3.3 heritage protection for 5 trumper street, camberwell and 57 … · officers'...

Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda 17/02/20

City of Boroondara 394

3.3 Heritage Protection for 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to inform the Urban Planning Special Committee (UPSC) of community and councillor interest in the heritage protection of 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn and to seek a decision of the UPSC to write to the Minister for Planning for their inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The properties are not included in the Heritage Overlay and residents are concerned they are at risk of demolition and re-development.

Both properties were recently assessed through the Camberwell and Hawthorn heritage gap studies. It was determined through these studies the dwellings do not meet the threshold for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as individually ‘significant’ places. However, it was noted both dwellings would be considered ‘contributory’ to a wider heritage precinct had the dwellings been located in an area where a precinct was identified. The dwelling at 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell is also the subject of a current planning permit application which seeks to construct two new dwellings on the lot. The application implies demolition of the existing dwelling, however demolition is not a planning permit trigger as the Heritage Overlay does not apply to the land. The application was lodged in September 2019 and received five objections. The application is currently being assessed.

The heritage assessment of both properties from Council’s heritage advisor Context Pty Ltd, who were responsible for the preparation of the Camberwell and Hawthorn heritage gap studies, is provided at Attachment 1.

An issue that has been raised through community feedback is Council’s inability to protect heritage places where they do not meet the threshold for individual significance as defined by the State Government’s Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay (August 2018).

At present, in accordance with Council’s adopted process, if an application for demolition were received for either property under s.29A of the Building Act 1993, consent must be issued to their demolition. Nevertheless officers have flagged both properties for referral to the Strategic Planning Department should an application be made for their demolition. This is a temporary measure while the UPSC considers whether to seek heritage protection for both properties.

If the UPSC wishes to afford either property heritage protection, a planning scheme amendment must be initiated and then authorised by the Minister for Planning. This would require a resolution of the UPSC to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to include the properties in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis. Officers also recommend the UPSC request the Minister for Planning introduce an interim Heritage Overlay to the properties, which provides immediate heritage protection while the permanent controls are progressed.

It is important to note the likelihood of each of these requests not being supported is high. This is because a heritage expert has not recommend support of the properties having regard to PPN1, the HERCON criteria or the requirement for comparative analysis.



Officers' recommendation

That the Urban Planning Special Committee resolve to:

1. Adopt the heritage assessments of the properties at 5 Trumper Street,Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn prepared by Context Pty Ltd atAttachment 1.

2. Write to the Minister for Planning to request authorisation to prepare anamendment to the Boroondara Planning Scheme in accordance with Section4B and 8A(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to include 5 TrumperStreet, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn in the Heritage Overlayas contributory graded places.

3. Following receipt of Authorisation from the Minister for Planning, exhibit theamendment in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and EnvironmentAct 1987.

4. Write to the Minister for Planning to request that he prepare, adopt and approvean amendment to the Boroondara Planning Scheme under Section 20(4) of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 to introduce an interim Heritage Overlay to5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn.

5. Authorise the Director City Planning to undertake administrative changes to theamendment that do not change the intent of the amendment or any changesrequired under the Minister for Planning’s Authorisation prior to thecommencement of exhibition.



Responsible director: Shiran WickramasingheCity Planning

___________________________________________________________________

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to:

Inform the UPSC of the community and councillor interest in the protection of 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn and outline the gaps in the planning policy currently available to protect these properties.

Seek a resolution of the UPSC to request Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to include 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn in the Heritage Overlay should the UPSC wish to afford the properties heritage protection.

Seek a resolution of the UPSC to request the Minister for Planning prepare, adopt and approve a planning scheme amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to include 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn in an interim Heritage Overlay whilst Council progresses the amendment for permanent heritage protection.

2. Policy implications and relevance to community plan and council plan

Boroondara Council Plan 2017-2021 and Boroondara Community Plan 2017-27

The identification and protection of identified heritage places is consistent with the strategic objective to ‘Protect the heritage and respect the character of the City to maintain amenity and liveability whilst recognising the need for appropriate, well-designed development for future generations’ under Theme 4 - Neighbourhood Character and Heritage.

Specifically, it assists in implementing Council's commitment to 'Preserve theCity’s history and protect heritage properties and precincts by undertaking a municipal wide heritage review and introduce heritage overlays in theBoroondara Planning Scheme.’ (Strategy 4.3)

It also assists in implementing Council's commitment to ‘Engage with owners and developers to achieve a balance between development and protection of neighbourhood character, heritage and amenity.’ (Strategy 4.6)

Heritage Action Plan 2016

The Heritage Action Plan was adopted by Council on 2 May 2016 and establishes the framework to guide Council’s heritage work program as it relates to the identification, protection, management and promotion of Boroondara’s heritage assets.

The implementation of a referral process to ensure sites of possible heritage significance are assessed by a heritage consultant prior to issuing report and consent to demolition under s.29A of the Building Act 1993 is an ongoing action (OAR2) in the Heritage Action Plan 2016. This is relevant to both properties.



Boroondara Planning Scheme

The inclusion of 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street in the Heritage Overlay is consistent with the objectives of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). In particular it addresses the following Clauses:

Clause 15.03-1S Heritage Conservation which seeks to ‘ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance’ by identifying, assessing and documenting such places, and providing for their conservation and enhancement;

Clause 21.04-5 - Heritage Conservation which seeks to ‘identify and protect all individual places, objects and precincts of cultural, aboriginal, urban and landscape significance’; and

Clause 22.03-2 Heritage Policy which seeks to ‘retain and conserve ‘contributory’ places and fabric in the Heritage Overlay which are visible from the primary street frontage.

The local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.03 provides an explanation of heritage place gradings used in the City of Boroondara. The definition for ‘contributory’ heritage places states they are not to be considered individually important places, however when combined with other ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places, play an integral role in demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of a precinct.

Both the PPF and LPPF seek to ensure the Heritage Overlay is applied to protect places of heritage significance in the City of Boroondara.

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050

The identification, assessment and protection of places of local heritage significance are supported by Outcome 4 of Plan Melbourne which seeks to ensure ‘Melbourne is a distinctive and liveable city with quality design and amenity’. Direction 4.4 recognises the contribution heritage makes to Melbourne’ distinctiveness and liveability and advocates for the protection of Melbourne’s heritage places.

In particular, Policy 4.4.1 recognises the need for ‘continuous identification and review of currently unprotected heritage sites and targeted assessments of heritage sites in areas identified as likely to be subject to substantial change’.

The inclusion 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street is generally consistent with these Plan Melbourne directions and initiatives.

Planning and Environment Act 1987

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of planning in Victoria, in particular the objective detailed in Section 4(1)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), being:

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.



This means Council has a statutory obligation to continuously identify and protect places of heritage significance through the Heritage Overlay.

3. Background

The properties at 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn have recently been the subject of community and councillor interest as they are not protected by the Heritage Overlay and are potentially at risk of demolition and re-development.

Both properties were investigated as part of the Stage 1 field surveys for the Camberwell and Hawthorn Heritage Gap Studies, which respectively constitute Volumes 2 and 3 of the Municipal-Wide Heritage Gap Study. In both instances, the properties were not considered to be of potential local (individual) heritage significance, but would likely be graded contributory to a wider heritage precinct. In both instances, a heritage precinct was not identified in the immediate surrounds of the properties and therefore neither property was recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.

5 Trumper Street, Camberwell

Concerns were raised about the potential loss of 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell when a planning permit application for the construction of two dwellings was publicly advertised by Council’s Statutory Planning Department. A resident was concerned the existing dwelling had not been given due heritage protection or consideration by Council. The application implies demolition of the existing dwelling, however demolition is not a planning permit trigger as the Heritage Overlay does not apply to the land.

In response, officers sought heritage advice from the heritage consultants responsible for the preparation of the Camberwell Heritage Gap Study. The advice (Attachment 1) notes the property would have been identified as a contributory graded place had an intact heritage precinct surrounded it.

Council’s Strategic Planning Department was subsequently requested to have the advice peer reviewed. The advice was reviewed by David Helms Heritage Planning, who agreed with Council’s heritage consultant, as follows:

This style of housing is well-represented within the HO within Boroondara, both individually and as part of heritage precincts.

While a good and intact example of the style, I agree there is nothing that elevates this house to the threshold of local significance. It would be of Contributory significance if within a precinct.

The surrounding streets (Trumper and Radnor) have low integrity due to post-war redevelopment and do not have potential to form a precinct including this house.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that this house would not meet the threshold of local significance and does not warrant the application of the HO.



57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn

Community and councillor interest was first raised in August 2019 when a resident became concerned the property may be demolished. Council’s Strategic Planning Department advised the property had been investigated as part of the Hawthorn Heritage Gap Study as a high quality dwelling built c1900-10 that would likely be graded Contributory to a heritage precinct. However, given the nature of the enquiry, Council’s heritage consultant was engaged to review their original recommendation. The re-examination (Attachment 1) of the house confirmed the findings of the Stage 1 survey.

Renewed community and councillor interest was raised in January 2020. The resident, and other community members were concerned the lack of heritage protection of the property would allow the property to be demolished prior to planning approval. Concerns were also raised with the rate of demolition occurring in Berkeley Street.

4. Key Issues

The loss of heritage places has long been a concern for the community and was the impetus for the commencement of the Municipal Wide Heritage Gap Study (MWHGS). The MWHGS is well progressed, with the implementation of permanent heritage controls to two suburbs complete (Canterbury and Camberwell) and the remaining six studies (Kew, Kew East, Hawthorn, Hawthorn East, Glen Iris and Ashburton) underway. However, the loss of potential heritage properties that were or are not recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as part of the MWHGS is an emerging issue that is causing frustration for the community and Council.

The properties at 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street are two examples of the issue, as they would likely meet the threshold for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay if they were co-located with a group of similar style dwellings. However, there is currently no clear planning legislation available to protect the properties and it is becoming more challenging to meet community expectations in relation to the City’s remaining heritage.

Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, August 2018)

Planning Practice Note 1 (PPN1) provides guidance about the use of the Heritage Overlay. Places identified in a local heritage study can be included in the Heritage Overlay, provided the significance of the place can be justified. Eight model criteria (known as the HERCON criteria) are used for the assessment of the heritage value of a heritage place, which can either be an individual place or a precinct. The heritage place must meet at least one criterion. A comparative analysis with similar places within the study area is also required to substantiate the significance of each place or precinct.

Where a property possesses some heritage value or characteristics, it can only be included in the Heritage Overlay when it can be grouped with other properties of a similar heritage value to form a heritage precinct. Comparatively, the precinct must be exemplary for its type.



Precincts are typically comprised of ‘contributory’ graded properties that alone may meet the HERCON criteria however would not meet the threshold when compared to individually significant properties already included in the Heritage Overlay.

Clause 22.03 - Heritage Policy

Council’s local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.03 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme defines ‘significant’ and ‘contributory’ graded heritage places, as follows:

‘Significant’ heritage places are places of State, municipal or local cultural heritage significance that are individually important in their own right. When in a precinct, they may also contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the precinct. 'Significant' graded places within a precinct are of the same cultural heritage value as places listed individually in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

‘Contributory’ heritage places are places that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of a precinct. They are not considered to be individually important places of State, municipal or local cultural heritage significance, however when combined with other ‘significant’ and/or ‘contributory’ heritage places, they play an integral role in demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of a precinct.

The guidance provided by PPN1, the definitions set out in Council’s local Heritage Policy and industry accepted practice do not account for or consider potential heritage places such as 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street. Unless a contributory graded place is located within a heritage precinct, and it can be demonstrated that it contributes to the identified heritage significance of the precinct, it will not be recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.

Notably, there is an inconsistency in the definition of contributory heritage places and with the approach being considered for 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street. Officers will review the definition of contributory gradings and the management of contributory graded places having regard to the issues raised with respect to the subject properties.

Current process to protect heritage places under threat of demolition

Council has an adopted process to protect heritage places under threat of demolition where the Heritage Overlay has not yet been applied to the property. When an application for demolition is received pursuant to s.29A of the Building Act 1993 Council’s adopted process is to issue consent to the demolition if the property has not been recommended for heritage protection either through a heritage study or through advice from the Strategic Planning Department’s heritage consultant. Under this process, if an application for demolition is received for 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street, consent would be issued.



Where a property has been identified in a heritage study or assessment, the adopted process is to refer the application for demolition to the Strategic Planning Department’s heritage consultant for review. If the proposed extent of demolition would adversely impact the significance of the proposed place, the application is suspended and a request is made to the Minister for Planning to apply an interim Heritage Overlay to the property. In making this request to the Minister, Council must comply with Planning Practice Note 29: Ministerial Powers of Intervention in Planning and Heritage Matters (PPN29). The criteria set out in PPN29 include whether the request will have a substantial effect on the achievement or development of heritage objectives and whether there is a need for urgency and the public interest would be served by immediate action.

Interim heritage controls allow Council’s Strategic Planning Department time to progress the introduction of permanent heritage controls through a separate planning scheme amendment.

The properties at 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street have been temporarily flagged for referral to Council’s Strategic Planning Department should an application be made for their demolition. This has occurred in response to community and councillor interest. This is not Council’s adopted process, and is an interim measure while the UPSC considers whether to seek heritage protection for both properties.

5. Options

If the UPSC wishes to protect 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street from potential demolition, a request for interim heritage protection should be made to the Minister for Planning on the basis of their contributory heritage value. This request would be made prior to the respective property owners applying for consent to demolish their dwellings.

For 5 Trumper Street, a planning permit application for the construction of two dwellings has progressed through public notification and a decision is currently pending. Consequently, a decision could be made on the permit application prior to the Minister for Planning deciding on any request for interim heritage controls. This is because Council’s Statutory Planning Department is required to make a decision based on the Boroondara Planning Scheme and in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is a separate process that is bound by statutory timeframes.

In addition to the interim request, an application should be made to the Minister for Planning to request authorisation to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment. The planning scheme amendment would seek to introduce the Heritage Overlay to both properties on a permanent basis.

It is important to note the likelihood of each of these requests not being supported is high. This is because a heritage expert has not recommend support of the properties having regard to PPN1, the HERCON criteria or the requirement for comparative analysis. Consequently the properties were not identified as part of any heritage study.



It should also be noted the property owners have not been consulted on the proposal to include the properties in the Heritage Overlay by way of preliminary consultation. However consultation with the affected property owners and occupiers would be undertaken as part of the formal exhibition of planning scheme amendment for permanent heritage controls, subject to Ministerial approval.

The UPSC should be mindful that although this report does not consider or recommend that a wholesale change to Council’s adopted process for heritage protection be undertaken, it may set a precedent for further requests to the Minister for Planning. These requests would be made in the absence of state government support for the process.

As heritage protection of places which fall below the thresholds set by the State Government is a broader issue facing the City of Boroondara, officers will investigate options to advocate to the State Government for better protection of local heritage value. Officers will also engage with other councils to identify if this is a common issue being experienced more broadly, and investigate whether a joint advocacy position could be put forward.

6. Consultation/communication

If the UPSC resolve to pursue individual Heritage Overlays for 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street, community consultation would be undertaken as part of the public exhibition of the planning scheme amendment. This is on the basis of the Minister for Planning authorising Council to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment for permanent controls in the first instance.

It is noted preliminary consultation for the Draft Camberwell and Hawthorn Heritage Gap Studies was undertaken in 2017. All property owners and occupiers within the respective suburbs were notified of the opportunity to provide feedback to the recommendations of the draft heritage gap studies. No community nominations or submissions were received to protect either property as part of this process. Furthermore, when the planning scheme amendments were publicly exhibited for the respective studies, the properties were not the subject of any nominations or submissions.

It is reiterated neither property was recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as part of preliminary consultation or public exhibition. Therefore, the property owners of 5 Trumper Street and 57 Berkeley Street may not have felt obliged to make submissions based on the recommendations for their respective properties at the time.

7. Financial and resource implications

Resources to progress the regrading assessment will be sourced from theStrategic Planning Department 2019/20 operating budget.

Each request to the Minister for Planning for an interim Heritage Overlay attracts a non-refundable fee of $3998.70.



8. Governance issues

The officers responsible for this report have no direct or indirect interests requiring disclosure.

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

9. Social and environmental issues

The inclusion of 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn in the Heritage Overlay will have positive social and environmental effects by contributing to the continual protection and management of the City’s heritage.

Manager: Shiranthi Widan, Acting Manager Strategic Planning

Report officer: Lucy Johnson, Strategic Planning Officer

1

5 Trumper Street, Camberwell, assessment

Prepared by: Context

Grading Assessment Date: 14 November 2019

Address: 5 Trumper Street, CamberwellName: House

Place Type: Residential

Existing Grading: none

Recommended Grading: not of individual significance

Extent of Recommended Grading: N/A

Figure 1. 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell. (Source: Jellis Craig, nd)

Reasons for Recommended Grading The house at 5 Trumper Street is an externally intact late Federation villa. It has the classic Federation villa massing, with two projecting gables around a return verandah which is continuous with the main hipped roof. It lacks additional decorative features that distinguish the best villas of this type, such as corner bay windows (and sometimes towers), and ornate timber fretwork to the verandah. In short, it is of the architectural quality that would make it Contributory in Camberwell if it were in an HO precinct.

It was not graded in the ‘Camberwell Conservation Study’ of 1991, nor were any other properties on Trumper Street, indicating that no precinct was considered here.


City of Boroondara Attachment 3.3.1 404

2

Trumper Street and its surroundings were visited several times during Stage 1 of the ‘Camberwell Heritage Gap Study’ of 2016, but no strong potential heritage precinct was identified in this area. In particular, 5 Trumper Street is the only surviving early house between Bowen and Radnor streets, as the rest have been redeveloped in the last 30 years or so.

In conclusion, the house at 5 Trumper Street does not meet the high threshold of local significance for Edwardian-era houses in Camberwell and Boroondara more generally, so it does not warrant protection in a site-specific Heritage Overlay. While it would make a fine Contributory property to a heritage precinct, the area around it does not form a precinct of local significance.

ReferencesG Butler, Camberwell Conservation Study, 1991.Context Pty Ltd, Camberwell Heritage Gap Study, 2016.



3

57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn, assessment

Prepared by: Context

Grading Assessment Date: 13 August 2019

Address: 57 Berkeley Street, HawthornName: House

Place Type: Residential

Existing Grading: none

Recommended Grading: not of individual significance

Extent of Recommended Grading: N/A



4

Reasons for Recommended Grading The house at 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn, is a large Federation Queen Anne villa. It was viewed during the ‘Hawthorn Heritage Gap Study’ Stage 1 survey and noted as a high quality Edwardian dwelling that would likely be Contributory to an HO precinct. As it was not considered to be of potential local (individual) heritage significance, it was not investigated further.

The house is not shown on the 1907 MMBW plan of this area, indicating that it was built afterward.

The house is timber framed, with timber panelling to the dado (below window sill level) and roughcast render divided by vertical cover straps above. Its plan is that of a classic Queen Anne villa with a return verandah terminating at projecting gabled bays, and strong emphasis to the diagonal axis created by a corner gable to the verandah and an angled bay window beneath this. The high hipped roof form, clad in (renewed) terracotta Marseille tiles with decorative ridgecapping and finials, is also typical of the style. While a large house, the decorative details are subdued, comprising leadlight highlights to the casement windows, a porthole window with leadlight, half-timbering to the gables, and an arched ladder frieze with square timber posts to the verandah. The chimneys are unusual for this style of house with a rendered shaft and dentils below a narrow moulded cornice. The chimneys were in this form in 1993, so are probably original.

The house has been altered externally by the construction, in 1995, of a large rear wing. It is set behind the principal roof of the house, but projects to the south side, visually doubling the width of the house as seen from the street.

The house was given a C* (C-star) grade, and the streetscape graded ‘3’ (low quality), by the Hawthorn Heritage Study, 1993. A place identification form was prepared for it, which gave a c1918 built date. Its integrity and condition were recorded as ‘good’ (the highest ranking).

Lovell Chen carried out an assessment of C* places not already in HO precincts in the ‘Review of C* Grade Buildings in the Former City of Hawthorn’ (2006, rev. 2009). In this study, several houses on Berkeley Street were assessed and recommended for site-specific Heritage Overlays: 1, 6, 9 and 54 Berkeley Street. In turn, a number of the C* places assessed were assessed by Lovell Chen ‘as not being of sufficient heritage significance to warrant an individual Heritage Overlay’ (p. 21). These rejected places included a number on Berkeley Street, including the subject building at No. 57.

Re-examination of this house in 2019 confirmed the preliminary assessment made during the Stage 1 survey, as well as Lovell Chen’s earlier assessment. It is a substantial, though typical, example of its type. It does not have any design features that are notable amongst the many fine Federation Queen Anne villas in Hawthorn that are already protected in the Heritage Overlay. Furthermore, the very visible rear extension detracts from its intactness.

The possibility of including 57 Berkeley Street in a heritage precinct, as a Contributory property, has also been considered as part of Stage 1 of the Hawthorn Heritage Gap Study. A potential precinct was considered further north along Berkeley Street, but not assessed in Stage 2 due to many properties that would be Non-contributory. That part of Berkeley Street south of Callantina Road had undergone an even greater level of redevelopment, so was not even given initial consideration as part of a larger precinct.

In conclusion, the house at 57 Berkeley Street does not meet the high threshold of local significance for Edwardian-era houses in Hawthorn and Boroondara more generally, so it



5

does not warrant protection in a site-specific Heritage Overlay. This has been confirmed in the 2006 Lovell Chen study, as well as the more recent Hawthorn Heritage Gap Study. While it would make a fine Contributory property to a heritage precinct, the area around it does not form a precinct of local significance.

ReferencesM Gould, Hawthorn Heritage Study, 1993.Lovell Chen, Review of C* Grade Buildings in the Former City of Hawthorn, 2006, rev. 2009.Context Pty Ltd, Hawthorn Heritage Gap Study, 2016.



3.3 heritage protection for 5 trumper street, camberwell and 57 … · officers'...

Documents