Chapel Streets and Chadstone. In the inter-war period, such establishments as Buckley and Nunn redeveloped their properties, the Myer Emporium put on its present face, and London Stores, the Leviathan Public Benefit Bootery, G J Coles and Dunklings all developed as substantial variety and specialist stores.
Important 19th century buildings such as the Royal Arcade and the GPO are now intermingled with the commercial gothic and art-deco characteristics of the 20th century shops and emporia to create a precinct characterised by glamour and variety. The precinct also contains sub-areas of great cultural value, such as the post office steps and arcades and Myer’s windows (especially when decorated at Christmas time). The precinct’s status as a meeting place has been recognised and enhanced by the establishment of the Bourke Street Mall.
Key Attributes
The traditional character of the precinct as a major retail centre.
The scale, form and appearance of the buildings constructed before the Second World War and of the surviving 19th century buildings.
Page 44 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 7 OF 8
The Block Precinct
Statement of Significance
Within this precinct may be found not only the heart of Victorian Melbourne’s most fashionable retail area but also the beginnings of its ‘Chicago end’ along Swanston Street. ‘Doing the Block’, a term coined to describe the popular pastime amongst Melbourne’s middle classes of promenading outside the plush retail and accessory stores, reached its height in the boom years of the 1880s. The tradition of arcaded shopping was borrowed from nearby Royal Arcade and became a marked feature of this precinct. Block Arcade (1891-93), Centreway Arcade (1913), Block Court (1930), Manchester Unity Arcade (1932), and the Century Arcade (1938-40) testify to the continued popularity of this form.
The precinct contains a great number of significant and architecturally impressive buildings dating from the boom years of the 19th century through to the period immediately prior to the 1939-45 war. The Elizabeth Street end is dominated by the smaller buildings of the earlier period whereas along Swanston Street may be found the Manchester Unity Building, the Capitol Theatre and the Century Arcade, all based on precedents found in Chicago at the time, and pushed to the maximum height limit of 132 feet that existed in Melbourne until the construction of the ICI building in 1958.
Key Attributes
The historic character of the precinct as a retail area, characterised by a large number of buildings from the late Victorian and early 20th century periods and by the network of arcade shopping.
The comfortable pedestrian movement within the precinct.
The commercial and retail buildings of the Victorian and 1900-1940 periods.
The Market Precinct
Statement of Significance
The Queen Victoria Market is one of the great 19th century markets of Australia and the only such market built by the Melbourne City Council to survive. The complex of enclosed food halls, open sheds, shops and stores illustrate a complete mode of commercial transaction, which is today substantially similar to the pattern in 1878 when the main fruit and vegetable market was opened. The Market was the principle market of fresh fruit and vegetable produce in Victoria from 1878 to 1975 and had a profound effect on the whole system of growing, selling and distribution in the state. As a retail market, it has been an important meeting place for a large component of Melbourne’s population and remains a vital link with a part of Melbourne’s domestic life.
Key Attributes
The historic character of the precinct as a retail area.
The generally simple, low-scale and remarkably intact example of a utilitarian form from the period of its construction. Taken as a whole, the Market and its component buildings are substantially intact in its 1923 form.
The visual dominance of the Queen Victoria Market in the surrounding area.
Page 45 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04 PAGE 8 OF 8
Policy Reference
Urban Conservation in the City of Melbourne 1985
Central Activities District Conservation Study 1985
Harbour, Railways, Industrial Conservation
South Melbourne Conservation Study 1985
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011
Heritage Assessment 316-322 Queen Street 2010
Page 46 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 1 OF 9
SCHEDULE TO THE HERITAGE OVERLAY
The requirements of this overlay apply to both the heritage place and its associated land.
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO993 104 A'Beckett Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO994 111-125 A'Beckett Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO995 185-187 A'Beckett Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO996 160-162 Bourke Street
Extent of internal control: Coved and glazed roof lantern over the main ground floor shop area
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO997 164-166 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO998 168-174 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1000 180-182 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1001 193-199 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1002 194-200 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1003 219-225 Bourke Street Yes No No No Yes: Ref H2264
No - No
Page 47 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 2 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1004 415-419 Bourke Street
Entry foyer, ground floor stair and lift lobbies: patterned and panelled polished stone linings, parquet flooring, polished terrazzo and metal joinery; pendant light fittings.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1005 418-420 Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1006 468-470 Bourke Street
Extent of internal control: Ground level foyer including stainless steel balustrading; white marble to stairs and lobby floor; green marble and travertine to entry lobby walls.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1007 338 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1090 340-342 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1008 404-406 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1009 409-413 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1010 430-442 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1011 435-455 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1012 464-466 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1013 615-623 Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1014 9-13 Drewery Lane Yes No No No No No - No
Page 48 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 3 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1015 21-23 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1016 215-217 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1017 299 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1018 303-305 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1019 351-357 Elizabeth Street
Extent of internal control: The ground floor marble lined lobby and staircase walls; a polished copper directory case on the lobby wall; stair with wreathed blackwood handrail with restrained panelled metal balusters.
Yes Yes
No No No No - No
HO1020 380 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1021 384 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1022 441-447 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1023 453-457 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1024 463-465 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1025 473-481 Elizabeth Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1035 1-9 Exhibition Street
(also known as 76-80 Flinders Street)
Yes No No No No No - No
HO1027 53-55 Exhibition Street Yes No No No No No - No
Page 49 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 4 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1028 104-110 Exhibition Street
Extent of internal control: Exhibition Street ground floor and hall lobbies with two-coloured Buchan marble dadoes; lacquered timber entry door joinery with etched glass and building name to doors and top lights; door glazing and brass fittings; coloured and patterned terrazzo in the foyer flooring with the Orange order star motif, and a cascading stepped, entry stair to the first level hall with streamlined metal balustrading.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1029 309 Exhibition Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1030 61-73 Flinders Lane Yes No No No No No - No
HO1026 75-77 Flinders Lane
(also known as 30-40 Exhibition Street)
Extent of internal control: Ground floor foyer with timber panelling with early brass fittings; lift lobby door; and a jarrah main stair with pressed metal sheeting on the stair and landing soffit.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1031 95-101 Flinders Lane
Extent of internal control: Mosaic-tiled floorsand timber central bar with joinery centrepiece.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
Page 50 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 5 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1032 125-127 Flinders Lane Yes No No No No No - No
HO1033 141-143 Flinders Lane Yes No No No No No - No
HO1034 26-30 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1036 130-132 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1038 508-510 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1039 516-518 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1040 520-522 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1041 562-564 Flinders Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1074 566-580 Flinders Street
(also known as 2-8 Spencer Street)
Yes No No No No No - No
HO1042 57-77 Franklin Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1043 96-102 Franklin Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1044 4-6 Goldie Place Yes No No No No No - No
HO1045 106-112 Hardware Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1046 12-20 King Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1047 115-129 King Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1048 131-135 King Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1049 284-294 La Trobe Street Yes No No No No No - No
Page 51 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 6 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1050 361-363 Little Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1051 362-364 Little Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1052 365-367 Little Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1053 373-375 Little Bourke Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1054 434-436 Little Bourke Street
Extent of internal control: Ground-level lobby tiled wall and patterned terrazzo floor finishes.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1055 68-70 Little Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1056 392-396 Little Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1057 538-542 Little Collins Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1058 025 Little Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1059 194-196 Little Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1060 198-200 Little Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1061 372-378 Little Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1062 523-525 Little Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1063 326 Lonsdale Street Yes No No No No No - No
Page 52 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 7 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1064 439-445 Lonsdale Street
Extent of internal control: Ground level main entry lacquered joinery (inner and outer door suites); a white marble stair and polished marble wall or dado linings.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1065 14-30 Melbourne Place Yes No No No No No - No
HO1037 1-5 Queen Street
(also known as 360-372 Flinders Street)
Yes No No No No No - No
HO1066 20-26 Queen Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1067 37-41 Queen Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1068 111-129 Queen Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1069 118-126 Queen Street
Extent of internal control: Brooks Robinson shopfronts and ground level lift lobby floor and wall cladding; detailing; lighting; black marble and chrome.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
HO1070 203-205 Queen Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1071 217-219 Queen Street
Extent of internal control: Traegerwellblech corrugated iron vaulted fire-proof roofing to the ground level main chamber.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
Page 53 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 8 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO985 316-322 Queen Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1072 42-44 Russell Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO999 145 Russell Street
(also known as 179-183 Bourke Street)
Yes No No No No No - No
HO1073 288-294 Russell Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1075 10-22 Spencer Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1076 66-70 Spencer Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1077 122-132 Spencer Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1078 267-271 Spring Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1079 135-137 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1080 163-165 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1081 309-325 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1082 401-403 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1083 407-409 Swanston Street
Extent of internal control: Entry foyer and shopfront with terrazzo and tiled floors; lift lobby; three colour marble wall facing;stairway with pedestal lights; metalwork; wallmounted directory cases; bronze and brass joinery.
Yes Yes No No No No - No
Page 54 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE PAGE 9 OF 9
PS Map Ref
Heritage Place External Paint Controls Apply?
Internal Alteration Controls Apply?
Tree Controls Apply?
Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01-4
Included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995?
Prohibited uses may be permitted?
Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2
Aboriginal heritage place?
HO1084 411-423 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1085 427-433 Swanston Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1086 22-32 William Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1087 114-128 William Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1088 259 William Street Yes No No No No No - No
HO1089 261 William Street Yes No No No No No - No
Page 55 of 62
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PROVISION
AMENDMENT C186
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
LEGEND
HERITAGE OVERLAY
0 50
metres
100
HO
001
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICESStatutory SystemsPlanning, Heritage and Urban DesignDepartment of Planning and Community Development
![LAND USE PLANNING AND APPROVALS AMENDMENT … · [Bill ] 3 LAND USE PLANNING AND APPROVALS AMENDMENT (TASMANIAN PLANNING POLICIES) BILL 2017 (Brought in by the Minister for Planning](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b393e227f8b9ab9068e44d1/land-use-planning-and-approvals-amendment-bill-3-land-use-planning-and-approvals.jpg)
