Page 1 of 273 - City of Melbourne

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 2.5 MB
First found May 22, 2018

Document content analysis

Category Also themed
Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Stewart Udall
Stewart Udall

wikipedia, lookup

Abraham de Moivre
Abraham de Moivre

wikipedia, lookup

Paul Bracq
Paul Bracq

wikipedia, lookup

Robin Boyd
Robin Boyd

wikipedia, lookup

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Page 1 of 273
FU TURE MELBOURNE
R E PORT
( PLANN ING)
COMMITTEE
PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C186: CENTRAL CITY (HODDLE GRID)
HERITAGE REVIEW
Agenda Item 5.2
4 September 2012
Presenter: David Mayes, Manager Strategic Planning
Purpose and background
1.
The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the recommendations in the report of the independent
panel for Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186 - Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review and to present the final draft of Amendment C186 (refer Attachment 2), which was revised in response to
the Panel’s recommendations.
2.
The Panel’s report was received by Council on 12 July 2012 (refer Attachment 3) and made available to
the public on 6 August 2012 and all submitters to the Panel have been advised accordingly.
Key issues
3.
The Panel commended the City of Melbourne for ‘moving forward with local listings, including
those of relatively modern buildings...’. They recommended Council adopt Amendment C186 with
minor changes. These are mostly refinements which do not substantially alter the Amendment.
Management’s response to their recommendations is at Attachment 4. The key recommendations
to note are:
3.1.
The Panel endorsed the application of the Heritage Overlay, to all properties nominated in
Amendment C186 except for Rosati (Denniston and Co) at 95-101 Flinders Lane and the
12 nominated building interiors. Management has removed these from the amendment.
3.2.
The Panel recommended changing some of the Heritage Overlay boundaries and/or
Statements of Significance for eight properties (refer Attachment 4). These changes are
refinements based on further information that came to light at the hearing.
3.3.
The Panel recommended some changes to the structure of the Statements of Significance
and that these be directly incorporated into the Planning Scheme (refer Attachment 2).
4.
Management accepts all of the Panel’s recommendations and all of these have been incorporated
into the revised version of the Amendment at Attachment 2.
5.
In addition to the recommendations specific to Amendment C186, the Panel recommended that
following its adoption of Amendment C186 Council consider undertaking further specific heritage
work.
Recommendation from management
6.
That the Future Melbourne Committee recommend Council:
6.1.
adopt Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186 Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review
at Attachment 2, pursuant to section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and
6.2.
submit Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186 to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Attachments:
1.
Supporting Attachment
2.
Final Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C186
3.
The Panel’s Report
4.
Managements Response to the Panel’s Recommendations
Page 2 of 273
Attachment 1
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
4 September 2012
SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT
Legal
1.
Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that after complying with Divisions 1
and 2 of the Act in respect of a planning scheme amendment, the planning authority may adopt the
amendment with or without change.
Finance
2.
Under Section 6 of the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2000 Council is required to pay a
fee when requesting the Minister approve an amendment and giving notice of approval of an amendment.
Once the planning scheme amendment is approved Council will also be required to place a notice in a
newspaper circulating in the local area. These costs are provided for in the 2012-2013 budget.
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.
Amendment C186 was on public exhibition between 1 September 2011 and 14 October 2011. A total of
28 (22 opposed and 6 supportive) submissions were received.
5.
On 6 December 2011 the Future Melbourne Committee considered all written submissions and resolved
to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions to the
Amendment.
6.
The Panel hearings were held over nine days between 26 March and 20 April 2012 at Planning Panels
Victoria. The Panel’s report was released to the public on the Council’s website on 6 August 2012.
7.
Officers have advised the submitters to the Panel in writing that the Panel’s report is available online and
that the Future Melbourne Committee is scheduled to consider the Panel’s report and a revised version of
the amendment at its 4 September 2012 meeting.
8.
No further consultation will be required on the revised amendment. Interest in the amendment is largely
confined to the property owners and a small number of specialist heritage interests and the revisions to
the amendment are in line with the Panel’s recommendations.
Relation to Council policy
9.
Amendment C186 implements the Heritage objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement.
Environmental sustainability
10.
The identification, conservation and integration of the heritage fabric can reduce building demolition and
new construction waste and conserve the embodied energy of existing buildings.
1
Page 3 of 273
Attachment 2
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
4 September 2012
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 eight (98) additional heritage places in the Schedule to the
Heritage Overlay. External paint controls apply for the 98 heritage 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: Statements of Significance is considered when
making decisions relating to any of the 98 places which are the subject of this Amendment.
The Amendment incorporates the document titled, Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011:
Statements of Significance, into the planning scheme.
Strategic assessment of the amendment
x
Why is the amendment required?
This amendment seeks to implement the recommendations of the Central City (Hoddle Grid)
Heritage Review to include 98 heritage places 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.
x
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
x
How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any relevant social
and economic effects?
1
Page 4 of 273
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.
x
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.
following aspects of the Metropolitan Strategy are relevant to the amendment:
The
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.
x
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.
x
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.
x
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.
x
How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency?
The views of relevant agencies can be gained through the amendment exhibition process.
x
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 5 of 273
x
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.
x
What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative
costs of the responsible authority?
The inclusion of 98 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.
Page 6 of 273
Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C186
Explanatory Report – Attachment 1
HO #
HO993
HO994
HO995
HO996
HO997
HO998
HO999
HO1000
HO1001
HO1002
HO1004
HO1005
HO1006
HO1007
HO1090
HO1008
HO1009
HO1010
HO1011
HO1012
HO1013
HO1014
HO1015
HO1016
HO1017
HO1018
HO1019
HO1020
HO1021
HO1022
HO1023
HO1024
HO1025
HO1026
HO1027
HO1028
HO1029
HO1030
HO1032
HO1033
HO1034
HO1035
HO1036
HO1037
HO1038
HO1039
HO1040
HO1041
HO1042
HO1043
HO1044
HO1045
HO1046
HO1047
Property No.
104
111-125
185-187
160-162
164-166
168-174
179-183
180-182
193-199
194-200
415-419
418-420
468-470
336-338
340-342
404-406
409-413
430-442
433-455
464-466
615-623
9-13
21-23
215-217
299
303-305
351-357
380
384
441-447
453-457
463-465
473-481
30-40
53-55
309
104-110
61-73
125-127
141-143
26-30
76-80
130-132
360-372
508-510
516-518
520-522
562-564
63-67
96-102
4-6
106-112
12-20
115-129
Street
A’Beckett
A’Beckett
A’Beckett
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Bourke
Collins
Collins
Collins
Collins
Collins
Collins
Collins
Collins
Drewery Lane
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Exhibition
Exhibition
Exhibition
Exhibition
Flinders Lane
Flinders Lane
Flinders Lane
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Flinders Street
Franklin Street
Franklin Street
Goldie Place
Hardware Street
King Street
King Street
Page 7 of 273
HO1048
HO1049
HO1050
HO1051
HO1052
HO1053
HO1054
HO1055
HO1056
HO1057
HO1058
HO1059
HO1060
HO1061
HO1062
HO1063
HO1064
HO1065
HO1066
HO1067
HO1068
HO1069
HO1070
HO1071
HO985
HO1072
HO1073
HO1074
HO1075
HO1076
HO1077
HO1078
HO1079
HO1080
HO1081
HO1082
HO1083
HO1084
HO1085
HO1086
HO1089
HO1087
HO1088
131-135
284-294
361-363
362-364
365-367
373-375
434-436
68-70
392-396
538-542
25
194-196
198-200
372-378
523-525
326
439-445
14-30
20-26
37-41
111-129
118-126
203-205
217-219
316-322
42-44
288-294
2-8
10-22
66-70
122-132
267-271
135-137
163-165
309-325
401-403
407-409
411-423
427-433
22-32
114-128
259
261
King Street
La Trobe
Little Bourke
Little Bourke
Little Bourke
Little Bourke
Little Bourke
Little Collins
Little Collins
Little Collins
Little Lonsdale
Little Lonsdale
Little Lonsdale
Little Lonsdale
Little Lonsdale
Lonsdale
Lonsdale
Melbourne Place
Queen
Queen
Queen
Queen
Queen
Queen
Queen
Russell
Russell
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spencer
Spring
Swanston
Swanston
Swanston
Swanston
Swanston
Swanston
Swanston
William
William
William
William
Page 8 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
--/--/20-C186
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
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
Yes
No
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
HO999
179-183 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
HO1004
415-419 Bourke Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1005
418-420 Bourke Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1006
468-470 Bourke Street
Yes
No
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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 1 OF 6
Page 9 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
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
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
Yes
No
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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 2 OF 6
Page 10 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
HO1026
30-40 Exhibition Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1027
53-55 Exhibition Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1028
104-110 Exhibition Street
Yes
No
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
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
HO1035
76-80 Flinders Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1036
130-132 Flinders Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1037
360-372 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
HO1042
63-67 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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 3 OF 6
Page 11 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
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
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.
Yes
No
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
25 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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 4 OF 6
Page 12 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
HO1063
326 Lonsdale Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1064
439-445 Lonsdale Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1065
14-30 Melbourne Place
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
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1070
203-205 Queen Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1071
217-219 Queen Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO985
316-322 Queen Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1072
42-44 Russell Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1073
288-294 Russell Street
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
HO1074
2-8 Spencer 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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 5 OF 6
Page 13 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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 Prohibited
Name of Incorporated Aboriginal
Victorian
uses may be Plan under Clause heritage
permitted?
43.01-2
place?
Heritage
Register under
the Heritage Act
1995?
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
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
-
No
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
HERITAGE OVERLAY - SCHEDULE
PAGE 6 OF 6
Page 14 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
22.04
/ /20
C186
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
ƒ
To conserve and enhance all heritage places, and ensure that any alterations or
extensions to them are undertaken in accordance with accepted conservation standards.
ƒ
To consider the impact of development on buildings listed in the Central Activities
District Conservation Study and the South Melbourne Conservation Study.
ƒ
To promote the identification, protection and management of aboriginal cultural
heritage values.
ƒ
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:
ƒ
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).
ƒ
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.
ƒ
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.
ƒ
The recommendations for individual buildings, sites and areas contained in the Central
City Heritage Study Review 1993 except for the buildings detailed in the incorporated
document titled Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011: Statements of
Significance, in which case the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011:
Statements of Significance will apply. 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.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 1 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 15 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
ƒ
All development affecting a heritage precinct should enhance the character of the
precinct as described by the following statements of significance.
ƒ
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
ƒ
ƒ
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
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 2 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 16 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
confines of Little Bourke Street, and is complemented by the low-scale of surrounding red
brick buildings.
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
ƒ
ƒ
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
ƒ
A group of architecturally diverse 19th and early 20th century buildings that are
consistent in scale and associated with public services and warehousing.
ƒ
The dominance of the Tramways Building on the south side of Bourke Street and the
Mail Exchange building on the north side.
ƒ
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 reestablished 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
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 3 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 17 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
predominantly 20th century intact run to the north featuring Alcaston, Anzac Portland and
Chanonry Houses, and Victor Horsley Chambers plus the nearby Melbourne Club.
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
ƒ
The buildings remaining from before the Second World War.
ƒ
The boulevard quality of this end of Collins Street with street tree plantations and
street furniture.
ƒ
A consistent height, scale, character and appearance of the remaining 19th and early
20th century buildings.
ƒ
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
ƒ
The traditional gateway to the central city from the south and an area associated with
retailing.
ƒ
Major 19th and early 20th century buildings including Flinders Street Station, St
Paul’s Cathedral and Princes Bridge.
Flinders Lane Precinct
Statement of Significance
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 4 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 18 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
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
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
ƒ
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.
ƒ
The traditional association with ‘Rag Trade’ activities, other creative professions, or
dwellings.
ƒ
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,
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 5 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 19 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Chinatown’s shops, restaurants and distinctive character are popular with many
Melburnians and tourists as well as the Chinese community.
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
ƒ
The small low-scale Victorian and Edwardian buildings densely located along Little
Bourke Street and the adjoining laneways.
ƒ
The traditional association with the Chinese community expressed through uses and
signage.
ƒ
The focus for Greek commercial, entertainment, professional and cultural activities on
the southern side of Lonsdale Street.
ƒ
ƒ
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.
ƒ
The amenity of Little Bourke Street and the adjoining laneways for pedestrian use.
ƒ
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
ƒ
The traditional character of the precinct as a major retail centre.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 6 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 20 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
ƒ
The scale, form and appearance of the buildings constructed before the Second World
War and of the surviving 19th century buildings.
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
ƒ
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.
ƒ
The comfortable pedestrian movement within the precinct.
ƒ
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
ƒ
ƒ
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
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 7 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 21 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
buildings are substantially intact in its 1923 form.
ƒ
The visual dominance of the Queen Victoria Market in the surrounding area.
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
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.04
PAGE 8 OF 8
POST PANEL CHANGES IN BLUE
Page 22 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Incorporated Document
Central City Heritage Review 2011
Statements of Significance
This document is an incorporated document in the Melbourne Planning Scheme
pursuant to Section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
1.
Page 23 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Melbourne Planning Scheme
Incorporated Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hoffman's flour stores, later Henry Box & Son Company offices and warehouse, 104 A'Beckett Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO993
4
Commonwealth Motors, former, 111-125 A'Beckett Street, Melbourne 3000, H0994
5
Grange Lynne Pty Ltd, later White & Gillespie Pty Ltd. Building, 185-187 A'Beckett Street, Melbourne
3000, HO995
6
Exhibition Boot Company, 160-162 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO996
8
Barnett Building, 164-166 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO997
8
Australia Felix Hotel, later Alhambra, Stutt's, Morells', and Richardson's Hotel, and National Australia
Bank, 168-174 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO998
10
Bourke House, 179-183 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO999
11
Norman's Corner Stores, former, 180-182 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1000
12
Carlton Hotel, 193-199 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1001
13
Hoyts Mid-City Cinemas, 194-200 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1002
13
Evans House, later Rochelle House, 415-419 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1004
15
Gothic Chambers (City Proprietary Company building), 418-420 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1005
15
London Assurance House, former, 468-470 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1006
17
Hardy Brothers Jewellery Store, 338 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1007
18
Burke later Burns House, 340-342 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1090
19
Atlas Assurance Co Ltd, later Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance building, 404-406 Collins Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1008
20
Commercial Union Building, later AUC Office, 409-413 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1009
21
Royal Insurance Group Building, 430-442 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1010
22
National Mutual Life Centre, 435-455 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1011
23
Huddart Parker Ltd Building, 464-466 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1012
24
State Savings Bank of Victoria, Western Branch, 615-623 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1013
25
Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory, 9-13 Drewery Lane, Melbourne 3000, HO1014
27
Elizabeth Chambers, 21-23 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1015
28
Knight's shops and dwellings, later Hood and Co and Edinburgh Chambers, 215-217 Elizabeth Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1016
29
Wilson's shop & residence, 299 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1017
30
Pynsent's store and warehouse, 303-305 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1018
30
Union Bank Chambers, later A.N.Z. Bank, 351-357 Elizabeth Street, melbourne, 3000, ho1019
31
Pattinson’s general store, later Prince of Wales and Federal Club hotels, later Bulley & Co. Building, 380
Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1020
33
Bank of Australasia, former 384 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1021
34
Royal Saxon Hotel, former, 441-447 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1022
35
English Scottish & Australian Banking Co., former, 453-457 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1023 36
Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Australia branch bank, former, 463-465 Elizabeth Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1024
37
Currie & Richards showrooms & warehouses, 473-481 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1025
38
Alley Building, 30-40 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1026
40
Kevin Hall & Club, 53-55 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1027
40
Centenary Hall, 104-110 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1028
42
Fancy goods shop & residence, 309 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1029
43
Sargood Gardiner Ltd warehouse, 61-73 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000, HO1030
44
Higson Building, 125-127 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000, HO1032
45
Pawson House, 141-143 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000, HO1033
46
Griffiths Bros Pty Ltd building, 26-30 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1034
47
Victorian Cricket Association Building (VCA), 76-80 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1035
48
Schuhkraft & Co warehouse, later YMCA, and AHA House, 130-132 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1036
49
Cobden Buildings, later Mercantile & Mutual Chambers and Fletcher Jones building, 360-372 Flinders
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1037
50
Waterside Hotel, 508-510 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1038
52
Coffee Tavern (No. 2), 516-518 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1039
53
Savings Bank of Victoria Flinders Street branch, former, 520-522 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1040
54
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
2.
Page 24 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Prince of Wales Hotel, later Markillie's Hotel, 562-564 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1041
55
Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co. factory, 63-67 Franklin Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1042
56
Keep Brothers & Wood workshop and showroom, later Stramit Building, 96-102 Franklin Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1043
57
Penman & Dalziel's warehouse group, part, 4-6 Goldie Place, Melbourne 3000, HO1044
58
Throstle's stores, 106-112 Hardware Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1045
59
Barrow Brothers warehouse, 12-20 King Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1046
60
Union Bond Melbourne Storage Company Ltd, 115-129 King Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1047
61
Peoples Palace, 131-135 King Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1048
62
Argus Building, former, 284-294 La Trobe Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1049
64
Russell's building, 361-363 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1050
65
Marks' warehouse, 362-364 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1051
66
Warburton's shops & warehouses, 365-367 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1052
67
Drayton House, 373-375 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1053
69
City West Telephone Exchange, 434-436 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1054
70
Bayne's shops and residences, later Little Reata restaurant, 68-70 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1055
71
Briscoe & Co warehouse, later EL Yencken & Co Pty. Ltd., 392-396 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1056
72
McCracken City Brewery malt store, later Ebsworth House, 538-542 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1057
73
Porta and Sons, Steam Bellows Works, 25 Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1058
74
Collie, R & Co warehouse, 194-196 Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1059
76
Cavanagh's or Tucker & Co's warehouse, 198-200 Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1060
77
Women's Venereal Disease Clinic, 372-378 Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1061
78
Cleve's Bonded Store complex, 523-525 Little Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1062
79
Blessed Sacrament Fathers Monastery, St Francis, 326 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1063
81
Michaelis Hallenstein & Co building, 439-445 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1064
82
Watson's warehouse, later 3LO and 3AR studios, 3AW Radio Theatre, and Kelvin Club, 14-30 Melbourne
Place, Melbourne 3000, HO1065
83
Yorkshire House, 20-26 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1066
85
Provident Life Building, 37-41 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1067
86
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (R.A.C.V.) Building, former, 111-129 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1068
87
Australasian Catholic Assurance (ACA) Building, 118-126 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1069
88
Clarke's Shops & Dwellings, 203-205 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1070
90
Grant's factory-warehouse, 217-219 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1071
91
West Bourke Club Hotel, 316-322 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO985
92
Royal Bank of Australia Ltd, later English Scottish & Australian Bank Ltd., 42-44 Russell Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1072
93
Union Hotel, later Tattersalls Hotel, 288-294 Russell Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1073
94
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel, 2-8 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1074
95
McCaughan's Coffee Palace, later Great Southern Private Hotel, 10-22 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1075
97
Batman's Hill Hotel, 66-70 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1076
98
Hotel Alexander, later Savoy Plaza Hotel, 122-132 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1077
99
Elms Family Hotel, 267-271 Spring Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1078
101
Cann's Pty. Ltd. building, 135-137 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1079
101
Swanston House, Ezywalkin Boot shoe and Slipper Store, 163-165 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1080
103
George Evans shop and residence row, 309-325 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1081
104
Melbourne Democratic Club and shops & residences, 401-403 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1082
105
Druids House, 407-409 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1083
106
W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust) Ltd tobacco warehouse, 411-423 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1084 107
County Court Hotel , later Oxford Hotel, Oxford Scholar Hotel, 427-433 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1085
108
State Electricity Commission of Victoria building, later Lyle House, 22-32 William Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1086
109
Dillingham Estates House, Former, 114-128 William Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1087
110
Spier and Crawford, warehouse, 259 William Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1088
112
James White's hay and corn store, 261 William Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1089
113
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
3.
Page 25 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Hoffman's flour stores, later Henry Box & Son Company offices
and warehouse, 104 A'Beckett Street, Melbourne 3000, HO993
What is significant?
This site is part of Crown Allotment 8, Section 41 parish of North Melbourne, being a
land package of Elizabeth and A'Beckett Street frontages sold to Port Phillip pioneering
merchant and speculator William Hoffman in 1851-2 for ǧ580. Builders Simmie
McLaughlin & Adamson erected two stores near the corner of Elizabeth and A'Beckett
Streets in 1853 for William Hoffman. The architect HDG Russell called tenders for the
construction of two stores for Hoffman in Elizabeth St in the same year, suggesting he
was the designer. The property was described in the 1860s as two stone flour mill
complexes, one occupied by Wright, as stone flour mills and engine off A'Beckett, and
as Finlayson & Co, at 6 A'Beckett St, with stone mill and engine. Later, one building
was termed as a stone brewery occupied by Woolf Isaacs.
In the Edwardian-era, the estate of William Hoffman commissioned architect W Knight
to design the basalt and brick warehouse facing A'Beckett Street; W.B. Cooper of
Hawthorn was the contractor. It appears that the A'Beckett Street stone façade of one
of the 1853 stone buildings was reused in the new façade, with existing openings
refashioned and the parapet built up using red brickwork. The second 1850s blue stone
mill or store remained behind and adjoining the new brick section of the front structure.
The nationally known Henry Box & Son Company and later, A Pardy & Company, both
importers of carriage building materials, were long-term occupiers of what was termed
as a workshop or factory. Hurst Bros., wire mattress and bedding manufacturers, had
the northern stone store and stable adjoining at the rear, accessed from the pitched
side yard east of 104.
This complex is an example of the concentration of the `metals and engineering' trades
in this part of Melbourne in the late Victorian-era, as observed by historian Graeme
Davison and as also evident in the subsequent rise of the related motor trade there by
the 1920s. Carriage building merged into car building. This transition was complete by
the advent of the firm Geo Morgan & Co Ltd motor accessories at the complex that
remained there from the 1930s into the 1950s. This historical perpetuation and
concentration of uses has been identified as one of the contributory elements in the
significance of the Capital City Zone.
The A’Beckett Street elevation of the southern two-storey warehouse has distinct
Edwardian-era character achieved by the segmental archways on both levels as red
brick infill within a more conservative stone façade of axed and quarry faced blue
stone. The arches spring from stone haunches and the thick timber sections used in
the window and doorway joinery take on a typical muscular Edwardian form. The
pressed red brickwork is strongly modelled by use of bullnose, squint and regular
profile bricks used to form a bold keystone over the entry. The building plinth is fine
axed stone with radiused and battered sills. Corbelled ovolo profile terracotta
mouldings provide a string mould at first floor level and a cornice at the parapet.
This combination of stone and red brick is very effective as an expression of
contrasting natural materials with uncommon but simple detailing which distinguishes
this from other similarly scaled Edwardian-era warehouses or the early Victorian-era
stone examples. The façade design also possesses the honesty of materials sought
after in the contemporary Arts & Crafts influenced approach to architecture. The
warehouse behind the façade is basic red brick with concrete lintels over segmentally
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
4.
Page 26 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
arched openings, some infilled with brickwork. A new matching entry has replaced the
former window at the west end of the ground level façade and the existing entry doors
on the east appear to be sympathetic replacements of the original.
The southern half of the northern or rear 1853 store and stable survives with a gabled
roof and rubble bluestone façade walling set within a dressed stone framework of piers,
string-moulds and parapet mouldings. A similar string mould (semi-circular in section)
is used at the parapet to that used on the A'Beckett Street façade. Stone quoining and
lintels are set over double-hung quoined sash windows, flat-arched on the upper level
and fully-arched on the lower. Keystones and margin tooling of the architraves adds a
custom design aspect that suggests an architect's involvement. This façade is a highly
valuable part of City's history which is complemented by the infill brickwork of the
rebuilt southern store.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates (1853, 1901), and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Hoffman's warehouses are significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The southern Hoffman warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically for the distinctive combination of dressed and quarry-faced blue stone
and shaped red brickwork in the A'Beckett St façade, the use of brick allowing
formation of the Edwardian segmental arch in the existing stone façade openings but
also providing a distinct architectural Arts & Crafts character from the use of moulded
brickwork and its juxta-positioning with another natural material, such as the stone; and
Historically as a well-preserved exemplar of the transition of the carriage building in the
northern part of the City into buildings used by the emerging motor trade. The southern
warehouse also has some historical interest from a long and early association with the
Henry Box & Son company of carriage building suppliers.
The northern Hoffman warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically for its articulate stone façade and detailing which is uncommon in the
Capital City Zone for that date.
The stone parts of both Hoffman warehouses are significant:
Historically, for their great age, as part of a small group of stone flour mills, breweries
and stores from the 1850s in the Capital City Zone, a period which meant massive
growth of service industries such as these as a result of the gold rush.
Commonwealth Motors, former, 111-125 A'Beckett Street,
Melbourne 3000, H0994
What is significant?
Camberwell architect, Lionel San Miguel, designed this Moderne style motor showroom and offices for the Catholic Church in 1936. Rispin Brothers tendered ǧ4,100 for
its erection for a motor-oriented use that continues today.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
5.
Page 27 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Motor car registrations had increased eightfold in the decade 1917-1928. The City saw
new building types arrive as motor showrooms and garages. These were located
typically along the northern edge of the City close to the main vehicle thoroughfare to
Melbourne, the Sydney Road and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street.
The design concept consists of a vertical entrance feature (with three ribs, flag pole,
central window strip) terminating the bold horizontal massing to the east.
Commonwealth Motors, with its long glazing strips with steel-framed multiple panes,
curved glazing at the corners, cantilevering showcases, terracotta and brick wall
finishes, faceted rainwater heads, and opulent curves is highly representative of this
minority style in Victoria; a style that was nearly terminated by the advent of the
Second War in 1939.
Set on a corner site to a lane the building's three dimensional design concept is clearly
evident. The horizontal main elevation springs from the stair well on the west and
terminates on another vertical element set down the east side lane, followed there by
plainer rendered walls with amply sized steel-framed windows facing the lane.
The façade’s tapestry brickwork and moulded terracotta has been sand-blasted which
has reduced the integrity of the materials used but not changed their form.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1936, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Commonwealth Motors is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
The Commonwealth Motors is significant:
Aesthetically, as a successfully designed and near externally intact building in the
Moderne style which reflects relatively new retailing techniques (continuous, large
areas of plate glass, ground level) as well as being a good adaptation from the
internationally important European Modern movement showcased here on a corner
site; and
Historically, as evocative of the transition from a hardware and carriage building part of
the City to that of a motor transport centre, located along the streets at the northern
flanks of Elizabeth Street, then the main motor way to northern Victoria and Sydney.
The building’s development parallels with a massive growth in Melbourne car
ownership.
Grange Lynne Pty Ltd, later White & Gillespie Pty Ltd. Building,
185-187 A'Beckett Street, Melbourne 3000, HO995
What is significant?
Former Burley Griffin associate, Edgar Fielder Billson, designed a factory and offices
for this site in 1937. Replacing two residences, it was built as ground and first floor
accommodation for Grange Lynne Pty Ltd. Another firm, White and Gillespie Pty. Ltd.
commissioned the addition of a matching floor in 1943 under the supervision of the
Moderne style design specialists, R.M. & M.H King.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
6.
Page 28 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Hawkes Brothers Pty Ltd wholesale homeware merchants, and White & Gillespie
(Melb.) Pty Ltd, electrotypers, occupied the building over a long period, the latter being
part of a concentration of printing and linotype companies around the north-western
edge of the City, in areas such as Lonsdale Street, in the inter-war period.
Billson, the first student to enrol and graduate in Architecture at the University of
Melbourne, had worked in the office of Walter Burley Griffin as a student and graduate,
and established his own practice in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s he was acknowledged
as a leading architect on the Melbourne scene.
In this factory the long horizontal windows and window ledges of the ground and first
floors, emblematic of contemporary International modernism, were juxtaposed against
porthole stairwell windows and a rounded vertical element suggestive of the romantic
sculptured work of the Wendingen School. The use of dark brown textured brick
reinforced the Wendingen association. The composition of the façade as a whole was
distinctive for this fusion of the modern and the romantic.
Beyond these elements, the distinctive tapestry and heeler brickwork gives way to
common reds and a saw-tooth roof profile facing south at the rear. Concrete sun
control hoods act as eyebrows to the facade window strips, curving back onto the wall
against another curved vertical element which is an impressive amplification of that on
the west-side. This element curves around on to the stair shaft and overshoots the
parapet at its top, matching the stair and the other fin in height. Six port holes lend
modish light to the stair between the upper window hood and entrance. Set under the
semi-circular concrete hood at the stair entry are the street address numbers, floating
in boldly executed metal flats tacked to three steel bars behind. Inside, the metal stair
handrail shows similar convoluted curves.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates, 1937, 1944, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Grange Lynne Pty Ltd building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
The Grange Lynne Pty Ltd building is significant:
Aesthetically, as a successfully designed and highly representative example of the
Moderne style, as applied to a City commercial building, which counteracts curved
verticals with horizontal elements to achieve a balanced, three-dimensionally perceived
design. The decorative aspects of the dark brown brick façade, such as the vertical fin
and round windows of the stairwell, are particularly noteworthy. While the skilful
addition of a similarly detailed third storey by the firm of R & M King has changed the
proportions of the façade, this has detracted little from the integrity of the initial
concept, showing the respect held by these architects for the earlier design; and
Historically, as a well-preserved inter-war City workshop and warehouse and one of a
small number of surviving designs from the noted architect, Edward F Billson, a former
pupil and associate of Walter Burley Griffin. The building is also a reflection of longterm industry and warehouse concentration in this part of the City and, in particular, the
printing industry grouping near the new Argus newspaper building, showing the
historical grouping and evolution of similar uses that have been assessed as significant
elements of the City’s development.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
7.
Page 29 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Exhibition Boot Company, 160-162 Bourke Street, Melbourne
3000, HO996
What is significant?
This shoe retailing shop was created in the Edwardian-era for the well known Exhibition
Boot Company, an old colonial boot manufacturer with many shops across Victoria.
The shop was later occupied over a long period by successive generations of the Coon
family also as a shoe shop. The designer, William Webb had a prolific career creating
many houses in the northern suburbs during the Victorian and Edwardian-eras.
A distinctive and visually related tile design within the tympanum, depicts a broad
rising sun with yellow rays and a tiled blue sky above, a motif used in the Arts & Crafts
movement. Bartizan elements flank the façade in shaped red brickwork while boldly
modelled cement work adorns the upper-level. The street facade has English Queen
Anne revival façade styling, with red brickwork and Arts & Crafts cement detailing
featuring the broad arch across the shopfront.
The building has an early and significant metal-framed shopfront, with tilled plinth, and
pressed metal sheeting is evident in the shop entry and interior which has a coved roof
lantern over the main shop area. Victorian and Edwardian-era shopfronts are now rare
in the Capital City Zone.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1904, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Exhibition Boot Company is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The former Exhibition Boot Company is significant:
Aesthetically, for its distinctive architectural detailing and early shopfront form that is
now rare in the Melbourne Capital City Zone context; and
Historically, for the shop’s association with a prominent boot company in Victorian and
Edwardian-era Melbourne and served as a boot retail outlet for some 80 years.
Barnett Building, 164-166 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO997
What is significant?
Robin Boyd described this building as `…with its blue metal spandrels and white trims,
was the most honest and happy city building ever to be despoiled by terrible
advertisements'. Now, stripped of the stylishly Moderne style and muscular Weber and
Rice mural and the 1350mm tall letters of the `Barnett's' sign (the `terrible
advertisements'), Barnett Building has achieved greater respectability in the eyes of
Modernists for its architects, Seabrook and Fildes, but lost some of the albeit superficial
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
8.
Page 30 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
traits of its construction period. Louis Barnett & Sons Pty. Ltd., hairdressers and
perruquiers (wig maker), owned and part occupied the new structure.
Designers Seabrook (and Fildes from 1936) had won fame with the premiated girls'
secondary school design at Albert Park. Phillip Goad has described the Barnett
Building as `A technically unusual design…an early example of a curtain-walled, highrise building with a roof-top squash court and gymnasium…' in his Australian Dictionary
of Biography entry for Seabrook. The Barnett Building was publicised in the RVIA and
Architects' Registration Board of Victoria, Guide to Victorian Architecture 1956.
Contemporary descriptions termed the Barnett Building as `severely functional'
although its bright blue porcelain enamelled spandrels, used for the first time in
Australia, more than compensated for this severity. It was Weber and Rice's Health and
Strength College squash court which had contributed a further peculiarity to the
building. Located at the building's top the extensive windowless upper walls it created,
badly needed the mural for relief, hence the vigorous graphics that have since been
removed. Column-free space was also a fitness parameter and another plus claimed
for the design: this was ably served by the concrete frame. Location of the lifts at the
rear had originally determined a shop-lined corridor on the ground-level, since
combined as one tenancy.
Stripped to the aluminium-framed curtain wall and stuccoed concrete essentials, the
innovation of the Barnett Building's original façade is now clarified. The fluting of the
metal spandrels on the Barnett Building was originally repeated as reeding in the glass
to suggest a continuum of glass and glossy spandrel to make one glass facade.
The Barnett Building is a precursor to the many glass curtain walls of the 1950s in the
City with their similar opaque spandrel panels alternating with glass between aluminium
framing members but the aluminium mullions of this façade are not continuous as in
the glass boxes of the 1950s.
The ground floor top-lighting has been covered with a new spandrel and the shop
fronts replaced in a bland form. The reeded glass has been replaced with clear and the
murals on the upper-level are gone. The building is related to parts of the adjoining
streetscape, with some stylistic affinity to the Moderne styled building further to the
east.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1938, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Barnett Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
Barnett Building is significant:
Historically, as the oldest known example of a rationalist Modern commercial glass and
aluminium-framed curtain wall design in the Capital City Zone, preceding by 17 years
the profusion of multi-storey aluminium and glass curtain walls in the 1950s, with their
similarly brightly coloured spandrels. The building was also one of the key works of the
renowned proto-Modernist designers Seabrook & Fildes and was cited in the 1956
Olympics Melbourne guidebooks prepared by the architectural profession as a good
example of modern commercial building; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
9.
Page 31 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Aesthetically, for its architectural simplicity which underscores its pioneering Modernist
concept and contrasts markedly with its contemporaries, such as the adjoining
decorated Jazz Modern style example of Patersons Pty. Ltd.
Australia Felix Hotel, later Alhambra, Stutt's, Morells', and
Richardson's Hotel, and National Australia Bank, 168-174
Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO998
What is significant?
The Australia Felix Family Hotel was first opened in Bourke Street in 1847 by Robert
Sawyer: it was shown on the Melbourne Roll Plan 12 (1856) as a substantial building.
The hotel was rebuilt in 1862 as dining room, bar, parlour, 19 sitting & sleeping rooms
and a cellar, with adjoining shops. It had an upper-floor dance hall called the Alhambra
Dancing Saloon. It was renovated again in 1870-1 before opening with Frederick
Stewart as the hotelier. Collins Street architect, Peter Matthews, called tenders in 1876
for alterations to what was by then Stutts Hotel, in Bourke Street, possibly creating
some of the existing architectural character.
From 1884 it was owned by Esteban Morell and became known as Morell's Hotel.
James Richardson, a young Scottish barman from the Old White Hart Hotel, became
friends with Morell, who in 1893 financed Richardson's lease of Morell's Hotel. Within
six years Richardson had purchased the freehold. After Richardson's death at the
hotel in 1951, the building was purchased by the National Bank, opening as a branch in
1954. It was classified by the National Trust in 1991.
This two storey Italian Renaissance revival corner building resembles a Leonard Terry
designed bank rather than an early Victorian-era City hotel. The elegant aedicules
framing upper-level windows vary from bracketed concave hoods to the segmental
arch over the corner window; windows are double-hung sash timber framed. Above the
dentilated heavily moulded cement cornice is an unusual shallow attic level with
applied pilasters on each side of wall panels, as also for the façade upper-level, with
small window openings, each surmounted by a victory wreath.
Two extra bays once extending up Bourke Street (replaced by Barnett’s Building) and
openings at ground level have changed but the classical orders are still applied to
frame each opening in a manner that is related to the upper-level. The bank tenancy is
echoed by the overnight safe in the west ground floor plinth and perhaps the panelled
entry doors at the splayed corner and on the west façade.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates, 1860-61 and 1876, and any new material added
in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Australia Felix Hotel is historically and aesthetically significant to the Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Australia Felix Hotel is significant:
Historically, as one of the earliest group of corner hotels in the City dating from the
financial boost just after the first wave of the 1850s gold rush. Over time the building
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
10.
Page 32 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
has held many gatherings and performed a key social role in the area, particularly for
theatre goers and performers. The former hotel also has a long association with the
noted hotel entrepreneur, James Richardson; and
Architecturally, the former hotel shows the elegant restraint of early Renaissance
Revival designs in the City with subsequent ground level changes being carried out in
manner that is related to the original upper-level.
Bourke House, 179-183 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO999
What is significant?
Bourke House , a six-level reinforced concrete framed and walled office building, was
erected for the Posner Brothers, jewellers of Bourke Street, in 1922-1923. The building
design was by concrete specialist architect, Leslie M Perrott and the structural
engineering was by the Australian Reinforced Concrete Engineering & Co Pty. Ltd.
(WW Robertson, chief engineer). Initially, the ground floor was occupied by shops.
Leslie M Perrott promoted his firm with self-published works on reinforced concrete and
its use in building.
Showcased by the corner site, the two rendered street facades take on an abstracted
Modernistic Greek Revival character that provides a precursor to the Moderne style
and later stripped Modernist office blocks that were to follow after the Second War. The
simple Bourke House design can be compared to the contemporary but highly ornate
Nicholas Building as a pure example of Neo-Grec or Greek Revival, as applied to a
commercial City building. At Bourke House, gabled parapeted forms surmount the two
main vertical elements, centred on each street façade, acting as simple classical
pediments. Projecting spandrel panels are symbolic balconettes and quoining on each
vertical façade strip implies classical pilasters. Steel-framed windows take on a stylised
multi-paned character, with fixed top lights and casement lower lights. The original
`Bourke House’ sign has been preserved at the ground level entry surrounded by new
tiling and the lobby stair survives with wrought iron and brass balustrade and terrazzo
lobby floor paving.
The upper-levels have a high integrity to the construction date although typically for the
Central Business District the deep ground-level showcases have gone and new
unrelated but transparent canopies added.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1922-1923, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Bourke House is historically, aesthetically or architecturally significant to the City of
Melbourne.
Why is it significant?
Bourke House is significant:
Aesthetically for its early progression to a Modernistic façade design, with the simple
but effective abstraction of elements of prevailing Greek Revival style commercial City
architecture. Bourke House also provides one of a pair of similar designs at the Russell
and Bourke Street corner; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
11.
Page 33 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically, as an early and well-preserved multi-storey example from the design office
of reinforced concrete specialist, Leslie M Perrott, who was to make his reputation in
large city hotel buildings in the following decades.
Norman's Corner Stores, former, 180-182 Bourke Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1000
What is significant?
Architects Sale & Keague (designed the remodelling of an existing warehouse with
three levels and a basement (see brickwork on north elevation) to form one occupation
for Norman Sharpe in 1932 (Sharpe was the manager of Norman's Corner Stores).
Three years later an estimated ǧ8000 was spent on alterations and additions to the
design of Marcus Barlow; which added 3 floors, mezzanine, and a pent house to the
existing arcuated façade. This completely transformed the building to Moderne Gothic,
in the manner of Barlow's earlier Manchester Unity Building but in this case the façade
was pressed cement not the more expensive terracotta. Norman's Corner Store,
drapers were the main occupiers of the building from the 1930s well into the 20th
century.
The two street elevations rise six storeys with vertical faceted ribs following the
Perpendicular Gothic style inspiration. Pressed cement detailing in the spandrels and
at the parapet take on a geometric Jazz-Moderne character with paired scrolls in basrelief for each. The parapet has the geometric zigzag modelling associated with jellymoulds or Art Deco objects.
The ground level shopfronts (once deep showcases with island displays facing Bourke
St) and canopy have been changed and the street awning rebuilt.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1932-35, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Norman's Corner Stores is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Norman's Corner Stores is significant
Aesthetically for its Jazz-Moderne styling which is best expressed on the upper levels
of the building in the pressed cement façade detailing and three-dimensional parapet
forms. The building continues Marcus Barlow's keynote Modernistic stylism seen in the
Manchester Unity (earlier) and Century Buildings (later) in Swanston Street and their
use of Jazz Moderne detailing in either terracotta or pressed cement; and
Historically, as a major retailer in the inter-war and post World War Two era within the
Capital City Zone when Melbourne City was the predominant retailing centre in
metropolitan Melbourne. Major retail outlets benefited from corner sites and a Bourke
St location such as is exemplified well by this building.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
12.
Page 34 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Carlton Hotel, 193-199 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1001
What is significant?
Reconstruction in 1936 of the Queensland Hotel, an old landmark In Bourke Street,
meant an expenditure of nearly £14,000 on this building. The new five-level hotel, on
the south side of Bourke Street between Swanston and Russell Streets, was renamed
the Carlton Hotel. The freehold of the hotel had been purchased about two years
earlier by Carlton and United Breweries Limited. Hotel specialist designers, Sydney
Smith, Ogg and Serpell, were the architects and Thompson and Chalmers Pty. Ltd. the
builders.
The new hotel was of steel frame construction with fireproof reinforced concrete floors.
The façade was finished in textured tapestry bricks and described at the time as `a
modern treatment of the Renaissance style of architecture', meaning perhaps the
Palazzo form. More Moderne than Renaissance, the façade is composed of simple
vertical piers with windows separated by brick spandrel strips recessed between. The
stepped cement rendered parapet (still unpainted) is stylised in the Moderne manner
but with Greek revival motifs such as the bas-relief urns and parapet frieze. The
suspended street awning (replaced in a massive rendered and steel terrace form) was
similarly Moderne in style with fluting and bold imposed metal lettering. A vertical neon
sign completed the up-to-date imagery needed for a City hotel where most of the
existing hotels there had been built in the Edwardian-era or 1920s. The ground level
has also been replaced but dividing piers are similar to the original.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1936, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Carlton Hotel is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
Carlton Hotel is significant
Historically and socially as one of the small number of hotels built in the Capital City
Zone in the inter-war period, as a community gathering place since the 1930s, and as a
design by hotel specialist Sydney Smith Ogg and Serpell who had created a large
number of significant hotel buildings within the City and inner suburban Melbourne; and
Aesthetically, as a well preserved example (upper-levels only) of the minority inter-war
Moderne style in the City and complements the similarly styled former Commonwealth
Bank building, the Normans Corner Store and Bourke House at the Russell Street
corner.
Hoyts Mid-City Cinemas, 194-200 Bourke Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1002
What is significant?
Hoyts Pictures formed in 1909, commenced screenings at St. George's Hall, Bourke
Street, (later on, Hoyts De Luxe), and gradually built up their empire of cinemas.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
13.
Page 35 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Architect and entrepreneur, Gordon Banfield, and the Company, Ralton Holdings,
developed two cinemas (932, 250 seats), a shopping arcade and a car park (entered
from Little Bourke St) to the 1969 design of Bogle and Banfield, as constructed by E.A.
Watts, Pty. Ltd.. The Hoyts company was approached as potential lessees and after
fitting out the interior, opened there with a crowd of 5000 in November, 1970; the Hoyts
Cinema Centre had already opened the year before, almost completing the company's
rationalisation of their city cinemas from old venues to new.
Expectations that a third cinema would be incorporated in the complex were realised in
December, 1975, when part of the once vast upper level foyer space was taken up for
an `intimate' 220 seat venue. Bogle and Banfield and Dolphin were the architects and
builders, respectively. Superficial renovations were made to the design of Melbourne
architect, Ronald Fitch, in 1979, while the retail arcade, which had never been
prosperous, was refurbished in 1977-8.
Mid-City was sculptural and used the then modish exposed off-form concrete finish. An
early use of the now ubiquitous trowelled-on aggregate finish, Mid-City used a strident
red oxide applied front and back (Little Bourke St) instead of the more monotonous
buff-coloured layers poured over scores of investment buildings, and flourished a rich
burst of colour in contrast to the natural concrete of the side walls. Where needed,
windows were recessed behind concrete louvres at the top and bottom of each
elevation, which formed textural relief from the boldly chamfered concrete forms. The
Bourke Street awning was supported on two deep beam pairs, accentuating the
muscular design.
Mid-City compared with contemporary Brutalist off-form designs, such as Princes Hill
High School (1972), the Amalgamated Metal Workers & Shipwrights Union (1973), the
Plumbers & Gasfitters Employees Union (1971 and the similarly formed Y.W.C.A.,
Elizabeth Street (1975). Although more decorative than functional in its use of bold
geometric forms, Mid-City was an early (if not the earliest) large scale commercial
design to utilise the now familiar splayed and chamfered forms.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates, 1969-1970, 1975-76, and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Hoyts Mid-City Cinemas is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Hoyts Mid-City Cinemas is significant;
Aesthetically, as a successful blend of traditional romantic cinema design with modern
functionalist requirements in an early use of Brutalist large scale commercial
architecture in the State. Both this and Cinema Centre are stylistically distinctive
designs which are outstanding among the small number of new cinemas built since
World War Two; and Historically, the occupation of Mid-City (and the Cinema Centre)
marked a turning point for Hoyts to more modern and intimate cinemas, from the huge
picture theatres of pre World War Two. The Bourke Street location of the cinema
followed over one hundred and twenty years of tradition of theatre placement in
Melbourne.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
14.
Page 36 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Evans House, later Rochelle House, 415-419 Bourke Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1004
What is significant?
The canvas goods retailer ( tent, tarp and flag makers.), Thomas Evans Pty. Ltd.,
commissioned this six level (plus basement) reinforced concrete framed factory and
office building (with ground floor retail) as Evans House, to the design of architects,
Hare Alder Peck & Lacey, architects and engineers, in 1929. It was erected by George
Prentice Pty Ltd. Thomas Evans Pty. Ltd. remained there over a long period.
The façade, clad with steel trowelled cement render and detailed in terra-cotta faïence,
has a distinctive bowed centre bay divided into four recessed vertical glazing strips,
with spandrels set between windows, and flanked by vertical elements at each end of
the façade. The façade render was finished with a coat of Sanduski white cement
mixed with a buff sand to achieve the desired freestone colour. Terra-cotta detailing
has been applied around openings and at the parapet level using uncommon motifs
within the Melbourne context, including two large green urns at the parapet and
spiralled vine motifs along window architraves. Large steel-framed windows have been
used to provide ample natural light in the north facing façade. The ground and first
levels of the street elevation have been given special treatment to underscore their
podium role, with bronze joinery, showcases and balconettes. The overall effect is as
an early application of the Moderne style with stylised ornament and façade
composition departing from direct commercial palazzo or classical precedents. The
complex of deep display windows and showcases, with their leaded transom lights, set
either side of the lift-foyer and ground floor entry passageways have been removed,
along with the suspended street awning, but generally the changes at ground level are
visually related to the character of the building; the upper-level is well preserved.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1929-1930, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Evans House is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
Evans House is significant:
Historically as a well preserved City retailer and manufacturer from the inter-war period
when the Central Business District was the paramount retailing centre for the State, as
evoked by the scale and finish of this building; and
Aesthetically, as a particularly well preserved façade for a retailing premises and
contains a high grade of finish and ornament in the Moderne style.
Gothic Chambers (City Proprietary Company building), 418-420
Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1005
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
15.
Page 37 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
What is significant?
Designed by the eminent architect, Charles D'Ebro in his favoured Venetian Gothic
manner, Gothic Chambers was one of the small number of large commercial designs to
use the Gothic style instead of following the prevailing Italian Renaissance derivatives
favoured for most city businesses. The building included a Bourke Street shop and
three warehouses, with upper-level offices.
Other key examples of the style included the Metropolitan Tramways Building, the
Olderfleet (1891), the Rialto (1890), the Stock Exchange (1891) and (to a lesser extent)
the Wool Exchange (1891). Gothic Chambers was, however, constructed to a budget
and compares more favourably with the nearby Tramways Building (1880) than the
richly detailed and highly significant Olderfleet Building. Terry & Oakden's Gothic banks
had been an exception in the mid to late Victorian period but the emerging Medieval or
Queen Anne revival preoccupation in the 1890s was cut off abruptly by the financial
crash of 1893.
An exposed gabled roof (instead of hipped), a gabled parapet (instead of corniced
parapet), face brickwork (instead of stucco) and pointed arches (instead of rectangular
window openings) were the main contrasting elements in the Gothic Chambers design
compared to the more typical classical revival street facades. Eclectic detail followed,
with the parapet corbel table and arcade, the label-moulds over windows and the
Romanesque inspired frieze within the iron balustrade (with iron sun flowers) and
impost moulding, all supporting the stylistic shift away from classical revival
architecture. The letters `CPC' (City Proprietary Company) are entwined on moulded
cement shield at the top of an ecclesiastical window. A cantilever canopy has been
added and new shopfronts but the framing ornamented pilasters at ground level
remain.
At the rear in Kirks Lane, the building presents a sheer red brick façade with surviving
timber loading doors and a hoisting gantry at the top. Some of the openings have been
sheeted over or bricked in but this elevation is surprisingly well-preserved.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1890-1891, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Gothic Chambers is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Gothic Chambers is significant:
Aesthetically as a competent if restrained design in a minority Victorian-era commercial
Gothic style, which retains some notable detailing and finishes. Its designer, Charles
D'Ebro produced a number of significant Gothic or medieval character designs during
his career with Gothic Chambers as one of the earliest; and
Historically, as one of the few well preserved late Victorian-era office buildings in the
Capital City Zone to adopt a Gothic style for its façade and from the long association
with saddler Alex Morrison on the ground floor recalls the massive and historic Kirks
horse bazaar that was located next door.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
16.
Page 38 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
London Assurance House, former, 468-470 Bourke Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1006
What is significant?
With the announcements in 1959 of stone facing to facades proposed on the new
Colonial Mutual Life and Guardian Insurance buildings, came the completion of this
highly successful glass curtain wall on London Assurance House.
The professional journal `Architecture and Arts’ noticed the new building and observed
that the London Assurance company had been operating since it received its Royal
Charter from King George I in 1720. The new building however was totally modern,
with use of light-weight building techniques such as open web floor beams protected by
vermiculite. One upper level had been set aside for car parking accessed from the rear
(changed since) and the latest elevators were installed and despite the hopper sashes
on the façade, all floors were air-conditioned by a high velocity medium pressure
double duct system.
The entrance attracted attention with its travertine faced walls, green marble insets,
gold ceramic tile panels, and marble stairs and floors (modified since). It also had an
illuminated ceiling that was then a very new concept (removed). The service core ran
down the east side of the building.
The periodical `Building Ideas' created a special edition to display the City's
architectural wealth, London Assurance House was listed among the showcase of
modern and heritage architecture in the 1965 guide to Melbourne's best architecture
prepared for the architectural profession. London Assurance House was created in an
era of the 1950s and early 1960s that saw a major development surge in insurance or
assurance architecture in the Central Business District, cementing Melbourne's
preeminent role in the state for financial institutions.
An aluminium and glass curtain wall is set back within the building's façade to create a
picture frame effect, bordered by stone facing to the perimeter frame. Slim blackframed hopper-sash windows open unexpectedly from alternate mid-points of the
window glazing. By contrast, the curtain's frame is natural aluminium and is proud of
the glass, tracing a fine Mondrian pattern of squares across the glazing. The much
favoured mushroom colour had been chosen for the spandrel glass (since modified).
Completing the illusion of total transparency, an almost mullionless glazed entry screen
fills the whole gap left by the structure with little fuss. This was the ultimate aim of
International Modern, transparency to structure and a lightness of street facades, as a
clean break from the monumental revivalist elevations of the inter-war period. The
Wolfgang Sievers' image of the building in 1959 shows very little change to its existing
form, with the removal of the serifed building name from the first level fascia the only
major difference.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction date, 1957-1959, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
London Assurance House is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Central Business District.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
17.
Page 39 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Why is it significant?
London Assurance House is significant:
Aesthetically, as a well-preserved, elegantly transparent all-glass curtain-walled office
building which was begun only three years after Melbourne's first city examples of the
international Modernist `glass box'. The building’s design value has been identified by
at least two key architectural publications; and
Historically, as representative of the rapid growth of the `insurance architecture' of the
1950s-1960s continuing the expansion of large insurance companies opting for
construction and naming rights of new City office buildings as a form of promotion and
fund investment. This was when Melbourne was the financial capital of Australia.
Hardy Brothers Jewellery Store, 338 Collins Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1007
What is significant?
Hardy Brothers Jewellery Store was erected in 1933 to the design of the prominent
commercial architect Marcus R Barlow at an estimated cost of ǧ7600. John Hardy
traded as `Hardy Brothers' from his rooms in Sydney from 1853. Hardy opened a
Brisbane showroom in 1894, followed by one at Melbourne, 298 Collins Street, in 1918,
and at 338 Collins St from 1933. As ` Silversmiths by Appointment to the Queen' Hardy
brothers claim the only Royal Warrant in Australia and manufactures the Emirates
Melbourne Cup.
Conceived as a modest two level shop, the terra-cotta clad street elevation had a
Moderne styled archetypal stepped profile with central flagpole and the firm's initials set
out on a stepped motif centrally located on the upper-level wall. The main façade plateglass window spanned the two floors as a vertical feature, with ribbing and fluting using
terra-cotta and chromium plated steel.
Chrome was also used on applied `Hardy Bros' façade lettering. Flood lamps were
carefully concealed in the façade elements to allow innovative street lighting as
promotion for the firm. Since replaced, the main ground level display window was also
framed with chrome and based on polished black marble. The single width entry door
also held the firm's name in metal lettering stepped down from one corner. The Collins
Street elevation as original was masterly but understated Moderne style example.
Today the ground level has been changed but remains visually related with its polished
black stone finish and a street awning has been added. The firm has absorbed the
adjoining architecturally related inter-war Burke House, 340 Collins Street, as part of
the business. The building remains as one of a relatively small group of inter-war
Moderne style buildings in the Capital City Zone.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1933, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Hardy Brothers Jewellery Store is historically and architecturally significant to the
Capital City Zone.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
18.
Page 40 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Why is it significant?
Hardy Brothers Jewellery Store is significant:
Architecturally as one of a relatively small group of inter-war Moderne style buildings in
the Capital City Zone designed by one of the style's distinguished practitioners, Marcus
R Barlow. The terracotta façade is an additional distinction; and
Historically, as associated with the firm Hardy Brothers, and remains as one of the key
names in jewellery and silverware retailing in the Capital City Zone and Victoria.
Burke later Burns House, 340-342 Collins Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1090
What is significant?
Nationally known estate agent, businessman and philanthropist, Thomas Burke (18701949) commissioned architects Schreiber & Jorgensen to design this seven-storey
(plus basement) reinforced concrete office building in 1929. The Reinforced Concrete &
Monier Pipe Construction Company was the builder, with the estimated cost of the
project being ǧ25,000.
. As with his other ventures, Burke took advantage of the Great Depression to erect this
building as his head office in times of cheap labour and materials costs. The building's
architects, Schreiber & Jorgensen, were at their peak of achievement having just
completed the magnificent Xavier College chapel design as well as a number of
outstanding domestic commissions that illustrated their ability with both Arts & Crafts
and classical oriented designs.
The façade was clad with terra-cotta faience in highly fanciful Gothic design that was
intricately detailed in the architects' drawings. The name Burke House was placed in a
panel above the window display and entry, these having copper clad timber tracery and
ogee-arch heads to provide a fully medieval character. Burke (and others) occupied the
building in the inter-war period.
The street elevation of Burke House is extravagantly modelled as commercial Gothic
as applied to narrow frontage. The parapet is particularly ornate and massive in
comparison with the relatively plain façade between it and the first floor balconettes
and bartizans. Recently cleaned the façade still has the sandstone character of the
faience veneer. The ground level has been integrated with Hardy Brothers next door
and an unrelated canopy added.
How is it significant?
Burke House is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
Burke House is significant:
Aesthetically as a well-preserved commercial Gothic style office building erected at the
height of the Great Depression to the design of the then prominent architects Schreiber
& Jorgensen and showcasing the historicism of the style and its realisation with the
terracotta faience acting as a traditional stone cladding; and
Historically, as closely linked with the nationally known estate agent, businessman and
philanthropist, Thomas Burke, whose skill in financial investment is epitomised by this
building.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
19.
Page 41 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Atlas Assurance Co Ltd, later Guardian Royal Exchange
Assurance building, 404-406 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1008
What is significant?
The Atlas Company was a successful insurance company founded in Britain in 1808,
with international branches to follow. This steel-framed and reinforced concrete building
was erected for the Atlas Assurance Co Ltd by builders EA Watts Pty. Ltd., initially as
basement, ground, mezzanine and six upper-levels, to the design of architects and
engineers H Garnett Alsop & Partners in 1957-8. Within two years of completion,
another four levels were added to take it to just over the limit height of 132 feet. The
same architects and builder were commissioned.
The façade curtain wall system was anodised aluminium framed with marble spandrels
and Polyglass (originally specified as Thermpane) double glazed polished plate window
units (78x39") placed by glaziers EL Yencken & Company Pty Ltd. The building was
fully air-conditioned and the marble and granite work alone were to cost over ǧ24,000,
including the ground level and Assurance Chamber wall linings. All of this meant that
this building was among the most expensive per unit area among the 30 buildings
erected in the City 1955-1958. The progression from all-glass curtain walls with opaque
glass spandrels to those with stone spandrels such as this example eventually
provided reconstructed pseudo-structural stone facades such as that used on the
Colonial Mutual Life building, Collins St, 1963. This transition was remarked upon in the
architectural periodical `Cross-section'.
Inside, the service core was arranged along the west wall with stairs at either end, and
a light court midway on the east wall. Suspended plaster ceilings were used throughout
with air-conditioning (as an advance on the natural ventilation of the City's first glass
box, Gilbert Court) and the floor slabs turned up at the facade edge to provide back-up
fire-rated spandrels to sill height, the sills finished in reconstructed granite.
This was the company's head office for both New Zealand and Australia: they were the
sole occupiers of the building. The building coincided with the erection of a number of
large insurance and assurance company offices nearby in what was Melbourne's and
therefore Victoria's financial centre.
The ground level had a grand folding glass door set across the entry at the west end of
the façade, leading to a glass lobby screen and beyond, all with terrazzo paving. The
statue of Atlas that once sat on top of the earlier Atlas Assurance Building on the site
was reused in the new building but at ground level, set on one end a granite-faced
base wall extending for the eastern half of the street ground level façade, and also
bearing the incised name of the building and address.
The ground level interior and façade were changed in the 1980s and the statue Atlas
relocated to a niche at the west end (but a panel on the wall states that the statue is in
its original position). However the upper-level façade remains generally as built.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
20.
Page 42 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates, 1957-1958, 1960-1961, and any new material added
in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Atlas Assurance Co Ltd is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Atlas Assurance Co Ltd is significant:
Historically as a good reflection of the growth of insurance and assurance companies in
Victoria during the 1950s-1960s resulting in many company-named buildings erected in
this, the financial centre of the State. This was the Australian headquarters of a major
international company; and
Aesthetically as a slick and sealed aluminium-framed curtain wall façade just a few
years after the first multi-storey glass box was built in Australia with its natural
ventilation and differing aesthetic. The use of stone on the curtain wall and granite at
the base of the building emulated in a modern manner the stone clad classical facades
favoured by financial institutions in the pre Second War Era. With its marble spandrel
panels, this building marks a transition from the all-glass wall to the pseudo structural
reconstructed stone and precast concrete facades of the 1960s and later.
The Edwardian-era Atlas statue is also significant, aesthetically and historically.
Commercial Union Building, later AUC Office, 409-413 Collins
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1009
What is significant?
This nine-level reinforced concrete building was constructed in 1939-40 for the
Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd. and designed by Peck, Kemter & Dalton,
in association with co-designer of the Shrine of Remembrance (1934) and Alkira House
(1937), Phillip B. Hudson.
This is a symmetrical multi-storey elevation clad on the upper level with Sydney
sandstone and polished granite at the base. Composed in a Palazzo form, with the
high plinth and seemingly diminishing façade storey heights, the façade utilises the
new Jazz-Moderne ornamentation at the top, creating the familiar stepped profile of
side piers and central window bay. Gothic ornament is also used as a deliberate
gesture to the adjoining Modern Gothic Aldersgate House and Goode House at the
corner, highlighting the emphasis on street architecture by architectural practices of the
era. Window frames are in bronze and detail sparsely applied, including grooved
friezes surmounting the implied podium. Wardrop, as one of the designers, was adept
at this form of detailing and composition.
The development was on the site of the company's previous offices and continued a
long tradition of occupation in the insurance centre of Melbourne. The inter-war period
saw a growth in insurance companies along with other financial institutions.
Contributory elements
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
21.
Page 43 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1939-40, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd. building is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd. building is significant:
Architecturally as a good example of modern commercial Gothic design, with a
deliberate street architecture response typical of the period; and
Historically, as an important member of the significant group of early 20th century
financial houses between Market and Queen Streets, evocative of Melbourne's
continuing role as the finance centre of the State and Australia and this part of the
Capital City Zone as the insurance centre of Victoria.
Royal Insurance Group Building, 430-442 Collins Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1010
What is significant?
The Royal Insurance Company Ltd. had come to Melbourne from England in the 19th
Century, having been established there in 1845. They had built up national head offices
and a host of branches and subsidiaries by the 1960s. The Melbourne head office
designers were Yuncken Freeman Architects Pty. Ltd.
The RAIA gave it the General Buildings Award for 1967.
Reconstructed black granite gave the tower its characteristic dark profile but here the
stone grains are cast into pre-glazed concrete panels with structural ribs at the vertical
joints. However, at the Royal Insurance Building, the separation of each component, by
detailing, follows the Modernist principle of the building as an evident assembly of
functional parts rather than a decorated monolith, although here the dark concrete
cladding could easily have been mistaken for one.
Because the façade's intermediate ribs did not continue to the ground and hence did
not perform as primary structure, was no reason for concern: they were still needed for
the lateral strength of each panel and enabled panel thickness to be reduced to the
required fire rating's minimum. Neither was the building free of the podium principle,
used in the city since the Renaissance revival of the mid 19th century, although the
giant colonnades at the Royal were detailed as smooth transitions from the main
façade. Internally, however, the lofty space created was used skilfully to accommodate
a mezzanine.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1962-1965, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Royal Insurance building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
22.
Page 44 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Why is it significant?
The Royal Insurance building is significant:
Aesthetically as the most elegant, early pre-cast concrete clad International Modern
office design in the city, providing a massive prelude to the similarly black-clad
commercial designs by the same firm; and
Historically and socially, for the award of the 1967 RAIA (Vic) Victorian Architectural
Medal as an indication of high regard by architectural peers and the community.
National Mutual Life Centre, 435-455 Collins Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1011
What is significant?
This was the era of civic development where the new vision of the Central Business
District was one of elegant office tower blocks that because of their greater height,
allowed adjacent landscaped forecourts. To this end the Western Market site, having
been considered for near 100% site coverage in the late 1950s, was reconsidered in
the role of half investment office tower and half public plaza set over a large area,
larger than any previous city green space.
Godfrey Spowers, Hughes, Mewton and Lobb, and Leith and Bartlett, were the joint
architects and engineers (termed the National Mutual centre Architects), with E Hughes
as the project architect. The client was National Mutual Life Association of Australasia
Ltd and the contracting builders were EA Watts Pty Ltd.. As with other recent insurance
office towers the gold-anodised aluminium framed curtain façade walls were
augmented with stone, in this case 1.1/4 inch thick white marble (requiring a
modification of the Uniform Building Regulations). Initial plaza plans (232 x 150 feet in
area) showed more paving than eventuated, seating and planting area on the east and
west sides, and a large central fountain area.
There were two levels of shops facing the gallery and concourse or north plaza and an
internal arcade. The first three occupied levels covered a larger area than the tower
above (which had a 150 feet setback from Collins St), with two and three parking and
service levels below. Of the total gross building area of 536,200 square feet, some
186,840 square feet was devoted to housing the car The first floor held ample staff
facilities including a large cafeteria, a library, lounge, games and billiard rooms. There
was also the encircling balcony which was rare among city buildings but allowed for
easy window cleaning and shading of the glass facade, avoiding the cracking problems
experienced by the ICI Building in 1960.
The completion of the project coincided with the Fourteenth Australian Architectural
Convention and the periodical `Building Ideas' created a special edition to display the
City's architectural wealth, with tour guides compiled by architect and academic Neville
Quarry and others.
He wrote:
`.. The creation of a much needed open plaza in the heart of the office district
was made possible by the City Council's move in buying the whole block and
leasing it back to National Mutual, with the requirement that only half the area
should be built upon and the other half be paved and planted for the use of the
public, with parking underneath. Accommodation for 512 cars is provided, 93
with access from Market Street and the rest from Flinders Lane.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
23.
Page 45 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The plaza, 228 feet x 150 feet, is paved with hexagonal Mintaro slate and a 60feet-high piece of sculpture, with its associated fountain and pools, will be
placed off-centre near Market Street. Planting beds round the edges of the
plaza are raised, with a broad wall for sitting on and there is a patch of lawn at
the southern end, backed by planting intended eventually to serve as protection
from southerly winds up William Street from the river….’
Thirty years on, Professor Miles Lewis wrote in Melbourne the City’s History and
Development:
`…… But the dramatic aspect was the creation of a large forecourt to Collins Street,
unparalleled in any other commercial development in the city. The development was
open on three sides, with a freestanding tower slab set back on the southern most part
of the site overlooking the landscaped plaza. The implications for the city were
potentially dramatic. The modernist vision of a city of high rise towers set amidst
landscaped greenery at ground level seemed imminent, provided that major
corporations were able to purchase large city sites or consolidate a number of titles…' 1
The building and plaza are general well-preserved with the exception of a four-level
discrete glass clad box abutting the south lower level podium that has adopted some of
the fenestration patterns of the existing building. This addition has been set in from the
podium perimeter and is bland in its general effect.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1962-1965, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The National Mutual Life Centre is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
The National Mutual Life Centre is significant:
Historically as a landmark private development within the City's history, distinguished
by its scale and combination of office and retail uses, providing for the first major public
plaza within the Central Business District, along with a major new underground car
parking area. The development is also part of the boom eras of post-Second War
insurance-linked architecture that helped make this part of Collins Street the financial
centre of Victoria; and
Aesthetically it is a well preserved and large example of curtain wall architecture of the
time but is distinguished by its free-standing site, the high degree of external finishes
and the encircling balconies, one on each floor that had not been achieved previously
for an office tower in the City.
Huddart Parker Ltd Building, 464-466 Collins Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1012
What is significant?
1
Melbourne the City’s History and Development:: 136
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
24.
Page 46 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The building at 464-466 Collins Street, was constructed 1908 by FE Shillabeer, as a
three storey office building for the land owner, St James Church of England trustees.
The principal tenants of the new building and their head office were steamship owners,
Huddart, Parker and Co., while the Orbost Shipping Co maintained offices on the
second floor. The company's initials may still survive on the shield held by the scrolls
over the central ground level window (covered by a Makers Mark `M.M.' panel).
Founded in the 1870s, Huddart Parker & Co, were one of the seven major coastal
shippers, when this was the principal means of interstate transport.
This distinctive symmetrical façade was partitioned into bays by elegant fluted pilasters
rising through the full height of the building. The entry was surmounted by an ox-bow
moulded cement motif reiterated over the window on the other side. At the top floor is
an unusual moulded cornice as a series of connected segmental arches. Façade
windows are set out in a Tudoresque manner with bevelled mullions and decorative
sills at the lower level. The parapet and pediment above are of particular interest,
featuring foliation and tendril designs derived from Art Nouveau or Arts & Crafts
sources.
The ground floor openings have been changed and enlarged, with large expanses of
glazing and an unrelated but simple modern portico, and the upper level spandrel
finishes altered (painting of tile and brickwork) but the building nonetheless remains in
good and largely original condition. Early images of the building allow easy restoration.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1908, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Huddart Parker Ltd Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Huddart Parker Ltd Building is significant:
Aesthetically, for its unusual façade composition, combining a variety of contemporary
decorative elements into an uncommon and well resolved composition. The façade,
drawing on Art Nouveau and other sources, is unusual within Melbourne's Capital City
Zone; and
Historically, for the long association with the nationally prominent shipping firm,
Huddart Parker & Co., built in an era when shipping was the only form of international
commerce transport and a major source of local recreation which is underscored today
by the building's relatively high external integrity.
State Savings Bank of Victoria, Western Branch, 615-623
Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1013
What is significant?
The basis of the State Savings Bank was formed by the amalgamation of the private
Port Phillip Savings Bank (1842) and the government Post Office Savings Bank (1852)
in 1896.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
25.
Page 47 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Architects, Billing Son and Peck or Billing Peck and Kemter, designed other branches
prior to Peck and Kemter's involvement with this, the City's western branch, in 1927.
Following the detailing of the Neo-Grec movement, the former bank and four office
levels above were clad in stucco and rested on a quarry finish Harcourt granite base,
taking the form of a grand commercial Palazzo. Saltire-cross bronze framed widows
light the monumental space of the former banking chamber and nail-head mouldings,
both large and small, make up the stylised capitals on the similarly stylised, Tuscan
order pilasters which support the exaggerated Doric cornice above. A smooth
rusticated base storey completes the graduation of texture from the smooth upper
levels to the roughness of the plinth.
This stylistic combination was commonly used in the 1920s for financial and
commercial buildings. Early and relatively conservative use of the Greek Revival style
reached the height of its popularity in the late 1920s imparting a suitable imposing
temple-like air to, what is this case, almost symmetrical facades which remain
substantially intact. As one contemporary description noted, the building was
considered to have 'sufficient dignity to be counted among our notable buildings and is
a striking note in our civic architecture'.
As a Neo-Grec design, the bank compares with Deva House, Bourke Street and to a
lesser degree with Temple Court, Collins Street (qv), both 1924 also the Nicholas
Building (1926): it is an early example of the style and the corner siting aids in the
showcasing of the style.
This is a major corner building which relates well to the similarly styled former Batman's
Hill Hotel (1926) adjoining in Spencer Street. The State Savings Bank contributes
significantly to a streetscape interspersed with similarly classically detailed buildings
such as the Mail Exchange Building, the former Alexander, later Savoy Hotel, and the
former Victorian Railways Building.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1923-1924, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The former State Savings Bank of Victoria is significant historically and aesthetically to
the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The former State Savings Bank of Victoria significant:
Aesthetically, as an early and good neo-Grec design. The building is a fine and
prominent example of the combination of a restrained Renaissance Palazzo form with
elements of the Greek Revival style - a combination commonly used in the 1920s for
financial and commercial buildings which reached the height of its popularity in the late
1920s. The style imparts a suitably imposing temple-like air to the almost symmetrical
street facades which remain substantially intact. As a prominent building on one of
Melbourne's major intersections the former State Savings Bank building contributes
significantly to a streetscape interspersed with similarly classically detailed buildings
such as the Mail Exchange Building, the former Savoy Hotel, and the former Railway
Building; and
Historically, as the first major city office built for the State Savings Bank of Victoria
since the 1896 amalgamation, paralleling with its expansion into a new home finance
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
26.
Page 48 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
role, post war. The building also evokes the supremacy of the Melbourne banking
industry within the State and the nation.
Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory, 9-13 Drewery
Lane, Melbourne 3000, HO1014
What is significant?
The established and eminent cigar and cigarette manufacturing firm, Sniders and
Abrahams Pty Ltd. commissioned architect Nahum Barnet to design two factories in
Drewery lane, erected in 1890. Snider & Abrahams was to erect a number of large
buildings in this locality.
The Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory is in the English Queen Anne
revival style, with the recent painting of the red brickwork only slightly diminishing the
power of the elevation in its confined lane-way siting. Taking on the basic Palazzo form
of podium base and deeply modelled cornice, the building rises four levels, with deeply
recessed window strips as pilaster motifs and scrolled Queen Anne detailing in cement
under window cills and a crowning central parapet pediment. The entry facing Drewery
Lane has the distinctive bracketed pediment that is also seen in Barnet's King Street
warehouse for Spiers and Crawford in 1889. Designed just at the decline of the
Victorian-era boom period, the building follows only a few other early Queen Anne
examples such as the residential Queen Bess Row, East Melbourne, and the Oxford
Hotel, Swanston Street, before the cessation of building caused by the great financial
depression of the 1890s.
Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory forms an invaluable precinct with
surviving examples from the Sniders & Abrahams' occupation such as Drewery Place,
the five level American Romanesque style former cigar factory facing Lonsdale St (268270) of 1904.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric of the two factory wings from the construction date 1890, and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory is aesthetically and historically
significant to the Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Sniders & Abrahams tobacco and cigar factory is significant:
Aesthetically for its early and successful use of the English Queen Anne revival style in
a City factory building, as the precursor to many other examples to follow after 1900.
The expression of the style is made more distinct by the confined lane setting and the
large scale of the building. It is also part of an immediate warehouse building cluster in
little Lonsdale St and Drewery Lane and is opposite the highly significant reinforced
concrete warehouse built for the same firm; and
Historically, for its role in the development of a cigar and tobacco manufacturing and
warehousing precinct in this part of the City and its association with the eminent firm
Sniders & Abrahams and Nahum Barnet, a noted architect and specialist in tobacco
and cigar oriented architecture.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
27.
Page 49 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Elizabeth Chambers, 21-23 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1015
What is significant?
Elizabeth E Barker, pork butcher, claimed a large clientele, serving pork patrons in
Adelaide and Sydney and, since 1880, she had been appointed to the special post of
pork purveyor to Her Majesty's representatives in the colony. She was also a donor of
choice pork pies to the Melbourne Immigrants Home. Elizabeth expanded her Elizabeth
Street premises to four-storeys of shops and offices, in 1889-1890, aided by Elizabeth
Street builders, Martin and Peacock, and the architectural skills of William Salway. She
was dead within a year of its construction.
With Elizabeth Chambers, Salway had extended his commission from the new
warehouse to the north (25, since defaced) which he had designed for Mrs William
Hordern in late 1888. Salway was also responsible for Dr Beaney's house (133-139
Collins Street), in the previous year, and the imposing Dr. Snowball's residence at the
Victoria and Drummond Streets corner (1889) as well as many other commercial
projects.
Elizabeth Chambers is distinguished by its ornate stucco ornament, the facade rising
through three levels of highly enriched Italian Renaissance revival ornament into a
fourth crowned by a bold foliated Elizabethan gable housing the building's name. A
pronounced cornice divides the two style sources but commonality of the profuse
stucco detail unites the facade. A canopy and shopfront have been added. Elizabeth
Chambers adjoins an altered design by the same architect and relates well to the neoclassic styling of Excelsior House on the south.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1889, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Elizabeth Chambers is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Elizabeth Chambers is significant:
Aesthetically as a skilfully and ornately ornamented classical revival façade which
because of its florid detailing is particularly expressive of the Melbourne's Victorian-era
property boom and is a contributory part of a significant Victorian-era commercial
streetscape; and
Historically the scale and design of the building recalls the success of a locally
prominent pork butcher, Mrs Chambers.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
28.
Page 50 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Knight's shops and dwellings, later Hood and Co and
Edinburgh Chambers, 215-217 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1016
What is significant?
Knight's shops and dwellings were constructed by Richmond builder, George Freeman,
for Andrew Knight in 1869 as three storey retail premises on a prominent corner site.
John Allison and Andrew H Knight, as Allison and Knight, had many interests in the
colony, including the first commercial flour mill in Melbourne erected at Flinders Lane
west 1840-41. Allison & Knight were no longer milling flour in Melbourne by 1849,
having become general merchants and investors there, and opened a new flour mill
near Port Fairy (Rosebrook) in 1847.
The architect of the shops and dwellings is unknown but the architecture suggests the
notable designers, Reed & Barnes. The building features elaborate polychrome
brickwork around window openings and at the cornice. The building is contemporary
with, and stylistically related to, Joseph Reed's polychrome works throughout
Melbourne in the 1860s (see St Judes Anglican Church 1866-67, and Collins Street
Independent Church, later St Michael's Uniting Church, Melbourne 1867). Knight's
buildings are of a similar age to Reed's earliest work in the polychrome mode, and
hence are among the earliest polychrome commercial buildings in the Capital City
Zone.
In addition to its use of coloured brickwork, the building is further distinguished by its
uncommon decorative details. The ground floor has been altered but the upper storeys
retain elaborate window groupings (pairs, triples) with dog-toothed arched heads,
associated voussoirs, stop-chamfered reveals, splayed cills, and either bold decorative
columns drawn from eastern or Lombardic Gothic sources (north) or uncommon
corbelled dividing piers (east). The eaves have bracketing and a moulded terracotta
cornice with a scalloped frieze under, as echoed more simply by the string mould. Each
chimney has a bracketed and corbelled cap and a squinted base.
Openings in the rear elevation to the lane appear well-preserved in part with the shape
of some suggesting use as upper level loading doors but the rear façade has been
refinished. The brick facades have been painted over in the relatively recent past
(reversible).
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates 1869-1870, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Knight's shops and dwellings are significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Knight's shops and dwellings are significant
Aesthetically and historically, for their skilfully and elaborately ornamented polychrome
brickwork facades and their status as the earliest known commercial examples of the
Lombardic style and associated coloured brickwork in the Capital City Zone.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
29.
Page 51 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically for the link with the locally prominent investor, Andrew knight, of the
Colonial pioneering flour factors, Allison & Knight.
Wilson's shop & residence, 299 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1017
What is significant?
Wilson's shop & residence was created by and for Charles Wilson in 1884-5 to the
design of JW Roberts & Company.
Rising three levels the upper-levels evoke a conservative Italian renaissance revival
character in moulded cement, set out with pilasters on either side of the facade
supporting the raised segmentally arched entablature and cornice of the parapet which
has the words `Estabd 1859'. Twin arched openings at the first floor level, with
bracketed sills, deeply moulded architraves, keystones, and foliated capitals, progress
to rectangular openings at the top level with bracketed sills, and label moulds for
diversity of ornament. The ground floor has been changed and a suspended canopy
added. Judged within the inner Melbourne context, the three-level scale of the building
is uncommon among other Victorian-era commercial places.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1884-1885, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Wilson's shop & residence is aesthetically and historically significant to the Melbourne
Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Wilson's shop & residence is significant:
Aesthetically significant as a conservative but well executed Italian Renaissance
Revival design evocative of the architectural restraint offered in the pre boom era, as
applied to a medium sized Victorian-era commercial building; and
Historically, as among a relatively small early to mid Victorian-era shop & dwelling
group within the Central Business District.
Pynsent's store and warehouse, 303-305 Elizabeth Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1018
What is significant?
The brothers, James & Charles Webb called tenders in 1853 for the erection of this
bluestone warehouse in Elizabeth Street for Burton Pynsent. James Webb had retired
from the building trade and with his brother, Charles Webb (who had just arrived from
England in 1849), commenced business as Architects & Surveyors in August 1849..
The Webbs were pioneering architects in Melbourne and designed many of its early
buildings.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
30.
Page 52 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The store was located in Elizabeth Street or the Sydney Road, then the main
commercial strip of Melbourne. Pynsent was well located for a wine and spirit
merchant, starting a long trend of licensed grocers in this building that ended in the
1930s, overtaken by another land-use evolution that saw engineering and transport
oriented businesses locate in the north and north-west of Melbourne town from the
early Victorian-era onwards. This use remains in the area and in this building.
The Pynsent store Elizabeth Street façade has an Edwardian-era origin (1917) as
designed by the architects Kempson & Conolly for owners, Mr & Miss MacDonald, and
expressed by the broad central archway and face brickwork (painted over) with
quoining. An aerial view shows a new hipped roof at this point, as part of the new street
façade. The ground floor has been replaced and an awning added. The segmentally
arched raised entablature with its scrolling is an Edwardian-era addition to what was a
gabled parapet like the rear elevation with perhaps some dressed stone quoining and
mouldings. However, the rugged rear elevation is that of a well-preserved and early
quarry-faced basalt coursed rubble warehouse which remains highly representative in
scale, form and materials of Melbourne's warehouses of this period, despite the new
opening at ground level. One archway has been blocked but the voussoirs and
keystone remain as does the cathead seen in the 1881 image.
Pynsent's Elizabeth Street and Heape Court stores give this area (particularly along the
stone paved Heape Court) a distinctive early Victorian-era character with the brick and
stone warehouses and narrow lanes demonstrating the scale, and form of warehouse
districts of mid nineteenth century Melbourne. The Pynsent stores were the first in this
area while the warehouse at the rear of 359 Little Lonsdale Street was built in 1887 as
a typical medium scale brick warehouse building of Melbourne's Boom years.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates 1853-, 1917, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Pynsent's store is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
Pynsent's store is significant:
Historically as one of the earliest group of stores in the Central Business District and for
its location in the City's first commercial strip along the Sydney Road. It is distinguished
by its basalt construction and well-preserved rear elevation to provide a strong
expression of the area in combination with the stone lane and nearby warehouses; and
Aesthetically, for the early and bold use of stone construction facing Heape Court, as a
design by pioneering architects, the Webb brothers, in combination with the
contribution of the later, but visually related, Elizabeth Street upper level.
Union Bank Chambers, later A.N.Z. Bank, 351-357 Elizabeth
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1019
What is significant?
This basement and five storey branch of the Union Bank was completed 1927 on the
south western corner of Elizabeth and Latrobe Streets at a cost of £30,000, replacing
an earlier bank. The building was constructed by Thompson & Chalmers, to designs by
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
31.
Page 53 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
noted architects W & R Butler and Martin. Clive Steele was the engineer for the project.
The Union Bank occupied the building until the name change to the parent company,
the Australian and New Zealand banking company (ANZ) in 1951.
`The Argus' noted the modern reinforced concrete fireproof construction , the corner
site that allowed good natural light and ventilation, and the generous banking chamber
of 55'x22' (rest of the ground floor leased as a shop allowing for expansion). The bank
fittings were to include Australian marble on chamber walls, stair and entry dado,
rubber or wood block floor finishes. The facades were simply treated in buff shade of
cement render (to harmonise with the new Argus building opposite) above a shallow
granite plinth, with balconettes extending the full length of both frontages.
Embellishment included the iron railing at first floor and the iron lamp standards at the
corners of the building.
The bank is a handsome and substantially intact example of the interwar Commercial
Palazzo style. Key features of the style found here include the division of the façade
into a heavy stone-clad base with strong horizontal render banding in the form of
smooth rustication, and neutral intermediate floors with vertical window strips (multipane, steel framed), all surmounted by a prominent and stylised classical cornice and
detailing. The prominent corner location allows for an appreciation of the palazzo form.
The entry recess has ornamented borders and panelling and the shopfront at 351 has
elements of the original such as the bronze finish framing.
The building remains in good and near original condition despite application of a large
boxed sign over the two facades at the first floor line in place of the corner lamp
standards, changes to the entry and addition of air units at upper levels. It has
remained in continuous use as a bank since its construction. The bank is contemporary
with and visually related to the landmark Argus building on the opposite corner.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1927, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The former Union Bank is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The former Union Bank is significant:
Aesthetically, as a handsome and substantially intact example of a Commercial
Palazzo within the Capital City Zone; and
Historically, for the long association with banking in the northern part of the City
(specifically the now defunct Union Bank) and parallels the emergence of a new motor
trade in this area requiring larger banking facilities. This was an era when Melbourne
City was the nation's capital of finance. The bank is also contemporary with and
visually related to the landmark Argus building on the opposite corner.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
32.
Page 54 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Pattinson’s general store, later Prince of Wales and Federal
Club hotels, later Bulley & Co. Building, 380 Elizabeth Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1020
What is significant?
The first stage of this building appears to have been constructed in the 1850s when in
1853 builder, John Snowball of Little Collins St east applied to build a store and
dwelling in Elizabeth St north, on the east side, for the Jamieson Brothers. Initially
listed in rate records as a brick house and store, with 3 rooms above, it was later
described as a six-room two storey shop and dwelling. Early occupiers included J & W
Pattinson, general merchants, and Edward Petheridge, an outfitter, and the electoral
register of the nearby St Francis church. The building operated as a hotel during the
latter part of the nineteenth century (10 then 17 rooms) before its eventual delicensing
around 1918.
During the hotel period the existing Italian Renaissance Revival façade was created by
the architect Thomas J Crouch in 1888 for its freeholder, Jamieson, increasing the
room number to seventeen. It was described in the 1880s as `…a substantial brick and
stone building'.
Shortly after delicensing, Frederick Bulley and his son Charles Frederick transferred
their well-known Little Bourke Street leather shop to 380 Elizabeth Street. The Bulleys
adapted the front part of the building’s ground level and some other internal spaces in
1920 to suit the requirements of their workmen and the firm traded from this location
until c1990. The street awning, with its patterned soffit, is from 1920.
The Crouch design for building is inspired by the architecture of the late Renaissance
and distinguished by an unusual decorative parapet in which a curved pediment is
raised high above the parapet line on elongated ornamental consoles. Much of the
ornamental detail at the parapet is reiterated at first floor windows as aedicules. A
distinctive cruciform design in sgraffito, or incised render, is located between the upper
floor windows. The rear wing, as seen from the lane, is constructed from machinemade pressed red brickwork with an earlier brick section in front and the old 1850s
section at the street frontage: this has been rendered and may be stone. The ground
floor has been rebuilt between the remaining Victorian-era pilasters to either side of the
façade but the upper storey retains a high level of integrity to its early state.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates 1853-, 1887, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The former Federal Club hotel is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
The former Federal Club hotel is significant:
Aesthetically as a distinctive example of late nineteenth century hotel façade in an
Italianate mode within Melbourne's Central Business District. The decorative treatment
at the upper sections of the façade is of particular note, including the sgraffito between
the upper floor windows and the aedicule treatment of these windows; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
33.
Page 55 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically and socially as a hotel since the 1850s and as a long-term gathering place
into the 20th century.
Bank of Australasia, former 384 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1021
What is significant?
The architectural firm of Reed and Barnes and all its progeny, (Reed, Henderson and
Smart, Reed Smart and Tappin and Henderson) designed near to all of the 28 known
banks built for the Bank of Australasia until 1939.Reed and Barnes designed this city
branch in 1882; the contractor being Stephen Armstrong. The Bank of Australasia
became the ANZ in a merger with the Union Bank, 1959.
Two-storeyed stuccoed and Italian Renaissance derived, the bank resembles generally
many later designs by this firm and contemporary bank designs by other architects
(refer to the arcuated design of Reed and Barnes' Williamstown branch, 1876).
However the Corinthian pilaster trabeation, applied at first level, is an early use of
trabeation and arcuation. The smooth rusticated ground level is more typical. A more
richly decorated but similarly trabeated façade is the Oakden Addison and Kemp
former Northcote branch of the London Bank, 342 High Street. It was 8 years after the
Elizabeth Street building and has been recently altered. Cast-iron balconettes at
Elizabeth Street, a central raised pediment and balustraded parapet are contributory
details to this bank example.
Changes include the addition of a pediment into the first floor cornice, the removal of
urns from the parapet balustrade, repositioning of the entry door to the centre of the
façade on Elizabeth Street and the replacing of panellised pilasters at ground level with
smooth rustication. Casement sashes and glazing appear to have been introduced
over the hung sashes on most windows and trim colours (façade cement mouldings)
are inappropriate.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1882-1883, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Bank of Australasia is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
This Bank of Australasia is significant:
Aesthetically, as among the earliest trabeated Renaissance Revival branch bank
designs in Melbourne and it was the second built for the Bank of Australasia in the
metropolitan area and is their earliest near original Melbourne city bank; and
Historically, as one of the early Bank of Australasia branches built in an era when the
bank was the foremost in the Colony, also as a prototype for later branch bank designs
by the eminent architectural firm, Reed and Barnes (and later manifestations) who
designed near to all of the 28 known banks built for this company until 1939.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
34.
Page 56 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Royal Saxon Hotel, former, 441-447 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1022
What is significant?
Built by Samuel Cliff in 1858 for William Mortimer, the Royal Saxon Hotel is a two and
three-storey, brick and stone Regency style 2 hotel building with a carriageway through
to the former rear stabling and was once flanked by two two-storey stone wings (the
southern one having been demolished). As a major hotel building on the then main
northern approach by road to Melbourne via Elizabeth Street, the hotel was the venue
for many key events in early Melbourne history, including for the meeting that
established the nearby Queen Victoria Vegetable wholesale market, as part of its
evident lasting connection with the produce market sector at the top of Elizabeth Street.
The architects, Henry Shalless (1879); and William Wolf (1889) designed modifications
to the building complex in the Victorian-era 3 .
The ground floor walls are of coursed rubble bluestone construction, while the upper
two floors of the main building are faced with red brick (now painted) with carved stone
dressings and those of the main side building, of stone. The building's façade reveals
simplicity and symmetry of design, with four double-hung sash windows on each of the
upper two floors. Each window of the hotel façade is crisply delineated by moulded
relief, with more elaborate carved stone decoration on the first level, enriched with keystones. Each floor level is distinguished by a string course stone moulding above the
window line on the façade and the building is capped by a short parapet above a heavy
projecting stone cornice. The original distinctive framing quality of the rectangular
blocked corner facings has unfortunately now been obscured by their being painted in
the same colour as the main body of the façade.
The façade at ground floor level has undergone some alteration since the 1950s. A
photograph of the Royal Saxon Hotel in 'Early Melbourne Architecture' depicts the
building close to its appearance when built. A central ground floor window, with a
wood-panelled lower section, was flanked by twin arched doorways, framed with
columns, which provided entry into the front bar. This area has now been separated
from the hotel proper and converted into retail space. The northern door was originally
covered by a verandah according to MMBW maps.
The timber-ceilinged, pitched carriageway, above which the upper two floors of the
hotel were constructed, originally provided access to extensive stabling facilities behind
the hotel. This carriageway is now a shop and enclosed but the stone side wall is
publicly visible through the shopfront. The western rubble blue-stone wall of the stables
which was a common wall with a neighbouring timber yard has survived.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1858, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
2
Colonial Georgian as optional style name
3
Upper level side walls are brick so possible top floor matching addition in brick with
cement quoins.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
35.
Page 57 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
Royal Saxon Hotel is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
The Royal Saxon Hotel is significant:
Historically and socially, as one of Melbourne's earliest surviving and continuously
occupied hotels, it is one of a small number of 1850s 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; and
Aesthetically, for the three-storey Victorian Regency style elegantly simple and
symmetrical facade composition of bluestone and brick construction.
English Scottish & Australian Banking Co., former, 453-457
Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1023
What is significant?
In the Frank Lloyd Wright, 'Falling Water' mode, the familiar structural pi-sign thrusting
cantilevered balcony and roof slab, rough stone cladding and geometric precast
screens provided for a design which was unusual for the city but not for its designers,
Chancellor & Patrick who specialised in reinterpretations of the Wright oeuvre. The
influential periodical Cross-section published illustrations of the existing 1st stage and
the proposed 2nd stage of 9 additional floors to the limit height of 132 feet (as existing
in 2010). The report notes that the 1st stage looked monumental because of the
missing 2nd stage, dominating its surroundings. It was a `clear statement of opposition
to the glass house idea'.
The innovatory nature of the design also had roots in the E S & A architectural
department's products at Ringwood (1954) and Malvern. The bank's Collins Street
head office (qv) had also been progressive, for a bank (1941) but in a different mode.
Recent major upper level additions have interpreted the proposed second stage of the
original design, completing the project in a similar architectural character to the Hoyts
Cinema Centre. The additions have reduced the integrity of the building to its
construction date but not to the original intent and have not removed the significant
elements cited above.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1958-1960, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The English Scottish & Australian Banking Co. is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
English Scottish & Australian Banking Co. is significant:
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
36.
Page 58 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Aesthetically as a successful interpretation of the Prairie School style, achieved against
the economics and architectural precedents of prevailing city architecture by the style's
most proficient Australian exponents of the period; and
Historically, with the Commonwealth bank on the opposite corner, exemplifying the new
branches in the City perimeter, to serve the post Second War expansion. The bank
was also the subject of professional periodicals and cited in the 1965 `Building Ideas'
guide to Melbourne architecture.
Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Australia branch bank,
former, 463-465 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1024
What is significant?
This Commonwealth Banking Corporation Elizabeth Street North branch was opened
on 12 Nov 1956 just in time for the Melbourne Olympic Games. The architect was the
CBA Bank Architect F J Crocker, Architect- In- Charge Bank Section – Department of
Works, having prepared the plans in 3 Nov 1955. The contactor was E A Watts Pty Ltd.
When completed the new bank had a distinctive buttressed skillion form with the
battered Elizabeth Street façade reminiscent of the angled walls of the McIntyre
Stargazer House, North Balwyn, of the same period. This boldly facetted façade
abutted a sturdy vertical pier on the north side.
The side upper level was clad with a freestone tile, each corner pinned to the wall by
polished metal decals, while on the Elizabeth Street elevation, mosaic tiles were used
below the awning highlight windows. The company name was attached to the upper
level discreetly in the form of individual metal letters.
Inside, an elegant open stair with metal balustrading floating concrete treads, ascended
to the upper level. The banking chamber was ceiling was also angled, aligned with the
underside of the skillion main roof. The overall effect was very modern, casting aside
the conservatism of inter-war banking architecture. The significant but altered
Chancellor & Patrick design on the opposite corner was two years after this pioneering
concept and took a different branch of the Modern style.
Since it was constructed the bank's side street glazing and upper level tile and stone
facing (Franklin St) have all been painted over, the highlight windows covered with
metal grille, together making for a major if easily reversible visual change in character.
Part of the ground floor shopfront has been changed, engaging the rear of the angled
façade buttresses. Visually unelated illuminated signs have been added.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1956, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
This Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Australia branch bank is significant
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Although superficially altered, this Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Australia
branch bank is significant:
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
37.
Page 59 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Aesthetically, for its innovatory design in an architectural field that had been dominated
by conservative design during the inter-war period. It was only one of only two banks
erected in the Capital City Zone immediately after the Second War.
Currie & Richards showrooms & warehouses, 473-481 Elizabeth
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1025
What is significant?
The grantee of CA9/2 was Charles Rochford, paying ǧ710 for the land in 1852. He
mortgaged the land in 1853 to Samuel Ramsden for a significant ǧ2000, indicating that
the core of the complex arose in that year. Michael Shanaghan eventually owned both
allotments nine and ten by 1865 when Shanaghan's 14 room hotel was described as
adjacent to a row of three four-room (two-storey) brick shops. Adjoining on the south
was Mr. Comte's coal yard, offices, etc., and three brick and stone shops (467-71). The
northern part of today’s showrooms and warehouse row was part of a shop row
attached to the Royal George (later Limerick Castle) Hotel that stood to the north of this
site.
The hardware firm, Currie & Richards (commenced in 1869) began leasing land on this
site c1871-2. Builder, Walter Webster, applied to build `Addition to premises' on their
behalf in 1874 at 305-7 Elizabeth Street. Currie & Richards later leased Grant’s brick
and iron store there. Today’s carriage way was then access to the Royal George Hotel
Livery Stables as well as the other stores at the rear. The first entry for the two-storey
brick workshop at the rear of 481 was in 1899-1900 when it was listed as Miss E
Bowden's underclothing manufactory, soon to be occupied by Currie & Richards.
The brick and iron stores fronting Elizabeth Street (473-477) and those at the rear were
built in 1908 to the design of Oakden & Ballantyne for Ellen Grant of Clutha, East
Melbourne. It is probable that 481 was refaced in conjunction with the construction of
473-7 Elizabeth Street, all in a style vaguely similar to the Italian Renaissance revival
architecture used in the 1874 Franklin Street (79-81) sheet metal workshop building
acquired by Currie & Richards c1904-5. Ellen Grant owned all of 473-491 Elizabeth
Street. The carriageway continued to be used for the livery stables well into this
century, as did the Currie & Richards' occupation of both the street frontage and most
of the rear stores.
Further works on the complex included minor alterations to the warehouse at 473- 77 in
1924, alterations to the store 4 in 1936 and work on the shopfront to 473 in 1937. Currie
& Richards remained there until relatively recently, being succeeded by Stramit
Industries also builders sheet-metal suppliers.
This is a two storey rendered showroom row (473-477, 481) with warehouses (479)
and carriage-way at 479 Elizabeth St leading to the rear courtyard. The carriageway
wall of the adjoining 481 is part stone rubble but most of the rear courtyard buildings
are face brick. Within the rear courtyard are brick gabled one and two level stores or
warehouses and the rear wings to the shops facing Elizabeth Street. Of the two single
level gabled brick warehouses (1908) on the south side of the courtyard, the eastern
warehouse has a new opening but presumably once resembled the smaller warehouse
on the west which has an arched opening. The third warehouse (1899-1900) is on two
4
new doorway to eastern store at rear?
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
38.
Page 60 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
levels with a deep quarry faced bluestone plinth (4 courses) and an added balcony to
what was the upper level loading door (cathead over, since removed).
The upper level parapeted Edwardian-era street façade is near intact and rendered as
smooth rusticated ashlar and divided with low relief bays or pilasters, the bays resting
on panelled plinths with Queen Anne scrolls either side. The main cornice is dentilated
but the parapet wall above is plain. Basalt is also used in the yard as bollards and
rubbing strips. The wrought and cast iron carriage gates appear of recent construction.
Shopfronts survived in the 1980s on 473 - 477 Elizabeth Street but have since been
replaced; a related early 20th century shopfront is at 481 which is probably original. In
the 1980s the warehouses had timber frames, with stop-chamfered columns as well as
overhead travelling gantries, used for lifting the builders' materials once stored there by
Currie & Richards. There is also evidence of a stone pitched yard but this has been
replaced.
One other early City complex (also in Elizabeth Street) has a similar carriageway but
no associated warehouse buildings facing onto it. This complex is the only one of its
type in the central city in this respect. Although of mixed development eras the
courtyard and carriageway layout derives in part from the 1850s. The shops and
warehouse row relate closely to the altered stone shop pair at 469-471 Elizabeth
Street.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates 1853, 1900, and 1908, and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
This showroom & warehouse group is significant historically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
This showroom & warehouse complex is significant:
Historically, as an extensive Victorian and Edwardian-era complex built up over some
60 years, which nevertheless presents an homogenous 19th century warehouse
character and contains elements and land use patterns created in the 1850s 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.
With the Franklin Street building, this complex remains as a good representation of the
firm Currie & Richards' extensive hardware business, particularly the carriageway and
private internal courtyard. It also contains relatively well-preserved if austere examples
of the work of the noted architects, Oakden & Ballantyne, as applied to a show room
and warehouse complex within a traditional courtyard.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
39.
Page 61 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Alley Building, 30-40 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1026
What is significant?
Preceded by fire in both stages of the Alley Building Flinders Lane and Exhibition
Street development, the first stage was a brick and cement rendered building of 4
storeys and Greek Revival in character, as designed by Percy A Oakley, FRVIA. The
next was the addition of two floors and a penthouse to the design of Oakley & Parkes,
giving the building a new Jazz Moderne styling. Oakley & Parkes were noted for their
Moderne architectural landmarks such as Kodak and Yule House, the taxation office in
Lonsdale St and others such as Anzac House, Collins St. and the Equity Trustees
building. The owners, Alley Brothers, were long-term Flinders Lane clothing
manufactures and formed part of the dominance of this industry in the immediate
locality.
The street elevations have a classical order, with a ground level plinth and applied
pilasters. The cladding is face brick (since painted) with concrete or cement spandrels
and multi-paned steel-framed windows set between pilasters and separated by the
spandrels. The Exhibition Street elevation is framed by vertical elements at each end
which rise above the parapet in a Modernistic design with applied chevrons and jellymould forms. Windows are multi-paned and steel framed. Floors were constructed with
hollow terra-cotta blocks as sacrificed formwork and concrete. The entry to upperlevels was from Flinders Lane (75-77) with a cantilevering canopy adorned with NeoGrec details. The foyer is timber panelled with early brass fittings and a jarrah main
stair protected by use of pressed metal sheeting on the soffit.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates, 1923, 1936, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Alley Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
The Alley Building is significant:
Architecturally as a Modern style warehouse and factory designed by one of the key
practitioners of the style, Oakley & Parkes, and
Historically as a representative building of the clothing trade dominance in this part of
the City up until World War Two.
Kevin Hall & Club, 53-55 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1027
What is significant?
After several years of discussion three professional institutes (Architects, Engineers
and Surveyors) agreed to form the Allied Societies Trust Limited to allow acquisition of
a building for the use of its member bodies. Other bodies joined them, such as the
Australian Chemical Institute. A block was purchased, Godfrey and Spowers produced
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
40.
Page 62 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
a design, and in 1927 the members of the Allied Societies Trust Limited moved into
their own building, which they named Kelvin Hall. For over forty years they remained
there until in 1969 when the Allied Societies Trust was disbanded.
Kelvin Hall was also a venue for various music competitions and serious professional
work such as AJ Keast's Melbourne address delivered at meeting of members of the
Institute of Industrial Management at Kelvin Hall, 1945, which was also launched as a
book. There was also the presentation of the RVIA architecture medal by the Lord
Mayor of Melbourne at Kelvin Hall to Miss Ellison Harvie in 1942 for the 1941 King
George V. Jubilee Maternal and Infant Welfare Pathological Building, Women's
Hospital, Carlton.
Kelvin Hall was sold to Melbourne architect and developer Gordon Banfield who
suggested entrepreneurs Kenn Brodziak and Harry Miller take it on as a licensed
theatre project, successfully making the first application for a theatre liquor licence in
Victoria. A remodelled Kelvin Hall was renamed the Playbox Theatre to stage a
contentious play about homosexuals, `The Boys in the Band', in 1969. In 1984, the
theatre was destroyed by fire. The building nevertheless has long-term associations
with creative life in Melbourne.
Kelvin Hall is a tall and elegant Greek Revival cemented façade set on a classically
detailed Ionic order podium, with twin pediment openings either side of one with a small
balconette. The upper level is arranged symmetrically with punched multi-paned
windows set out under a deeply bracketed parapet cornice supported on four bracket
pairs. The top-level has another central balconette also set on bracket pairs. Ornament
is sparingly but skilfully applied as one would expect for a building created for the
Victorian institute of architects. It is comparable with the VCA Building and Druid's
House.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date (s) (1927), and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Kelvin Hall is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Kelvin Hall is significant:
Historically as symbolic of a near 60 year association with intellectual life in Melbourne,
as well as a close link with many of its professional bodies. Kelvin Hall is also cited in
the history of live theatre development in Australia, albeit no longer functioning as such;
and
Architecturally, as a fine and well-preserved Greek revival façade created by a
prominent local design firm for the Institute that represented them professionally. The
refined restraint of the façade reflected the Institute's attitude towards `good mannered’
City architecture: an assembly of sophisticated streetscape elements, as seen in the
prevailing Street Architecture Awards.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
41.
Page 63 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Centenary Hall, 104-110 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1028
What is significant?
Arising from a 1933 competition for a new concert hall for the Victorian Protestant Hall
Co. Ltd., this six storey reinforced concrete building with basement, first floor public
hall, rehearsal and lodge rooms, rooftop caretakers residence, and upper-level
residential and offices was completed as `Centenary Hall' in 1935 to the design of prize
winning architects, Hugh Philp and Geoffrey Bottoms.
It replaced a highly decorative French Renaissance Revival Protestant Hall designed
by WH Ellerker in 1881 which in turn replaced the first hall on the site, designed by
Robert Meredith and built in 1847 on land purchased specifically for a Protestant Hall in
1846 by the Loyal Orange Institution of Victoria. This site was dedicated in perpetuity
as the site for a Protestant hall.
`The Argus' reported that the new building was `expected to cost £30,000’ and it would
be raised to the limit of 132ft allowed by the City Council. On the first floor would be a
hall with seating accommodation for 600. Administrative offices would occupy the
second floor and lodge rooms would be provided on the third and fourth floors. A
rehearsal room would be on the fifth floor. A modern façade with simple lines was a
feature of the chosen design.
Once open, the hall was the venue for Christian revival meetings and a number of local
and visiting speakers.
Moderne in style the two cemented street facades have multi-pane steel framed
windows set in vertical recessed strips between fluted ribs, pressed cement grooves to
spandrel panels, pylon motifs at either end of the two facades and, on the Exhibition St
elevation, a podium or piano-nobile is implied by a change in fenestration and
application of ornament. There is a projecting balconette at first floor level adorned with
intricate pressed cement detail depicting the thistle and scrolls placed between grooved
buttresses as continuation of the facade ribbing.
Basement lights and the former showroom showcase window base underpin a new but
neutral shopfronts facing Little Collins and Exhibition Streets with moulded bronze
joinery still evident at ground level, particularly around the public hall entrance from
Exhibition Street. The building is an uncommon combination of uses (see also Kelvin
Hall) and well preserved externally.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1934-1935, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Centenary Hall is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
Centenary Hall is significant
Aesthetically, as a good and well preserved example of the Moderne style which is
uncommon among Central Business District buildings; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
42.
Page 64 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically, as an unusual building type combining residential, clubrooms, offices and a
meeting hall. Buildings of this type are rare within the central city and as a development
on the site of two previous Protestant Halls, perpetuating a tradition commenced in the
1840s during the foundation of Melbourne itself. The hall has been the venue of many
public events, particularly associated with Christianity and Protestantism in this City
since the 1930s.
Fancy goods shop & residence, 309 Exhibition Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1029
What is significant?
This two storey brick shop and dwelling was erected for Saith Khuda Bukhsh, a fancy
goods importer, by builder AE Timms to the design the architect, a Mr WH Smith in
1902-3. The shop was next used by J Lee Yen, cabinetmaker, and was then located
among other fancy goods outlets populated by Indian, Pakistani and Chinese
shopkeepers as part of the exotica that prevailed within Greater Chinatown in streets
such as Little Bourke, Bourke St east, Little Lonsdale and Exhibition Street north.
Designed in the English Queen Anne revival style, the street elevation is clad with
shaped red brick and surmounted by a boldly modelled entablature, cornice and raised
entablature, ornamented with cement mouldings. The first floor window is deeply
bracketed with the cast-iron balconette railing adding to the ornate detailing.
The metal framed shopfront is particularly well preserved and has glazed blue tiles to
piers at either side of the ground floor, a recessed entry and a deep transom light with
significant coloured leadlight detailing. An image from 2000, shows that the formerly
tiled shopfront plinth has been reclad, albeit in a neutral manner.
This shop and dwelling has been assessed as locally significant by three Capital City
Zone heritage reviews (1985, 1993, 2002), following identification by one of the first
Melbourne City conservation studies of the 1970s. This is a demonstration of continued
heritage value of the property over a near 30 year period.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1902-1903, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
This fancy goods shop & residence is aesthetically and historically significant to the
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
This fancy goods shop & residence is significant:
Aesthetically for its well preserved brickwork and cement detailing in the Queen Anne
revival style, with a strong Arts & Crafts character exhibited by the early shopfront with
its lead lighting and tiles; and
Historically, as commissioned for a use synonymous with the extended Chinatown
District of the Melbourne Edwardian-era and for its high integrity to its creation date and
thus is a good demonstration of the once typical two-storey Edwardian-era shop and
residence type now rare in the Capital City Zone.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
43.
Page 65 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Sargood Gardiner Ltd warehouse, 61-73 Flinders Lane,
Melbourne 3000, HO1030
What is significant?
Architects Godfrey & Spowers designed this initially seven storey (plus basement)
steel-framed and concrete floored warehouse for Sargood Gardiner Ltd of 238 Flinders
Street and builders Hansen & Yunken erected it in 1928-9. Another floor was added by
1936 designed by Godfrey & Spowers but built by Swanson Brothers. The distinctive
ground level giant-order loggia facing Flinders Lane was built as a light well for the
basement for goods storage and delivery only (there was large loading dock onto the
rear lane). The company claimed a great saving in being able to store oversized and
bulk goods there instead of at South Melbourne. .
When the main building opened in 1930 it was described as `dazzling white' and
conspicuous, rising high above the adjoining Alley Building which by then had not
received its extra level. This dazzling appearance was achieved using Goliath cement
and selected sand to achieve a `Sydney stone' colour. In the new enlightened age of
staff facilities, there was a rooftop staff dining room with magnificent views to the
gardens and river.
Like Sargood's previous warehouse buildings the Flinders Lane elevation utilised giant
order architectural elements to great effect but is distinguished among Sargood
buildings and others in the Capital City Zone by its giant order colonnade that creates a
second façade set back behind the tall rusticated piers, each with a stylised capitals in
pressed cement and polished granite ground level facings. Above this podium base the
main elevation rises in three pilistraded bays, with deep primary and secondary
cornices. Vertical fenestration strips house metal framed windows and recessed
spandrel panels. The impressive central main entry is elevated over street level and
approached by a terrazzo-paved stairway with an Egyptian character custom designed
entry portal with dentilated cornice and roundels set into architraves. Perhaps contrary
to the stipulation made when the warehouse was built, the lower levels (basement and
`intermediate floor') have been since utilised for commercial activity with associated
shopfronts on the intermediate or sub-basement level, stairways and modification of
the curved wrought-iron balustrading. The upper level steel-framed windows have been
replaced with simpler but similar, visually related multi-pane glazing. The firm's name,
once faced with gold with vermillion edges, has been removed from the podium fascia.
The Sargood Gardiner warehouse is part of a good inter-war warehouse streetscape
extending to the Exhibition Street corner.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates, 1928-9, 1936, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Sargood Gardiner Ltd warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Sargood Gardiner Ltd warehouse is significant:
Historically for its evocation of the continuing major role played by the nationally
prominent Sargood firm and its affiliates from the 19th into the 20th century and with its
well-preserved exterior the building exemplifies the key warehousing function of the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
44.
Page 66 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Capital City Zone in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The shift in location for the firm
from near to the old swinging basin on the Yarra to a more elevated site on the eastern
hill of Melbourne highlights the change in transport modes needed for warehousing in
the City; and
Aesthetically, as a fine architectural composition using both classical and Egyptian
revival motifs in the arrangement of a distinctive street elevation, made more so by its
colonnaded lower levels.
Higson Building, 125-127 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000,
HO1032
What is significant?
Established in 1885, John Higson and Sons made all descriptions of leather goods,
particularly saddles. They also provided tents and tarpaulins, whip thongs and laces,
fishing lines and cricketing materials. In return, they purchased beeswax, horsehair and
skins.
Billing, Peck and Kemter designed this five-storey warehouse with basement in 1912.
Higsons remained as the major occupier for many years, sharing the building with the
clothing manufacturers and milliners, more typical of the lane, such as Alley Brothers.
American Romanesque revival in style, the elevation follows an established warehouse
formula with its giant arcade, attic arcade level and foliated column capitals. Bayed and
bellied windows and a distinctive segment arch trio at ground level combine with its
overall high integrity to make this one of the most successful examples of the style,
despite its relatively late date. Of note are the unusual brackets supporting the applied
piers, at the sides of the elevations and the trellis pattern to the window spandrels.
Although a late example of this style introduced to Melbourne by the 1890s, this
building incorporates the main stylistic elements in a strongly individual manner and is
significantly intact externally.
The Flinders Lane facade is divided into three bays and features a giant order arcade
over four storeys with a unifying attic level above divided into a run of smaller arcading.
A heavily toothed and moulded cement rendered cornice caps the top of the building.
At ground level the entrance doorway is emphasised by a distinctive segment arch, and
flanked on either side by windows also headed by segment arches The first and
second floors of the facade feature two-storey high oriel windows to the side bays only,
separated by trellis-patterned, cement rendered panels. The windows to the central bay
are separated by plain cement rendered panels The third storey features arched
windows highlighted by cement rendered mouldings The capitals to the main piers are
foliated, and applied piers to either side of the Flinders Lane facade are supported just
below first floor level by plain curved brackets
Although constructed on a relatively narrow site, the corner position enabled the
architects to give the building greater prominence by extending the detailing of the
principle facade to the first bay of the building's Higson Lane frontage. The facade thus
wraps around the corner but unlike the Metcalfe Barnard warehouse at 147-149
Flinders Lane, on the corner of Russell Street. The rest of the side elevation is of plain
unrendered brick with no decoration since it only faces a minor lane.
Contributory elements
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
45.
Page 67 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1912-1913, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Higson Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
Higson Building is significant:
Architecturally as among the best preserved and most successfully designed of the
American-derived Romanesque Revival style tall-arched warehouse facades in
Victoria. Intact externally the building contributes individually to the streetscape through
its strongly modelled facade and the extension of the detailing of the main facade to
one bay of the side elevation The Higson Building also contributes strongly to the
general precinct, particularly in Flinders Lane where such factory warehouses are still
prominent; and
Historically the building is closely associated with the Higson firm which pioneered this
part of commercial Melbourne and won renown and prosperity in their field as well as
the long association with the clothing trade which helped form the early history of
Flinders Lane.
Pawson House, 141-143 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000,
HO1033
What is significant?
Pawson House was erected for clothing manufacturers Pawson and Company in 1935
to the design of the prolific commercial architects, HW & FB Tompkins. Built of
reinforced concrete its structure was designed by the pioneering reinforced concrete
engineer, HR Crawford. In 1935 it was promoted as `...This splendid building is the last
word in modern construction perfect natural light central heating and hot water service.
Floors 2400 sq ft or subdivide to suit tenants'.
Typical of this part of Flinders Lane, the tenants were mainly from the clothing industry.
Initially planned as four floors above ground and basement, a floor was added during
construction. Inside, the three upper levels were originally planned as factory spaces
and the three lower, as showrooms. A small entry lobby was served by the stair and a
lift, repeated at the escape stair at the other end of the building onto Oliver Lane.
The building façade is composed of vertical elements with recessed panels for
windows, each panel divided vertically by a rib. Windows either side are a vertical
multi-pane glazing format, with grooved spandrels between. At the parapet the
recessed panels cascade into Moderne style moulded and bifurcated facets, set in
fours either side of the central rib. The elevation reverts to plain walls and steel framed
windows down the side lane after one return façade bay. The entry has a terra-cotta
tiled surround with the street number set into a recessed panel. A fluted pressed
cement frieze with a central keystone marks the stylised termination of the façade
panel above which traces the path of the stair well up the building, lit by a continuous
metal-framed and glazed slit. The double polished timber entry doors have been
replaced with a glazed screen. A flagpole once adorned the parapet at the crown of this
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
46.
Page 68 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
panel. The simple Moderne treatment used here is another example of the preamble to
Modernism in Melbourne commercial building.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1935, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Pawson House is historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central Business
District.
Why is it significant?
Pawson House is significant:
Historically, as a well-preserved factory warehouse that symbolises the dominance of
this part of Melbourne by clothing manufactures since the late Victorian-era; and
Aesthetically it is a well-preserved example of the Moderne style by the prominent
commercial architects, the Tompkins Brothers.
Griffiths Bros Pty Ltd building, 26-30 Flinders Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1034
What is significant?
Griffiths Bros Pty Ltd building was designed by architects Ward & Carleton in 1899 and
built by H Henningsen of Hawthorn for this firm of tea and coffee merchants in 1900. It
was a new store and sales room for teas, coffees and cocoas. With other examples like
Ball & Welch and the Commercial Travellers Association buildings this warehouse
supported a group of innovative Edwardian-era buildings eventually to front the new
railway station (1910). City plans of 1910 show the Griffiths Bros building as on five
levels, divided with six compartments on either side of the ground level, a stair and a
lift. A six stall stable was at the rear and beside it was the Australian Church.
James Griffiths had migrated to Australia in 1873 and founded this successful tea
business. Griffiths and his wife were committed to Christian missionary work and in
1902 Mrs Griffiths was appointed President of the Women’s Missionary Council. In the
1960s the business was taken over by the Robur Tea Company Limited.
After a lease to Verona Press in the 1940s, the building was acquired in the mid 1960s
by the Herald and Weekly Times who renamed it Gravure House and was occupied by
various subsidiaries including Colorgravure Publications, United Press and Home
Beautiful. It was then leased as a billiard and snooker centre, from 1973 to 1988, by
Dolly Lindrum and named after her famous uncle Walter Lindrum. The Hotel Lindrum
opened here the 12th of July 1999 after conversion by Swaney Draper Architects.
Elevated in red brick with pressed cement Arts & Crafts ornament, the façade follows
the American tall-arched Romanesque revival manner that had evolved in Melbourne
during the late Victorian-era into a distinctive style for warehouses built in the
Edwardian-era. Framed by foliated bartizan motifs, the middle façade has a series of
oriels windows projecting out over the street above a secondary set of broad arches to
give it a great richness of form and materials. Down the side lane the austere brick
façade is well-preserved but has been painted over. The ground level has been
modified (originally had two stairway entries and windows either side) but has some
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
47.
Page 69 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
generously sized polished stone plinths, columns and moulded cement capitals framing
the new entry.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1899-1900, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Griffiths Bros Pty Ltd building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Griffiths Bros Pty Ltd building is significant:
Historically for its close link with a tea and cocoa marketing firm that was nationally
known in the early 20th century and specifically to James Griffiths who was active in
charity and evangelistic works; and
Aesthetically it is superb and relatively well-preserved example of the Tall Arched
American Romanesque revival which with other similar sites located in Flinders Street
and Lane provides one of Melbourne's key architectural characteristics.
Victorian Cricket Association Building (VCA), 76-80 Flinders
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1035
What is significant?
The Victorian Cricket Association (VCA) had been formed as early 1875 The
association had purchased a City allotment for ǧ11,000 and intended to build, despite
misgivings from some members. Once the building was underway, `The Argus' of 10
December 1924 observed:
`Second in height in Flinders street only to the Commercial Travellers'
Association's building, this imposing seven story reinforced concrete building is
nearly completed at the corner of Collins place and Flinders street for the
Victorian Cricket Association'.
The association had commissioned architect, H. Croxton Davey, to design this
reinforced concrete, seven-storey building in 1924, as erected by Walter E Cooper by
1925. The VCA occupied the top floor, sharing its "splendid view" across the King's
Domain to Government House with the Victorian Football League, renting out the
remaining office and retail spaces.
The VCA eventually became Cricket Victoria, as the current governing body for cricket
in Victoria, and the building, like the nearby Herald Sun building has been converted to
apartments. The main entry, that was central in Collins Place under a suspended street
awning, has been replaced and duplicated with the conversion of the building in 1993.
A plaque in the foyer commemorates the opening of the building as apartments by Cr
Desmond Clark: `further enhancing the life of the city…' The architects for this
conversion were David Earle & Associates.
The perspective published in `The Argus' 1924 showed a rendered corner office
building in the commercial Renaissance Palazzo format of podium base, middle façade
and deeply bracketed cornice, with entablature beneath. Balconies, seemingly held by
deep bracket pairs, protruded from both street facades at two floor levels and an
arcaded attic storey sat under the cornice within the entablature. Arcade spandrels are
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
48.
Page 70 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
ornamented in pressed cement in a reference to the Romanesque revival style of the
Edwardian-era.
Upper level windows have been changed from multi-pane glazing to single pane and
the transom lights sheeted over, but ground level copper framed shopfronts survive in
Collins Place although not on Flinders Street.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1924-5, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Victorian Cricket Association building is significant historically and aesthetically to
the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Victorian Cricket Association building is significant:
Historically for its link with the then paramount sporting association in Victoria, an
association with sufficient capital to develop a major commercial city building, and an
uncommon form of developer in the Capital City Zone. The building has been the
administrative vehicle for sporting groups in the State over a long period; and
Aesthetically as a well-preserved and well designed office tower in an early form of the
commercial Renaissance Palazzo style that is showcased by its corner site and open
vista to the south.
Schuhkraft & Co warehouse, later YMCA, and AHA House, 130132 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1036
What is significant?
Wholesale stationers, paper merchants, printers, lithographers and paper bag makers,
Suzannah Schuhkraft & Co., engaged architect W H Ellerker to design this brick
warehouse in 1885. The prolific builder, Charles Butler was the contractor. In the
Edwardian-era the Civil Service Co-operative Society of Victoria Ltd (managed by J
Featherstone) had the building and by 1910, the building had become the Young Men's
Christian Association (YMCA) until the association moved to City Road in 1925.
The building returned to its warehouse role in the 1920s when acquired by Perdriau
Rubber Co Ltd (car and bike tyre suppliers, formerly of 122 Flinders St) who
commissioned architect Alec Eggleston in 1925 to convert it to a showroom and
warehouse with drive-through access to the tyre changing department. To this end, the
rear elevation was provided with folding driveway doors and ramp entry provided from
Flinders Street on the east side of the building but little further change occurred to the
street façade except for a new set of grand polished timber doors on the west side of
the ground level and two large display windows adjoining. The Perdriau Rubber
Company was established at Birkenhead Point, NSW, in 1904. In 1929 the Company
merged with the Dunlop Rubber Company of Australia Ltd., forming the Dunlop
Perdriau Co. Ltd. As a result of the merger the building was used as the bulk store for
Dunlop and offices for Latex Products, furniture makers, in the World War Two era.
A spectacular and near intact contemporary design from Ellerker & Kilburn (in
association with others) is the Queen Anne styled City of Melbourne Building, Elizabeth
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
49.
Page 71 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Street (1888). Other comparable works by Ellerker included Montgomerie's brewery,
Jeffcott Street (1884), Victorian Permanent Fire Insurance Co offices Collins Street
(1870) and, with Kilburn & Pitt, the important Federal Coffee Palace and Victoria
Finance Guarantee and Share Co., Bourke Street West: most of these have been
demolished.
Schuhkraft & Co warehouse is an Italian High Renaissance revival warehouse design
which has been altered at ground floor during its conversions to new uses. The façade
possesses a trabeation layer that includes stylised classical order super-posed piers or
pilasters with increasing ornament with that of façade height. There is the traditional
marking of each storey with a cement string mould and the graduation of window
opening size, with increasing height, culminating with an arcade motif at the top or attic
level. The fenestration is both arched and rectangular and the cement ornamentation
includes segmentally arched pediments applied to the smooth-rusticated main pilasters
framing the façade. At ground level, the large bordered glass panes are from in the
1920s.
However, the upper level street elevation is a skilful combination or trabeation and
arcuation, showing relatively greater sophistication than many surviving classical
revival elevations in the Capital City Zone.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1885-1886, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Schuhkraft & Co warehouse, later AHA House, is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Schuhkraft & Co warehouse, later AHA House, is significant:
Historically as a well-preserved late Victorian-era factory-warehouse; and
Aesthetically for the successful combination of façade trabeation and arcuation with
distinctive applied cement detail in the Italian Renaissance revival manner by the well
known architect, WH Ellerker.
Cobden Buildings, later Mercantile & Mutual Chambers and
Fletcher Jones building, 360-372 Flinders Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1037
What is significant?
The Cobden Buildings were constructed here for James (Junior) & Robert Dickson
Jackson by Taylor & Duguid in 1872 as offices in place of the pioneering 1840s soap &
candle factory and residence of James Jackson and Co (later Jackson Rae & Co and
finally Rae, Dickson, &Co. from 1852). The site was advertised to be cleared in 1872 in
preparation for erection of the Cobden Buildings but it is possible that the coursed
rubble blue stone western wall may date from one of the earlier Jackson Rae & Co
structures. Historian, William Westgarth and others have noted that James Jackson
was there at the beginning of Melbourne town when Flinders Street had few other
residents. Rae, Dickson, &Co. failed financially in the post Gold recession of 1860,
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
50.
Page 72 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
leading to the eventual redevelopment of the site. Dead by 1851, James Jackson
senior had already begun to build what became the `largest mansion in Melbourne',
Toorak House, by the end of the 1840s.
Facing busy Queen's Wharf, the Cobden Buildings were used to service key maritime
trade figures as well as government, including from 1874 Commissioner of Trade and
Customs Chief Harbourmaster, Chief Inspector of Distilleries and the Immigration
Agent, and Steam Navigation Board. It was also the office of a range of prominent
private enterprises. Later owners Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company Ltd carried out
some minor changes in 1939 when plans show the large ground level window openings
as existing but with timber mullions.
The Cobden Buildings are shown in early views of the area in their intact form as
elegant Italian Renaissance revival in style, two-storey, rendered and parapeted, and
similar in character to the fine 1860s-1870s bank designs of Leonard Terry. There are
also similarities with the significant Goldsborough Mort Building at Bourke and William
Streets (1862) designed by architect John Gill (the parapet and ground level openings).
The ground floor has smooth rustication with one remaining arched opening (of
originally many); both levels are divided with superposed pilasters, each engaging with
parapet, string and entablature mouldings. Upper level window have aedicule detailing
and the parapet is balustraded with a raised entablature central to the south elevation.
Changes to the building include: new window glazing to the new ground floor openings
(initially multi-paned and framed in timber) and a cantilever awning addition (1955). The
1955 plans show the now concealed eastern upper level façade. A partial upper storey
addition was made in 1970 and a screen erected covering the east upper level
elevation. These changes resulted from a long occupation by the iconic Victorian
clothing firm of Fletcher Jones & Staff Pty Ltd. who has added their own character to
the building with trousered men in bas-relief on the upper level façade. Much of this
change appears to be reversible given the eastern upper level survives as shown in the
1955 plans and other documentation shows the form of the original ground level
openings. The early photographs and existing fabric allows for potential restoration of
this historically significant building.
Despite the changes, the building is a good and early example of an Italianate
Renaissance revival privately owned (as compared to government) office building
design within the Capital City Zone, with small numbers of this building type surviving
from the 1870s as compared to shops or warehouses.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1872, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced. Also contributory are any remnant external stone walls from
Rae, Dickson, &Co. occupation and the trousered men in bas-relief on the upper level
façade added by for the iconic Victorian clothing firm of Fletcher Jones & Staff Pty Ltd.
How is it significant?
The Cobden Buildings are significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Cobden Buildings are significant:
Historically for their key role in early maritime commerce and governance of
Melbourne's ports, with links via the James Jackson family ownership to the very
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
51.
Page 73 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
beginnings of Melbourne town and Queens Wharf which once stood opposite these
buildings; and
Architecturally, although modified, the upper level is a good and early Italianate
Renaissance revival style as applied to an office building, then an uncommon building
type in a City of warehouses, residences and shops.
The Fletcher Jones statuettes on the upper level are of historical interest for their
depiction of the essence of this famous firm of trouser makers.
Waterside Hotel, 508-510 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1038
What is significant?
Architect Harry Raymond Johnson (son of the town hall design specialist, George R
Johnson) designed a new three level brick hotel for the site, with structural engineering
advice by Clive S Steele. True to its name, the hotel's opening hours (6.00am 6.00pm) reflected its original purpose to serve waterside workers.
Downstairs there were three bars (private, saloon and lounge) and a private dining
room at the north end of the building. Upper levels held accommodation, potentially for
railway travellers visiting the metropolis.
The hotel adopts a simple design with an octagonal tower at the corner of Flinders and
King Street providing much of the visual interest. The tower is constructed in cement
rendered concrete and rises through the full height of the building to terminate in a
cupola. The tower base is reiterated along each street façade in the form of implied
primary and secondary pavilions at corners and central to the Spencer Street elevation,
with applied quoining and raised parapets. Diamond pane windows (upper sash only)
were utilised at first and second levels, while half - glazed doors (pairs or single) were
distributed around the ground level. Segment arches mark the residential entry and one
of the public bar entrances, while the corner tower directs traffic to the main bar
entrance, at the corner splay.
The building's towered form and details are typical of contemporary hotel designs, most
notably the work of the Carlton and United brewery architects, Sydney Smith & Ogg.
The hotel demonstrates the emerging tendency towards a greater austerity, found in
hotels such as the Yorkshire Stingo and Retreat Hotels in Abbotsford. The design relies
considerably less upon ornament than the nearby Markillie's Hotel completed less than
a decade earlier in a vigorous Edwardian Baroque Manner.
The building relates to the adjacent similarly scaled Edwardian and Victorian-era
commercial buildings west along Flinders Street and the significant Edwardian Baroque
and historically linked Melbourne Steamship Company building, north along King
Street. The line of warehouses and stores on the east side of King Street also evoke
the former proximity to Melbourne's port.
The hotel is externally well-preserved.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1926, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
52.
Page 74 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
The Waterside Hotel is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Waterside Hotel is significant:
Aesthetically as a well-preserved inter-war, corner-towered hotel which follows an
established aesthetic for corner hotels designed in this period; and
Historically, the hotel promotes a seafaring image and hence evokes the former
dominance of waterside trade in this part of the City. Although today it is physically
remote from shipping wharves, the hotel is part of a historically significant group of
offices and stores related to early maritime trade in the Victoria.
Coffee Tavern (No. 2), 516-518 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1039
What is significant?
Coffee Tavern (Number Two) was erected in 1878-1880 by H Beecham & Co. to the
design of Lloyd Tayler, architect, for the Coffee Taverns Company (Limited), as one
part of the rising temperance movement in the Colony. The Coffee Taverns company
had been formed by some of Melbourne's more distinguished figures to promote
venues where working men could gather without the lure of alcohol.
’ As testimony to the importance of the movement, the new coffee tavern in Flinders
Street was opened in January 1880 by the Mayor of Melbourne, in front of His Hon Sir
WF Stawell and Mr Arthur Barnett after laying the foundation stone in August 1879:
`The new building which is to be constructed of brick, is to be three stories high
frontage to Flinders street of 33ft by a depth of 40ft It will contain on the ground
floor a coffee room 30ft x22ft, 14ft in height, a serving room, and an ample
lavatory. On the first floor there will be a billiard room 30ft x 20ft and a smoking
room 17ft square. On the second floor there will be a Ladies coffee room, a
sitting room, and a kitchen besides accommodation for the manager. The front
of the building will be finished in Portland cement and will be decorated with
pilasters panels and cornices It will be 50ft high and when completed should
form an attractive addition to the architecture of the street. The amount of the
contract for the erection of the building is ǧ1736 exclusive of fittings.'.
Number Two Coffee Tavern has a mannered Italian Renaissance Revival style
cemented façade over three levels, with single and grouped arched window openings,
each with applied colonettes. Atypically, the top level only has imposed classical order
trabeation. The parapet has parapet piers of differing heights and, centrally placed, is
the segmentally arched raised entablature with anthemion atop. The rear elevation is in
austere red brick and relatively well-preserved with a central line of loading doors and a
gantry over.
A new upper level has been added recently that forms a bland rendered attic-like
structure in place of the parapet balustrade, reducing the integrity of the building at a
key point. Images from the 1970s-1990s show the parapet balustrade, allowing for its
reconstruction. The ground level and street awning are new: early views show two
street entrances with windows either side.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
53.
Page 75 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The upper level façade remains as an elegant composition for a medium scale mid
Victorian-era building but has been compromised by the roof addition. It relates well to
its Edwardian character neighbours, the former State Savings Bank and Waterside
Hotel and is historically linked to this former port location.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1879-1880, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Coffee Tavern (No. 2) is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Coffee Tavern (No. 2) is significant:
Historically, as a purpose-built coffee tavern created by concerned Melbourne citizens,
rather than an investor. It was purposely located at the riverside to attract seafaring
clientele, next to other maritime structures, as a convenient alternative to alcoholic
refreshment. This is the earliest and only purpose-built coffee palace in the Capital City
Zone as an exemplar of the temperance movement that swept the Colony in the 1870s1880s. it is also historically linked to Melbourne’s first riverside port; and
Aesthetically, in its original form, the building was a significant and elegant design in a
developed form of the Italian Renaissance revival style as applied to a medium scale
commercial building. Although altered the façade still possesses these qualities. The
designer, Tayler, was one of Melbourne's more prominent Victorian-era architects.
Savings Bank of Victoria Flinders Street branch, former, 520522 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1040
What is significant?
This former State Savings Bank building, was reconstructed in 1912-13 as a two storey
banking premises from a two storey brick and stone waterfront store. Part of the axed
bluestone façade has become visible at the western corner and stone quoining remains
on the rear elevation.
The first Government controlled savings bank in Victoria had been established in 1842
under New South Wales legislation. It was known as the Savings Bank of Port Phillip
The financial depression of the early 1890s led to a Royal Commission on Banking
(1895) with one recommendation being the Savings Banks Act 1890 Amendment Act
1896 (No.1481) that among other things amalgamated the Commissioners of Savings
Banks and the Post Office Savings Banks across the Colony. This played an important
role in extending long-term, low interest rate loans (credit foncier) to home builders as
well as to farmers. In this way, the bank developed a reputation as an institution for
working class Victorians. Between 1896 and 1912 the independent Savings Banks of
Victoria merged to become a single institution, the State Savings Banks of Victoria, as
ratified by the 1912 Savings Banks Act. .
Probably designed by architects, Sydney Smith & Ogg, the former Flinders Street
branch is a good and early example of the Edwardian Baroque architectural style
applied to a small to medium scale building. The once symmetrical façade comprised a
muscular arrangement of Classical decorative elements including a boldly modelled
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
54.
Page 76 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
entry surmounted by a triangular pediment, arcuated windows at the first floor level,
inset with bold keystones, and smooth rusticated pilasters rising to a unusually ornate
parapet with pediment. The split pediment features a complex rendering of the State
Savings Bank logo and the words `State Savings Bank' in raised lettering below. The
bank complements the former coffee tavern adjoining on the east and relates to the
strong Edwardian Baroque styling of the Markillie's Hotel to the west, also designed by
Smith & Ogg.
The eastern ground level window was once identical to the existing western opening,
with its Arts & Crafts inspired wrought iron railing and moulded plinth. The window
joinery was typical of the Edwardian-era with stout timber sections for mullions and
rails. This eastern window had been changed to a vehicle entry but has since been
infilled with a more sympathetic shopfront. The central entry door has been replaced.
An unusual element that has also been removed was a gabled timber framed postsupported central portico over the street, with a fretted scroll motif in the gable end (see
VPRO image c1914).
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates of pre 1866 and 1912 (refaced), and any new
material added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
This former Savings Bank building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The former Savings Bank is significant:
Aesthetically, as a good and well preserved example of a vigorous application of the
Edwardian Baroque style to a small scale building within the Capital City Zone; and
Historically, as among the first group of branch banks created under the newly
constituted State Savings Bank of Victoria and was part of a rapid expansion of branch
offices across the State. The building is also of historical interest as potentially holding
significant fabric (stonework) from the 1850s, when occupied by ship's chandlers,
Inglis, Smith & Co.
Prince of Wales Hotel, later Markillie's Hotel, 562-564 Flinders
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1041
What is significant?
The Prince of Wales Hotel was built on this site, in 1915. The new hotel was designed
by Sydney Smith & Ogg for the Carlton Brewery Ltd. with the Richmond builder, C F
Pittard as the contractor. Bertha A Brown was one of the early licensees. The Carlton
Brewery Ltd and architects, Sydney Smith & Ogg, had been a proven combination
since around 1900 in many significant Edwardian-era hotels.
An energetic Edwardian Baroque design, the cemented façade is deeply modelled with
bas-relief detail, heavy mouldings and a skilful combination of mass and void. Ox-bow
pediments over the intermediate and uppermost windows are echoed laterally by a
wide bow-fronted balcony which surmounts a series of superposed columns which
terminate at first floor levels. A major part of the central balcony recess is the broad
opening arch, with its richly foliated spandrels. It is a perfect counterpart for the bow of
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
55.
Page 77 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
the balcony. A sizeable parapet cornice and brackets accentuate the highly moulded
façade character of the building, together with the more traditional device of pavilionlike bays, expressed with heavily ruled smooth rustication.
Perhaps the most richly detailed and moulded of the Edwardian Baroque hotels, this
design has precedents in British work by John Belcher, Pite, and the more conservative
Sir Aston Webb. In Victoria, it parallels with the Abbotsford Yorkshire Stingo and other
Baroque designs by the same architects. However, despite its impressive façade, it is
at a disadvantage when compared to what are mostly corner hotels and hence perfect
vehicles for towered, highly modelled designs.
The nearby State Savings Bank, also thought to be designed by Sydney Smith & Ogg,
has the same deeply modelled cement work while the existing Victorian and
Edwardian-era hotel group in Spencer Street and their proximity to transport hubs such
as the wharves, and railways all played a role in this hotel's creation and success.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1915, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Markillie's Hotel is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
Markillie's Hotel is significant:
Aesthetically as among the most richly ornamented of the Edwardian Baroque hotel
designs in Victoria ; and
Historically, as an excellent example of the work of Sydney Smith & Ogg for the Carlton
Brewery Ltd during the brewer's expansion in the period after WWI: this combination
produced many significant hotel buildings. The hotel's location next to the wharves and
Spencer Street railway station and among other hotels is indicative of the effect of
transport nodes on development in the Central Business District in the Victorian and
Edwardian-eras.
Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co. factory, 63-67 Franklin Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1042
What is significant?
Constructed from 1906 by builder C H Moscop for Messrs. L T Chambers & W A
Thompson, the Cyclone Fence Gate Company complex was essentially complete by
1925 with matching additions for new occupiers HW Gossard of Asia Pty. Ltd. by 19311932. It is likely all stages were designed by Arthur Purnell.
Components include:
Factory C (Franklin & Stewart Streets corner): c1906-1915
Factory A (Swanston & Franklin Streets, north wing) c1913, attic addition probably
carried out in the 1914 works by builder F Cockram.
Factory B: (Swanston Street, south wing) c1906-1915 (not part of heritage place).
Cyclone Pty Ltd was incorporated in c1914-15, just before World War One. The firm's
name had changed by 1927 to Cyclone Fence & Gate Co. and by 1948, to the Cyclone
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
56.
Page 78 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Company of Australia. The firm was an icon in farm and domestic fencing but
eventually became associated with chain wire security fences.
The red brick complex has been constructed in two main stages. The earlier two-storey
section, facing Franklin Street, is distinguished by brick pilasters or piers rising through
the full height of the building to a large rendered cornice. Timber-framed windows
typical of the Edwardian-era are used in punched openings within the pilaster recesses,
separated by brick spandrels. This façade is generally without decorative detail except
for a rendered oxbow shaped canopy to the ground floor entry. This and the
exaggerated cornice provide the stylistic signature of Edwardian Baroque. The complex
is reminiscent of factory design work by A & K Henderson in Collingwood and Clifton
Hill.
The third level addition has been completed in a visually related style and is
distinguished by its dentilated cornice and monumental parapet wall, with ogee profile
return down Stewart Street. A sawtooth roof line on the western wing is visible from the
south. The Swanston Street (Factory A) wing is similar three-level scale with two
cornice lines but the brickwork has been painted, obscuring the patina of the brickwork
evident in the Franklin Street wing.
The Franklin Street wing provides a visually related complement to the significant
1870s Currie & Richards building to the west.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from pre 1926 at Factories A & C with key construction dates being 1906, 1913,
and 1925, and any new material added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co. factory is significant historically and aesthetically to
the Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co. factory is significant:
Aesthetically, as a generally well-preserved example of an Edwardian factory complex
design within Melbourne's Central Business District; and
Historically, as closely linked with the rise and fall of the well known Cyclone Woven
Wire Fence Co. in the first 20 years of the 20th century, and the entrepreneur, William
E Thompson.
Keep Brothers & Wood workshop and showroom, later Stramit
Building, 96-102 Franklin Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1043
What is significant?
The wholesale ironmongers and coach builders, Keep Bros & Wood, commissioned
this workshop in 1903 from builders, Murray & Crow of East Melbourne, to a
characteristically bold classical revival design by architect David C Askew. From the
role of carriage builders, the firm entered the motor trade in the early 20th century as
agents for a number of locally made cars, Trumbull being one, and were also
producers of the Hallmark bicycle.
Keep Brothers & Wood's association with carriage and later motor car fabrication and
selling, is expressive of the transition of this part of the Capital City Zone from the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
57.
Page 79 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
typical late Victorian-era uses of metalwork and engineering. This evolutionary
grouping of similar land uses in the City has been identified as a significant feature of
Melbourne's business district historical development.
Rising to five levels (three upper levels and attic), the workshop façade is composed in
three parts, each having a deeply moulded gabled pediment at the parapet level. The
central and largest bay rises above the others to form a strongly shaped façade
silhouette. The flanking pediments are set on three parapet piers.
Ground floor Tuscan order pilasters frame a central entry (with related panelled entry
doors), deeply set display windows and an altered vehicle entry. Upper level windows
are closely spaced and deep-set, each with timber double-hung sashes. The structural
frame is of iron columns and girders.
The street elevation is little changed with the addition of the roller shutter at the
carriage way being the main alteration.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1903, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Keep Bros & Wood workshop and showroom is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Keep Bros & Wood workshop and showroom is significant:
Aesthetically as a well-preserved and boldly executed Mannerist cemented façade,
characteristic of David Askew's work; and
Historically, for the long association with the rising firm of Keep Brothers & Wood and
their association with carriage and later motor car fabrication and selling, as part of the
transition of this part of the Capital City Zone from its late Victorian-era use pattern of
`metals and engineering' to that of the motor trade.
Penman & Dalziel's warehouse group, part, 4-6 Goldie Place,
Melbourne 3000, HO1044
What is significant?
John William Dalziel sailed from Liverpool to Melbourne in 1892, joining Penman 17
years later in a furniture making business located in Lonsdale Street West. The firm
won recognition at the Indian and Colonial Exhibition, held in London during 1886, and
completed new premises in Post Office Place in the following year. These five
warehouses, two in Goldie Alley (later Goldie Place) and three in Hardware Street
(back to back) were erected by 1888, replacing Post Office Place as the firm's primary
address. Penman & Dalziel are claimed by one source as among the Colony's best
furniture makers.
The architect was the prolific and gifted church designer, Alfred Dunn, and the builders,
William Thomas Hosking & Sons. Dunn had designed the highly significant Commercial
Bank of Australia (Dome & Chamber) 335-339 Collins Street in the same era, 18911893.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
58.
Page 80 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Provided with parapeted and gabled facades in the traditional, medieval-based style
used for Victorian-era warehouses, these factory-warehouses or stores express their
use and age by the wall materials chosen (red and cream brick and basalt).
Symmetrically placed arched openings, two windows each side of the landing doors,
comprise the fenestration with ornamentation in the form of cream brick banding or
terracotta mouldings. Chunky arch keystones and wide architraves are joined by
impost bands and mouldings and the cornice mould that follows the parapet edge.
Openings vary from rectangular, arched to basket-arched, offering a textural variation
of light and shade in combination with the rusticity of the wall materials. Timber joinery
is near complete which is rare for this building type within the State. The buildings are
particularly well preserved.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1887-1888, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Penman & Dalziel's Warehouses are significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
Penman & Dalziel's Warehouses are significant:
Historically as exceptionally externally complete and hence epitomise well the growth
of small secondary industry along lanes within this part of the Capital City Zone during
the late 19th century; and
Aesthetically, as highly distinctive and excellent examples of the Victorian-era
warehouse typology, evoking the utilitarian function by use of face brick but in a way
and architectural form that adds functional ornament and texture to the façade in the
combination of stone and brickwork placement. The companion Hardware Street
warehouses, backing onto this pair, have been altered and are indicative only of the
former group but provide some streetscape support for the notable Victorian-era
warehouse row to the north.
Throstle's stores, 106-112 Hardware Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1045
What is significant?
In May 1889 builder Charles Nott, of Grandview Ave, Prahran applied to erect these
two stores in what was then called Burns Lane for Frederick Throssell. The designer
was probably George Wharton. .
These two parapeted and gabled brick stores have recently been gutted and integrated
into an unrelated adjoining development but the glass atrium link allows visibility of their
former north wall. All glazing and loading door joinery has been replaced but
restoration options exist using 1985 images of the stores which show them at a high
integrity.
Nevertheless their street façade is an impressive combination of rugged quarry-faced
basalt plinth and two colour brickwork reds, cream) with a succession of arch forms up
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
59.
Page 81 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
the elevation, full arched to segmental and then flat-arched at the top. The four-storey
height of the stores is uncommon for their frontage width and lane location.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1889, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Throstle's stores are significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Although altered externally in detail Throstle's stores remain significant:
Historically as exemplars of warehouses sited close to what was then the hardware
merchandising centre of Melbourne town, near the mammoth Kirk's Horse Bazaar; and
Aesthetically, as an uncommon combination of building height and siting as well as an
impressive juxta-positioning of rugged quarry-faced basalt (plinth) and two colour
brickwork (red, cream) with a well-chosen succession of window arch forms ascending
the elevation.
Barrow Brothers warehouse, 12-20 King Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1046
What is significant?
Barrow Brothers (John William and Herbert Thomas), dairy and produce merchants
were the first owner-occupiers of this two level brick showroom, warehouse and
basement, built at the front and side of their existing stores facing King Street and
Highlander Lane. The architect was Christopher Cowper. The builder was Harry
Chaplin of Balwyn and the estimated cost ǧ4000.
The complex included a cart way or carriageway on the north side leading to a cagelined "fowl sale yard" at the rear, past a series of stores (some new, some existing), the
front office area and the meat and butter sale rooms behind. Upstairs and in the
basement, there were two main storage areas. The internal structural frame and floor
were mainly timber.
A matching new 2 level brick store was added for the Western District Co-Operative
Producers & Insurance Co. Ltd. at the rear of the 1917 wing to the design of
Twentyman & Askew in 1928. Old stone and brick stores were replaced to complete a
major renewal of the building complex. The cost was estimated at ǧ8000 and the
builder, Hansen & Yuncken Pty Ltd. William Osborne as managing director of the
Western District Co-Operative Producers & Insurance Co. Ltd. was an important figure
in primary production marketing within Australia.
Comprising two storeys and basement with a facade of face brick and rendered details,
the building is in the Edwardian Baroque style. The symmetrical composition consists
of three boldly modelled pavilion forms linked by two simple intervening bays. The
central pavilion of the facade has a gabled pediment, adorned at the upper levels, with
a cornucopia device and wreath within the tympanum providing a visual link to the
primary produce marketed by the firm. A segmentally arched pediment set on consoles
above the main entry is bold and stylish. The Barrow Brothers warehouse aligns with
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
60.
Page 82 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
earlier stone and rendered warehouses along King Street and Highlander Lane to
provide a remarkable collection of structures from different eras of primary produce
marketing and storage.
The original carriageway has been absorbed into the main body of the building, the
ground floor window joinery has been modified and the rear store windows replaced or
blocked but the building retains its early form, face brickwork and a wealth of rendered
detail. A late Victorian-era austere and vast three-level brick warehouse is adjoining
(part of 22-24 King St) set hard onto the rear stone lane with loading doors. This and
the former Barrow building provide for a distinctive warehouse streetscape in the lane.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction dates, 1917 and 1928, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Barrow Brothers warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Barrow Brothers warehouse is significant:
Historically, as a near externally complete, if stylistically conservative, warehouse and
office building which has been long associated with the marketing of primary produce
and particularly of the once prominent firm, Barrow Brothers and the Western District
Co-Operative Producers & Insurance Co. Ltd whose manager William Osborne used
this premises as the foundation of a nationally important enterprise; and
Aesthetically, as a stylistic variation within the City warehouse idiom and complements
the notable earlier warehouses in King Street, both in use and in general form, detail
and finish.
Union Bond Melbourne Storage Company Ltd, 115-129 King
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1047
What is significant?
Colonial magistrate and St Kilda councillor, William Welshman, commissioned
prominent architects Crouch & Wilson to design these bonded stores in 1881 to be
erected by Martin & Peacock.
Crouch & Wilson designed many significant buildings in the colony such as Kilmore
District Hospital, Victorian Deaf and Dumb Institution; Ensor & Ardee, East Melbourne;
Terrace at 128-132 Grey Street (all on the Victorian Heritage Register); Leicester
House, Flinders Lane 1886; and Glenmoore, at 1 St Georges Road, Elsternwick.
The Union Bond Melbourne Storage Co (Ltd) and later the owners of the stores on the
opposite corner, Wrigley & Scales, occupied the stores and called them the Federal
Bond. As a mark of free trade, import duties on many items in the new Colony were
reduced in 1853 to only wines, spirits, tobacco, tea and coffee. Bonded stores held
goods with import tariffs owing.
The Union Bond is a three-level parapeted and rendered warehouse, elevated in a
simple classical revival style, with segmentally-arched raised parapet entablatures at
intervals along both street facades. Each parapet entablatures is surmounted by an
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
61.
Page 83 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
anthemion. The double-hung sash window have either cemented label moulds, linked
with an impost wall moulding, or moulded cement architraves with small brackets under
each sill. Pedestrian entry was from the splayed corner while a carriageway or archway
travelled through from King Street to the yard behind. The two main facades are clad
with dressed stone up to window sill height with three quarry-faced stone layers acting
as a plinth. Basement lights penetrate the stone at intervals, each in shaped basalt with
finely tooled margins.
Adjoining on the west is a classical revival former print works, later merchant’s
warehouse, which relates closely to the architecture of the bond store. The west wall of
the bond store itself is very well-preserved face red brick with voussoirs and stone sills.
Semi-circular stone rubbing strips are attached as large dado moulds to the west wall.
What remains of an old stable and loft is at the west end of the stone paved inner
courtyard once shared by the bond store.
Ground level openings have been changed in an empathetic manner but overall this
bonded store is exceptionally well-preserved for its age and scale. The design and
finish are also of a high standard as an indication of the designer's skill and
supervision, with fine stone detailing at ground level.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date, 1882-3, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Union Bond is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Union Bond is significant:
Historically as a superb example of an architect designed bonded and free store within
the well-defined and prosperous mercantile district of western Melbourne Town. These
stores are large and combine with others along King Street as a highly significant
collection of early stores devoted to the shipping trade and nearby wharves; and
]
Aesthetically, as a simple but rugged design treatment appropriate for a store given by
one of the Colony's foremost architectural firms of the era, Crouch and Wilson, with
well considered elevations, stonework, finishes and detailing.
Peoples Palace, 131-135 King Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1048
What is significant?
The Salvation Army’s Sydney People's Palace opened in 1899, providing cheap
accommodation for travellers and visitors to the City away from the environment of
liquor and gambling found in many hotels. The enterprise was so successful that the
concept was eventually extended to other capital cities in the Commonwealth. The
three storey Workmen's Metropolis later People's Metropole in King Street was one
such building. It was built by the Salvation Army in 1901.
At the end of 1924, the Workmen's Metropolis was demolished and a new seven storey
People's Palace was erected on the site. The palace could hold 500 persons, it had a
trafficable flat roof to overview the populace, a palm court, and several `spacious
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
62.
Page 84 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
lounges' including the large dining saloon on the ground floor. This saloon could seat
200, with its lead light dome, panelled walls, hexagonal tables, and imitation marble
columns. The building cost was ǧ72,000 but the total cost complete was thought to be
about ǧ100,000. The travelling public were catered for in the first floor refreshment
room with its soda fountain, grilles for quick meals and accordion doors to allow 2000
square feet of contiguous floor area.
Bedrooms were single, double or family size but each had an openable window for light
and ventilation. Two electric elevators and three wide staircases traversed the height of
the building while the 750 feet length of passages were fitted with `silent tread'
linoleum; the combined floor area was a massive 2 acres. Fire prevention relied on the
concrete construction, fire underwriter escape doors and partitions of coke breeze
blocks. Chemical extinguishers were placed at each floor and a high pressure fire
water service allowed brigade access. The construction was by day labour supervised
by Mr L Pinemi. It was opened by the Lord Mayor, Sir William Brunton, 3 November
1926, with a luncheon and speakers.
Designed by Adjutant Percival Dale of the Salvation Army property department and
constructed in rendered reinforced concrete, the building is a bold and unusually
mannered composition of abstracted Classical elements. The building comprises two
large pavilions which flank a five storey canted bay containing a vertical array of
balconies. This central bay is supported on oversized consoles and features smooth
rusticated pilasters which rise through its full height. The pavilion elements are simpler
but rise to abstracted cornice elements supported on more oversized brackets. The
deep balconies central to the seven level façade are unlike any other 20th century
building in the Capital City Zone (see Markillie's Hotel balcony).
The building is currently used as a restaurant with hotel accommodation above. The
hotel entry is denoted by a small but unsympathetic added canopy and signage which
detracts from both the symmetry of the composition and obscures the single-purpose
nature of the original building. Nonetheless, the building has retained its early character
and detail and the upper levels are well preserved.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1925-1926, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Peoples Palace is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The former Melbourne People's Palace is significant:
Historically, as a good example of specialist accommodation within the City of
Melbourne in the long tradition of similar lodging places located in Bourke Street,
Lonsdale Street (as the Princess Mary Club), Coppin's Our Improved Dwelling &
Lodging House in Little Bourke Street and on this site as the Model Lodging House.
This specialised use is made particularly relevant given the building's location near
Spencer Street railway station along with the other major private hotels built along this
street in the late Victorian, Edwardian and inter-war periods. The Peoples Palace is
also significant for its long association with the work of the Salvation Army in the City of
Melbourne during the early part of the twentieth century; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
63.
Page 85 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Aesthetically, as a well preserved Greek-revival design that is made more distinctive by
its residential multi-storey use and the associated location of deep balconies up the
seven level façade unlike any other 20th century building in the Capital City Zone.
Argus Building, former, 284-294 La Trobe Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1049
What is significant?
`The Argus' daily newspaper was launched in 1846 and a little over 100 years later
(1957) ceased to exist.
The Argus Building was designed by Godfrey & Spowers in association with WH Buck
(see also Kelvin Hall) and constructed by Swanson Brothers 1924-1926. When
complete the whole of the Argus Building was occupied by staff of either the `Argus' or
`Australasian' except the Elizabeth Street ground level and part of the top or 5th floor
where the Paton Advertising Service, the Melbourne offices of the `Sydney Morning
Herald' and the `Sydney Mail', the `Sydney Evening News', `Women's Budget', the
`Hobart Mercury' and the `Illustrated Tasmanian Mail' were located. Shops on the
ground floor fronting Elizabeth Street were occupied by a tobacconist, tailor, cleaners
and dyers; jeweller; and confectioners.
The Argus Building was considered to be quite advanced by the Sydney periodical,
`Building'. Unlike the new Herald building, it was multi-storey and hence used valuable
city real-estate more efficiently while allowing intra-office circulation to proceed more
effectively.
The Argus Building is a grand if incomplete example of the neo-Baroque style as
popularised by British Edwardian classicists such as Sir Reginald Blomfield, J.J. Joass
and Ernest Newton. The Morning Post newspaper offices (1907) in London, by Mewes
& Davis, or the War Office in Whitehall (1906) by William Long may have been
influential on the design of this building. Each possessed corner towers and giant order
colonnades similar to those of the Argus office. Elsewhere in Melbourne there is the T
& G Building, and more distant, Moore's Corner Store in Prahran, which also utilized
these elements.
Rising six main levels in a parapeted ruled stuccoed form, the two street facades differ
markedly as a gesture to a modern interpretation of the classical style. The more
embellished frontage is to Elizabeth Street (65m long), with its giant Corinthian order
colonnade, garlanded pier capitals, secondary cornices, panelled spandrels and the
façade bays at either end. Egyptian ornament on the coved papyrus cornice of the
giant colonnade and as a frieze to the main cornice, add a contemporary element
paralleling with Harold Carter's opening, in November 1922, of Tutankhamen's tomb.
The bowed corner and associated balconette rounds onto the more austere Latrobe
Street elevation (31m long) but this is counterpoint to the ornate fenestration of the
Baroque tower plinth and the tower itself (still without spire). The tower has the
characteristic Baroque concave corners (as seen in Thomas Archer's St Philip,
Birmingham 1709-15), paired column bays and a richly detailed cornice. The western
façade is also rendered and enriched, with only the north as plain, as a reflection of the
new building towering over its surroundings when built. This combination of
architectural elements is not a faithful revival of Baroque precedents but instead a
successful and creative assembly of traditional forms and elements that take full
account of the corner site. This dominant corner building is made more so by its corner
tower and giant stone column rows.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
64.
Page 86 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Alterations include the new glazed entrance screen and opening created onto Latrobe
Street in 1959-60, to the design of the long-time architects for the Herald & Weekly
Times, Ltd., Tompkins & Shaw. Replacing a group of `punched' window openings
similar to that surviving on the west of the new entrance, some attempt was made to
integrate the large new opening with the surrounding architecture by simple repetition
of mouldings around the reveals. The render finish has been changed superficially.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1924-1926, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Argus Building is significant socially, historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Argus Building is significant:
Aesthetically, as is one of the major interwar office buildings in the City, given particular
prominence by its location amongst much smaller buildings on the edge of the city. The
still unfinished tower and the giant order stone columns on the Elizabeth Street façade,
lend an imposing quality suitable for a major metropolitan newspaper. This is a
landmark design which lacks the finesse of the T & G Building or detailing of the
Nicholas Building, but nevertheless is a dominant corner presence in a fluently
executed Baroque revival manner. The Argus Building received critical acclaim for its
innovatory design for its use, in contrast to the massive reconstruction programme then
being undertaken by the Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. in a more conservative classical
manner; and
Historically and socially, as the home of the Argus newspaper for 30 years, and
represents its major physical legacy. The Argus was one of Melbourne's three leading
newspapers, all established in the founding years of the City.
Russell's building, 361-363 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1050
What is significant?
The building at 361-363 Little Bourke Street, was completed in 1939 as a three storey
brick building to the design of architects Arthur & Hugh Peck of 99 Queen Street for the
Repco entrepreneur, Robert Geoffrey Russell.
By the mid 1930s, the company dominated the Australian automobile spare parts
market, with more than 500 employees. The Little Bourke Street building was
developed at a time of major company growth leading up to the Second War, after the
advent of Repco Ltd. on the Australian Stock Exchange.
The architects, the Peck brothers, were associated with a number of significant designs
within the central City such as Capitol House (with Burley Griffin), the Moderne style
Commercial Union Building, and the classical revival State Savings Bank of Victoria,
615-623 Collins Street, of 1924.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
65.
Page 87 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The building adopted the style of contemporary European Modernists most notably
Willem Dudok, Director of Public Works for Hilversum in Holland from 1915. Dudok
exerted a powerful influence on local architectural discourse in Australia during the
interwar period although a relatively small number of buildings drawing on his work
were constructed locally.
The asymmetric façade of Russell's shop & office building comprises a tower at one
end, containing the entry and stairwell which terminates a large horizontal window
group at each floor level. Each window strip is set under concealed concrete lintels
detailed as slim projecting hoods.
The building has a reinforced concrete frame, a timber trussed roof, and cream and red
brick external walls; the facade being finished in cream face brick with face red brick
walls along the lane. Contrasting panels of brown heeler bricks are adjacent to the
upper windows to accentuate the horizontality of the fenestration. The cream brickwork,
glass bricks to the stairwell and steel framed windows elsewhere, are hallmarks of
Dudok's work. The Modernistic façade is an effective stylistic appliqué to what is
otherwise a conventional interwar building.
Some brickwork has been painted and the ground floor former café shopfront has been
modified, albeit for another café, but the building as a whole retains a high degree of
integrity to its early state at the upper levels.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1939, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Russell's building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Russell's building is of significant:
Aesthetically as a good example of a City building after the Modernistic style of Willem
Dudok. Buildings in this mode are relatively uncommon within Melbourne's Capital City
Zone; and
Historically, for its association with the noted entrepreneur Robert G Russell, built at a
period of major growth within his new Repco company.
Marks' warehouse, 362-364 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1051
What is significant?
This warehouse was constructed for Jacob & Benjamin Marks, Elizabeth Street
jewellers, by Thomas Sanders, in 1889. It was a four-level warehouse to the design of
the important architect, George DeLacy Evans, who had already designed the highly
significant warehouse group in nearby Niagara Lane for the Marks family. AG Fullager
& Co, a china and glass importer was among the first occupants, followed by other
importers and a hardware merchant.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
66.
Page 88 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Marks brothers warehouse is a good example of a boom period development and
illustrates the exuberant modelling and eclectic mannered character frequently
associated with designs of the period. The Queen Anne Revival style façade comprises
a gable-ended parapeted form in face brick with rendered details drawn from classical
and medieval sources in the manner of the style.
Decorative pilasters rise through the full height of the building, capped by small
pediments, to an ornate Roman arch set above a highly modelled cornice. Bartizan
motifs, surviving parapet orbs, and a highly mannered pilaster bifurcating the
surmounting pediment scrolls, are all part of the highly inventive assembly of
architectural elements. The tiled spandrel panels are particularly notable. The wall
facing Warburton Alley is of plain red brickwork with paired window openings.
The Queen Ann Revival style was introduced in the mid to late 1880s in Melbourne,
making this building one of the key examples. The recession of the early 1890s brought
an end to decorous designs. Although understated by comparison, the design draws on
the same boom period spirit as George De Lacy Evans' Sum Kum Lee building (18878) at 112-114 Little Bourke Street and also compares with the significant warehouse
group in nearby Niagara Lane.
There is a roof addition to the rear, the original face brick character of the building has
been masked by painting and the modification of ground floor fenestration but the
building remains, at the upper levels, near to its original state.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1889, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Marks' warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Marks' warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically as a good example of a boom period Capital City Zone warehouse,
distinguished by its unusual and particularly flamboyant façade and its early use of the
Queen Anne Revival style; and
Historically, as one of the significant developments in this part of the City for the Marks
family.
Warburton's shops & warehouses, 365-367 Little Bourke Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1052
What is significant?
Warburton's shops & warehouse building was constructed in 1887 as a three storey
warehouse for Joseph Warburton at the corner of Warburton Lane, the location of
Thomas Warburton's iron merchandising business, and east of the gigantic Kirk's
Horse Bazaar that attracted this type of hardware business. The designers were
Twentyman & Askew who specialised in warehouse architecture in the late Victorianera and the builder, William Radden of Rae St, Fitzroy.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
67.
Page 89 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Thomas Warburton arrived in Melbourne in 1853 and once in business advertised his
wares from the early 1860s typically as 'Corrugated and Plain Iron all lengths and
gauges... Warburton's 11 Little Bourke street west.' Warburton built a machine for
producing spouting based on an American design and the company soon became the
major supplier of these products for the colonies of Australia and New Zealand. By
1866 they moved into larger premises, buying up the block at 23 Bourke Street West,
running from Bourke Street right through to Little Bourke Street.
the family company remained there for some 108 years until 1966 when the business
relocated to Kavanagh Street in South Melbourne.
A representative example of an early warehouse in an Italian Renaissance Revival
mode, Warburton's shops & warehouses building has a rendered classical revival
façade to Little Bourke Street and dichrome face brick to Warburton Lane. Segmental
window arches are used on the façade top level and full arches on the first level, each
with heavily moulded architraves and impost mouldings. Pilasters and quoining trim
either end of the main elevation. Key decorative elements include the architraves with
keystones to arcuated windows and a decorative main cornice.
The first warehouse wing in Warburton lane has a distinctive raised parapet section
central to the pair with scrolls either side, while the third of the warehouses has a lower
eaves line and grouped window openings in the Venetian manner. Adjoining on the
south is a tall-arched Edwardian-era (or later) warehouse which relates well with the
earlier building, probably as part of the Warburton empire.
The dark paint colour on Little Bourke Street façade and return wall has masked the
early character of the building but the Warburton Lane façade retains most of the
dichrome brickwork and openings of the original design, with their corbelled arch
heads. The main ground floor elevation has been modified with large openings and
existing openings on the lane have also been closed-in and services, new large
unrelated openings and upper level balconette added. However the building has
retained its early warehouse character, particularly the Warburton Lane façade.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1887, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Warburton's shops & warehouse building is significant historically and aesthetically to
the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Warburton's shops & warehouses building is significant:
Aesthetically as a good example of an early dichrome brick and render warehouse in
the Italian Renaissance Revival mode within Melbourne's Capital City Zone; and
Historically, as part of the extensive Thomas Warburton metal merchandising complex
as the forerunner of a large hardware supply enterprise that remains active today.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
68.
Page 90 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Drayton House, 373-375 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1053
What is significant?
Architects RM & MH King designed this four-storey reinforced concrete building in 1937
for the Equity Trustees Ltd., acting for the John Donne estate. The Kings were known
for their Moderne style design work during the inter-war period with many significant
domestic commissions that survive but also some commercial city work, including 370
Little Bourke Street opposite. This refacing of a Victorian-era warehouse in the
Moderne style (altered) adjoins the existing John Donne & Son retail outlet at 372 Little
Bourke Street.
Building permit applications were made for this site in February for `erection of a
building' estimated to cost ǧ8000 and in March for a shopfront and a cantilevering
awning. A typical floor had a concrete encased stair at each end, one with a lift and
lobby adjoining and the other with toilets; both stairs had slim steel flat balustrading.
The floor system was hollow terracotta block work, as permanent formwork. The
ground level shopfront had showcases either side of a central recessed entry, with fully
glazed timber framed doors.
Moderne in style, the building has horizontal metal-framed glazed strips (reglazed)
abutting the stairway vertical feature at the lane. This element has three vertically
aligned port holes and a centrally placed vertical glazing strip terminating on three
100mm concrete fins at the parapet. The spandrels between the glazing strips are now
rendered in a ruled tile pattern with supporting concrete 100mm deep slabs under each
and over the top window strip as a shallow hood. The building permit application
drawings showed the spandrels finished with 9x9" terracotta tiles. The remaining
building facing the lane is plainly treated.
Works have been done in 1965 to the shopfront and entry, $500,000 spent on
upgrading the façade tiles and foyer in the late 1980s along with a later shop fit out.
The shopfront and awning are new and glass bricks have been added to the foyer lane
wall. Various painted and three-dimensional signs have been added.
Like key Modernistic designs such as the earlier Yule House, also set in a narrow City
Street, Drayton House is a minority style within the Capital City Zone.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1938-1939, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Drayton House is significant aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Drayton House is significant:
Aesthetically, as a well executed Moderne Style design on a modest scale and at a
discrete site. The architects, RM & MH King, are well known for this architectural style
and this is a good example of the commercial side of their work which is not well
represented elsewhere.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
69.
Page 91 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
City West Telephone Exchange, 434-436 Little Bourke Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1054
What is significant?
In January 1923, Harry Percy Brown was appointed Director General of the Post
Master General's department. Among the many innovations introduced to this country
by Brown was the promotion of automated telephone exchanges, eliminating the need
for an operator. Nationally, twenty-two such exchanges were constructed or designed
between Brown's appointment and June 1925. The Melbourne City West Exchange
was designed but not constructed just after this spate of activity.
As the effects of the Great Depression waned, the Postmaster General's Department
commenced an extensive building campaign. Caulfield was the first to be completed,
in 1935, coinciding with the start of the City West Telephone Exchange.
The City West Telephone Exchange (`alterations and additions' to the rear of the
existing Lonsdale Street exchange) was contract number 73, signed in March 1935, for
a sum of ǧ58,965. Victorian Works Director, H. J. MacKennel, countersigned the
contract drawings, while Architect Grade I, Harry Hughes, appears to have amended
them. The highly notable Commonwealth Director-general of Works JS Murdoch had
signed the initial drawings in 1929: the Victorian office had finalised the drawings to
allow construction once the economic climate allowed. The `alterations and additions'
were extensive, dwarfing the earlier saw-tooth roof exchange building abutting at the
rear.
The ground-level lobby hardly fulfilled the promise of the grand elevation but still retains
valuable wall and floor finishes. Occupied mainly by plant (battery, air-conditioning,
filter, boiler and main-frame rooms included), this entrance was into an open stair well
(with central lift) which ascended through three levels of switch rooms to the Trunk
Exchange where a jarrah floor (built on the concrete slab), sound-absorbing plaster
ceiling and wall panels indicate some human activity. The floor above (sixth) was
devoted to staff facilities (telephonists' and mechanics' lunchrooms, sick and rest bays,
locker areas) and then there was the flat roof, close at hand for outdoor recreation.
Despite the building's largely non-human occupation, it was designed externally in the
manner of a typical major public building of the period.
Modern Georgian revival in character and Commercial Palazzo in form, the `addition'
comprised six large reinforced concrete floors (held by a concrete encased steel
frame), ground and basement. Parapeted in form and clad with face red brick, the
historicism of the design was implied rather than replicated, with the major openings,
the three bayed elevation and lofty `rusticated' ground level all boldly stated in a typical
manner for the period. The vertical tripartite division of the façade includes a heavy
rusticated base and neutral intermediate floors surmounted by a prominent rusticated
cornice. The building is further distinguished by two-storey arched windows and entry
elements on the ground floor.
Details are suggested, with recessed, brick-on-edge or brick-on-end bands or corbelled
panels, and directly stated with carved stone architraves, masonry and string moulds at
major façade openings, the basement cladding and storey divisions. Window panes
were metal framed and possessed borders.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
70.
Page 92 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
City West Telephone Exchange is generally original externally and is near to the
similarly styled elevation of the Murdoch designed former High Court (later Federal
Court), both recognizably Commonwealth public buildings of their period.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1935-1937, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The City West Telephone Exchange is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
City West Telephone Exchange is significant
Aesthetically, as a well preserved, large and a distinctive Commonwealth Government
design, a typical and a major example of the limited number of government inter-war
designs outside Canberra. The building was designed by the first Commonwealth
Government Architect, John Smith Murdoch, and is therefore complementary to his
similarly styled High Court building adjoining. It is a rare example of this unusual
building type within Melbourne's Capital City Zone; and
Historically, as one of the early major purpose-built automated exchanges to be built in
Victoria.
Bayne's shops and residences, later Little Reata restaurant, 6870 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1055
What is significant?
Builder, John Bayne, of nearby Stephen (Exhibition) Street, owned and built these two
shops and residences in the period 1857-1858. Mrs Bayne, milliner and dressmaker,
was among the first occupants of one of the Little Collins St shops. A wide variety of
small businesses followed.
This is a two level shop and dwelling in a Colonial Georgian style, walled in coursed
basalt rubble with dressed freestone quoins and architraves, and a dressed stone
plinth. The former shops and dwellings possess display-windows, with probable early
glazing frame remnants, and are relatively well-preserved externally for their age. A
central door, top light and matching window in the upper level (sheeted over) appears
to have served as a residential entrance, complementing the two shop entrances either
side. The façade is demarcated horizontally with a plain parapet cornice, first storey
string-mould and the chamfered stone plinth at ground level.
Comparable early stone-faced shops and residences are few in the metropolitan area
(i.e. 1-3 Chetwynd Street, West Melbourne, 1867); earlier houses, warehouses and
offices faced with stone being more numerous. This is one of the earliest groups of
two-storey stone shop and residence pairs in the State. The shop pair relates in period
detail, siting and scale to adjoining buildings.
Light fittings and signs have been added. Openings sheeted over and the showwindows reglazed and rebuilt in part.
Contributory elements
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
71.
Page 93 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1857-58, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Bayne's shops and residences are significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone and Victoria.
Why is it significant?
Bayne's shops and residences are significant:
Historically as among the earliest group of stone-faced, two-storey shop and residence
pairs in the State. Constructed in the aftermath of the gold rush to serve a growing
metropolis, the shops are reminders of this significant period in the City's development
history and were more recently the setting for the revival of folk music in the City in the
1960s; and
Aesthetically, for the successful use of the combination of rubble, dressed basalt and
freestone in a classical revival façade is rare in a building of this scale, as is the high
integrity.
Briscoe & Co warehouse, later EL Yencken & Co Pty. Ltd., 392396 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1056
What is significant?
George Robertson & Co, stationers, publishers and booksellers, were located in Little
Collins Street West during the 1880s. Robertson reconstructed much of this side of
Little Collins St, between McKillop and Queen Streets, during this period: building a
speculative four-storey warehouse pair in Brown's Lane (now Penfold's Lane) in 1882
and this five level warehouse in 1882-3. .
Briscoe and Co., wholesale ironmongers, were the first and most long-lived tenants of
this building, having moved from Collins Street to be nearer their iron yard in Queen
Street. By then Briscoe had been established in England for over 100 years. Having
first opened in Melbourne at Elizabeth Street during 1853, by the late 1880s they had
branches in New Zealand and New South Wales. It was claimed in 1887 that Briscoe
and Co. was the largest wholesale house in the colonies.
Briscoe’s warehouse was also in the midst of a traditional concentration of hardware
merchants and wholesalers in this part of the City. The Little Collins Street premises
were claimed as `…classed with the finest of the Melbourne Stores'. The basement
was a bonded store, holding oil and nails; the ground was divided as offices and a
large show room. The first level was a single space, furnished with racks for stock and
also accommodating the manager. The second and third levels were large bulk stores.
Architect, Edward Twentyman, had designed Briscoe’s Queen Street premises while, in
1882-3, the new firm of Twentyman & Askew were responsible for this building. The
builder was Harry Lockington. Twentyman had already proved himself as the
ironmonger's architect, executing the design for McLean Bros. and Rigg's Bourke
Street West store.
By 1904 both warehouses at 384-90 and 392-96 Little Collins Street, were occupied by
E L Yencken & Co., importers of oils, colours and plate glass (a forerunner of today's
glazing firm) until the 1940s. Edward Yencken had risen in the 1890s to dominate the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
72.
Page 94 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
hardware business and by the turn of the century Yencken was honoured as 'father' of
the Melbourne hardware trade.
This brick, former wholesale and retail warehouse has an Italian Renaissance revival
façade which is distinguished by a vigorous fenestration pattern and the type of ornate
cemented detailing typical of Twentyman & Askew's work and later that of David
Askew. The street façade is in three parts with the central projecting bay extending
over the side bays with an ornate corbel table. Each bay has three levels of doublehung sash window pairs, each window topped with deep label moulds and embellished
with foliated cemented capitals to the piers and colonettes between.
Openings alternate as either full or segment-arched and there is a deep cornice,
supported by closely spaced brackets. The building base has smooth rustication
extending down the side lane but the side elevation brickwork, with its deep set
windows and loading doors, has been painted. The ground level in Little Collins Street
has been changed, another level added behind the parapet, as also have some
balconies on the lane elevation, a canopy and signs.
Briscoe's building can be viewed favourably with the highly significant, grander and
more ornate but later Stalbridge Chambers also by Twentyman & Askew.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1882-3, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Briscoe & Co warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Briscoe & Co warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically as a well-ornamented Renaissance Revival former warehouse design
which, despite ground level alterations, possesses the distinctive and rich cement
detailing and design characteristic of the architects, Twentyman & Askew; and
Historically, as a reminder of two important Victorian ironmongery firms, Briscoe & Co.
and EL Yencken & Co, both major hardware businesses in this former hardware
precinct of the City as well as within Victoria.
McCracken City Brewery malt store, later Ebsworth House, 538542 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1057
What is significant?
McCracken's City Brewery was one of the country's leading brewers during the late
nineteenth century. The brewery's Melbourne complex occupied a 200' (61m) frontage
to Collins Street and the full depth of the block to Little Collins Street. It provided
employment for about 110 people and contemporary accounts noted that the plant was
fitted out for the latest modern brewery requirements. McCracken & Co became a part
of Carlton and United Breweries in 1907.
Although situated on the opposite side of Little Collins Street to the main McCracken
complex, this three storey building was constructed in two stages as a store for the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
73.
Page 95 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
brewery in 1878-1879. The designer was William Elliott and builders were Thomas
Walker & Co for stage one and Taylor & Duguid for stage two. The warehouse
resembles Elliott's warehouse designs for Corrs Lane and the Currie & Richards'
warehouse (1875) also Porta and Sons Steam Bellows Works. The building is one of
only two brewery buildings surviving in the Capital City Zone (see rear of 104 A'Beckett
St) and the only remnant of the giant McCracken complex.
The brewery warehouse design took the form of a small Italian Renaissance palazzo
with two main levels and an attic, set out in the graduated proportions typical of the
style. The expression of this domestic style is made more convincing by its freestanding site, adjoining Gallagher and (formerly) Victoria Lanes. The ground floor is
expressed as a heavy base with rustication emanating radially from arcuated windows.
The upper floors are generally less ornate with the exception of unusual raised
architrave mouldings around the windows at first floor level. The façade terminated in a
boldly modelled bracketed cornice. The face brick walls onto the lanes have been
painted as have the quarry faced plinth with its segmentally arched basement vents.
Sometime in the 20th century an additional third and part fourth floor have been added
to the building with their own boldly modelled cornice which has modified the vertical
proportions of the façade. Minor modifications at ground floor level and external
painting of the building's face brickwork have been undertaken but, the Little Collins
street façade remains in good and fairly original condition. The secondary Gallagher
Place façade has been extensively modified with large modern window openings
throughout.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates 1878-1879 and 1909, and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
McCracken City Brewery malt store is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
McCracken City Brewery malt store is significant:
Aesthetically, as a good example of a free-standing form of the Victorian-era
Renaissance Revival palazzo type within Melbourne's Capital City Zone; and
Historically, as one of only two brewery buildings surviving in the Capital City Zone and
the only remnant of the giant McCracken brewing complex, once of national
prominence and the largest industrial complex ever to exist in the Capital City Zone.
Porta and Sons, Steam Bellows Works, 25 Little Lonsdale
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1058
What is significant?
This warehouse was constructed for Joseph Porta, then of Porta & Sons bellows
makers, to the design of William Elliott in 1883. The elevation resembles a simplified
version of the McCracken Brewery malt store also designed by Elliott in Little Collins
Street in the late 1870s, his warehouse designs in Corrs Lane and the Currie &
Richards' warehouse of 1875.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
74.
Page 96 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Joseph Jeremiah Porta (1820-98) and his descendants conducted a successful bellows
making business in the Little Lonsdale precinct and nearby for over ninety years,
commencing at least as early as 1866 and concluding in 1959.
.By the 1880s the Porta firm was one of the Colony's foremost bellows manufacturers
and exhibited along with only one other bellows maker at the Melbourne International
Exhibition of 1880-1, as only the second international exhibition to be held in Australia.
The firm was given the First Order of Merit and a silver medal in the machines and
machine tools class but had already entered four products in the prestigious 1875 Inter
Colonial Exhibition.
The original parapeted and skillion-roofed structure was extended to its present size in
the twentieth century. In 1940, the building's roof was damaged by fire and reinstated
by builders, Messrs Hollows & Sons. This meant reconstruction of the first floor,
parapet and hipped roof of the rear wing, with the front skillion roof section untouched
externally. This front section was converted for use as an entry and stair lobby for the
wing behind while the old stair in the rear section was removed.
The former factory is a simple parapeted skillion roof structure with a ruled rendered
façade and decoration limited to a simple string courses and cornice. Fenestration is
regularly arranged with arcuated windows and door openings. Unusual original or early
window joinery appears to have survived in the front wing. The rear addition is clearly
distinguishable in roof form and the use of machine made pressed red brickwork: it
appears to date from the Edwardian-era when used for cabinet making with the 1940
repairs confined to the parapet and change to upper level window sills.
It is a good example of an early factory warehouse building and illustrates the gradual
shift from mixed residential to factory uses which occurred in this part of the City during
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with occupation by Chinese in the
Edwardian-era as Melbourne's Greater Chinatown. The building façade retains a high
degree of integrity to its early state.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1883-4, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Porta and Sons, Steam Bellows Works is significant historically to the Melbourne
Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Porta and Sons, Steam Bellows Works is significant:
Historically, as an excellent and early example of a small factory-warehouse within
Melbourne's Central Business District, as demonstrated by its small scale and limited
window area. It illustrates the shift from mixed residential to factory uses in this part of
the City during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The building's close
association with the successful manufacturer, Joseph Porta is also significant as is the
long use as a Chinese cabinet making premises, a link to Melbourne's Greater
Chinatown of the Edwardian-era.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
75.
Page 97 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Collie, R & Co warehouse, 194-196 Little Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1059
What is significant?
Designed by RH Pearson, the workshop and warehouse at 194-196 Little Lonsdale
Street, was constructed in 1903 by Hawthorn builder, H Henningsen, for the printers
supply firm, R Collie & Co. Robert Collie and Co, and remained in this location into the
1950s. The firm was a long-time member of the Victorian Master Printers and Allied
Trades Association, along with household names such as Sands and McDougall Pty.
Ltd. McCarron, Bird & Co, Spicers and Lamson Paragon, and was a consistent
government supplier of printing and bookbinding materials.
This is a two storey tuck-pointed red brick factory-warehouse with rendered classical
revival details combined in a free and non-academic fashion. Stylistically, this is
referred to as Federation Free Classical: its proponents sought to combine a Classical
sense of repose and harmony with a modern simplicity. The use of classical
proportions without the full panoply of columns pilasters entablatures and pediments
was seen as an advance from the Victorian-era. The building rises from a heavy red
brick base containing basement windows, with rendered pilasters, stripped of their
usual decorative detail, rise superposed through the full height of the building to a bold
pedimented parapet. The pilasters and cornices at parapet and first floor levels divide
the façade into a series of bays, each containing a large segmentally arched window
with timber joinery.
Original joinery appears to have survived throughout. The side and rear elevations are
also well-preserved, the latter in a gabled parapeted form and the former, with unusual
recessed windows, loading doors and a gantry. This loading bay was the scene of a
fatal accident in 1914. The building is in excellent original condition, but has added
unrelated services on the east wall to the lane.
This warehouse is a contributory part of a highly significant group (194-200 Little
Lonsdale Street) of similar Edwardian-era 2 storey warehouses, terminated on the east
by the John Knox church complex (1863-). Nearby Drewery Lane and similarly scaled
buildings in Swanston Street provide period character to the area.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1903, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Robert Collie & Co warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Robert Collie & Co warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically, as a good and well-preserved example of an Edwardian factorywarehouse with a stripped Edwardian-era classical revival style façade, distinctive
within Melbourne's Capital City Zone. The building contributes to a highly significant
warehouse streetscape believed to be among the most intact within the Capital City
Zone, and is part of a valuable Victorian-era enclave including the adjoining Knox
Church and Sunday school, and Evans' row houses in Swanston Street; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
76.
Page 98 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically, for the long association with a prominent firm within the local printers
supply industry, Robert Collie & Company.
Cavanagh's or Tucker & Co's warehouse, 198-200 Little
Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1060
What is significant?
Built by F B Sewell for the Cavanagh Trust and to the design of J E Burke, this two
storey warehouse and basement was commenced in 1904 and completed in the
following year. Major tenants include the hardware importing form, Robert Tucker & Co
who was there into the 1930s.
By 1940 it served as storage for the Orient Home Publishers and more recently as
offices for Taxation Services of Australia, probably coinciding with a major renovation
of the interior for offices. This change reflected the gradual shift from this once
important hardware merchandising centre, first, to the city's northern and western
boundaries and, finally, into more distant industrial centres like Footscray, Sunshine
and Newport.
The building is a free adaptation of the Romanesque revival, popular in Melbourne
Edwardian warehouse designs, with bold brick arches either side of the entrance. The
symmetrical façade, realised largely in red brick, comprises a slim vertical entry
element with a rendered and scrolled pediment. The entry is flanked by two bold brick
arches set deep within red brick pilasters. Large rendered balls surmount the pilasters
above the broad cornice, further accentuating the vigour of the forms used in the
composition. A range of decorative devices including foliated collars to the pilasters at
first floor level and vertical banding to the underside of the cornice introduce a level of
complexity to the façade which would rarely reappear in commercial buildings of the
twentieth century.
The former warehouse contributes to an important early warehouse streetscape at 194196 and 202 Little Lonsdale Street. The latter building is another designed by JE
Burke. Nearby is the early Knox Church, Evans' row houses and the significant tobacco
buildings in Drewery Lane.
The building appears to have retained its early fabric virtually intact including original or
early window joinery and decorative detail.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1904-1905, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Cavanagh's warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Cavanagh's warehouse is significant:
Historically for its reflection over time of the gradual shift from this once important
hardware merchandising centre first to the City's northern and western boundaries and
finally into more distant industrial centres like Footscray, Sunshine and Newport; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
77.
Page 99 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Architecturally, as an excellent example of a free adaptation of the Romanesque
revival, popular in Edwardian warehouse designs. Bold brick arches further accentuate
the vigour of the forms used in the composition, together with the strong detailing of the
Romanesque inspired cement foliated capitals. The building is a major streetscape
element in this important commercial building group.
Women's Venereal Disease Clinic, 372-378 Little Lonsdale
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1061
What is significant?
Venereal disease (V.D.) was one of the most deadly infectious diseases internationally
early in the 20th Century. As a consequence, a pact was formed by the League of
Nations which obliged the Commonwealth to provide treatment for sailors at every
major port in the country.
Figures in Victoria showed a severe increase of V.D. at the end of World War One,
presumably one of the legacies of wartime overseas service. The yearly number of
Melbourne's reported cases, in 1917, was 4252. Two years later it was 7560,
coinciding with the erection of this building to supplement the men's V.D. Clinic at 440
Lonsdale Street (now demolished).
A `Clinic for Woman’ was erected as Public Works Department contract 81, signed
October, 1918, with builder, R. P. Brady and Public Works Chief Architect, S C
Brittingham. It was to cost ǧ6,772 and various minor additions (verandah and balcony
at rear, 1924) and alterations (1929, 1930) followed. In the same era Brittingham was
responsible for the Old Arts Building (Melbourne University) and the around the same
time, the similarly brick Georgian, Melbourne University School of Agriculture. After
Brittingham, the next Public Works Chief Architect, E Evan Smith, was to promote a
recognisable government style using Georgian as the basis for buildings such as
University High School Parkville 1929 (Victorian Heritage Register) and the Emily
McPherson College of Domestic Economy, Melbourne (1926, Victorian Heritage
Register) which won the RVIA Victorian Street Architecture Medal for 1930.
This is an early Georgian revival design prepared immediately after World War One
after considerable public pressure to combat a major health threat. It has a parapeted
two-storey red brick façade to Little Lonsdale Street, a parapeted gabled profile above
the main cornice, and a long hipped roof elevation extending into the block. A single
level entry porch, with balcony over, communicates with a hall and a long passage to
the rear of the building. Consulting, dressing and examination rooms, plus a staircase,
opened off the hall, while a large waiting room, staff facilities and the Superintendent's
Office lay beyond, off the passage. Upstairs were four wards, bathrooms and patients'
and staff sitting rooms fronting the three balconies provided, to face the street.
Ornament to the façade was restricted to the pronounced cornice dentillation and
saltire-cross wrought iron balcony panels. The fenestration was symmetrical, but the
exposed end-gable parapets were neither typical of the style nor in harmony with the
exposed hip-roofs elsewhere. A reinforced concrete basement under part of the
building may have been intended as an Air Raid Shelter.
Additions at the rear are visually related but not part of the main design. The building is
generally original externally but openings have been sheeted over for security as part
of a `mothballing' program for Commonwealth owned buildings. The building is part of
a government built precinct, relating closely to the adjoining single storey brick T.B.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
78.
Page 100 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Clinic (q.v.) and the more distant Telephone Exchange in Little Bourke St. The building
is close to the former mint building and is part of the large former government office
group including the former health department building to the east (later Victoria
University).
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1919, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Women's Venereal Disease clinic is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
The Women's Venereal Disease clinic is significant;
Historically for its construction to serve an almost bygone infectious disease and
located centrally within the now dissipated `back slum' brothel district of Little Lonsdale,
La Trobe and Lonsdale Streets, to best serve its purpose. The creation of this building
was the result of sustained public pressure to grapple with the spread of the disease;
and
Aesthetically, as an early if modest Georgian revival design under the Government
Chief Architect SC Brittingham and a contributory part of a small Victorian Governmentbuilt health precinct (with the TB Bureau to E Evan Smith's design), other earlier
government offices, and close to the significant Georgian Revival Commonwealth
telephone exchange, providing for a government building enclave built within a
confined period and to a recognisable government style.
Cleve's Bonded Store complex, 523-525 Little Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1062
What is significant?
The merchant, Charles Cleve (of Cleve Brothers), owned the store initially, (18541859): commissioning a `stone and iron store' in Little Lonsdale Street West, near
William Street. The builder was Amess & McLaren, Melbourne. The stone store at the
rear of this warehouse complex was shown in the DeGruchy & Leigh 1866 isometric,
as part of a larger store consisting of a transverse gabled wing (iron clad) at the
frontage to Little Lonsdale Street and adjoining two simple gabled stores which
extended eastwards along an `L-shape' right-of-way. Melbourne Roll Plan 12 (1856)
shows a similar outline.
Cleve Brothers' main stores of 1858 were at the Lonsdale and King Streets' corner
(234-244 King St, Victorian Heritage Register) owned by them until 1870 and
continuously occupied until 1888. Cleve's Lonsdale Street store operated as a bonded
store for goods with import tariffs from 1859 to 1888, whilst the King Street buildings
operated as a Free Store between 1856 and 1888. Bonded and free stores that
operated under the colonial tariff system before Federation in 1901 were located close
to the docks on the Yarra River, where most inter-colonial and international goods were
landed in Victoria. This type of store is a reminder of the historic mercantile importance
of this part of Melbourne.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
79.
Page 101 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The red brick wing facing the street at 523-525 Little Lonsdale Street was added 18991901, for Frederick Tate, to the design of Thomas Dall and built by Thomas Mclean.
This was Edward Smith's fender factory early this century, Frater's French Polishers in
the 1930s, and storage space for Milledge Brothers around World War Two.
The rear 1850s wing is a simple, gabled-ended and coursed basalt rubble store, built
with one main level and a low basement. Stone lintels are used at openings. Internally,
there were the typical heavy timber beams and columns with shaped timber crossheads as capitals. Windows are barred and a cat-head survives at the south end over
a partly bricked-in loading bay.
The Edwardian-era red brick Little Lonsdale Street wing is a gabled, parapeted and
designed after the Queen Anne style, with a raised gabled pediment, segmentally
arched façade openings with stylised cemented keystones, stone cills and a stone
plinth. It now provides the northern wall of the old store. The Queen Anne style was to
prevail in commercial architecture, and later residential, throughout the following
Edwardian-era.
The stone store and brick warehouse are generally externally original, except for
changes to the loading doors at the south end of the 1850s store and new joinery to the
façade openings of the brick warehouse. Bordering a stone pitched lane off one of
Melbourne's little service streets, the store and warehouse are typically sited. A
significant Victorian-era warehouse and the 1850s former corn store in William Street
back onto the site.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates, 1854 and 1899-1900, and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Cleve's Bonded Store complex is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Cleve's Bonded Store complex is significant:
Historically as, in part, an early stone bonded store in the Capital City Zone and among
the earliest group of relatively original stone stores in Victoria, with a long association
with the pioneering Cleve Brothers. Bonded and free stores that operated under the
colonial tariff system before Federation in 1901 were located close to the docks where
most inter-colonial and international goods were landed in Victoria. This type of store is
a reminder of the historic mercantile importance of the western part of the Capital City
Zone; and
Aesthetically the red brick wing is a good example of the Queen Anne revival style as
applied to a small scale store, in a style that would dominate local architecture after the
turn of the century.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
80.
Page 102 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Blessed Sacrament Fathers Monastery, St Francis, 326
Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1063
What is significant?
Built at the rear of the old St Francis presbytery in place of the Catholic Free Press
Building, this was the new brick and concrete St. Francis Monastery of the Fathers of
the Blessed Sacrament, sited next to the north extension of St. Francis's Church. It was
built by General Construction Co Ltd. to the design of architect O H Jorgensen and
steelwork was designed and supplied by Johns & Waygood Ltd. The foundation stone
of the monastery was laid in 1937. The firm Schreiber & Jorgenson had previously
designed the highly significant Xavier chapel building in Kew.
This five storey brick monastery had 40 rooms, a frontage of 110ft. to Lonsdale Street
and a depth through to Little Lonsdale Street. Ground level held a series of parlours, a
visitor’s public hall and smoke room, guests dining, porter’s office, chambers, a
refectory, stairway and kitchen. This level communicated with the church on the west
and faced the north garden with a colonnade along its north side lined with pressed
cement columns. Another courtyard garden was on the south adjoining the distinctive
arcaded porch entry and the Monstrance wing.
The basement had bulk and wine stores and a boiler room. The first floor had the
Superior's chamber and office, a chapter room, guest’s chambers with en-suite, and
the library. On the second floor were the treasurer's chamber, general chamber groups,
all with en-suite bathroom, recreation area, and scholastic study area. A hatchway led
to the flat roof. The building was well appointed and planned, with a direct connection
to St Francis. Feature parquetry flooring was used inside, with polished ash body
timber and jarrah borders. Terrazzo was used at the entry.
The first Australian priests were ordained here in the early 1940s. Other novitiates
followed in other states and missions extended from Australia into Asia.
Designed in an Italian Palazzo style the building has a ground level podium built from
dark brown bricks with arcaded porches and classically styled Wunderlich Ltd.
terracotta aedicules around main windows. The three upper-levels are clad with cream
brick with projecting quoining and a deep and enriched pressed cement parapet
cornice. Upper-level double-hung sash windows are flat-arched for two floors and
segmentally arched on the top floor.
The podium has segmentally arched basement lights, with expressed voussoirs, and
multiple string moulds of various depths, all expertly conceived and executed in
common and shaped or special Hoffman brickwork. The complex has a north garden
surrounded by a high brick garden wall utilising similar materials and ecclesiastical
detailing to the main building.
An extensive visually unrelated verandah has been added in steel framing on all upperlevels of the central facade bay to face north sun. Another visually unrelated but lightweight addition has been made to the roof (reversible) behind the parapet. What may
be a lift overrun extends out of the top of the penthouse that is set back behind the
centre bay parapet of the main west façade. Despite these changes the essence of the
building's worth is unchanged, centring on excellent brickwork and detailing of the
elevation using a strong elevation treatment in a traditional style.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
81.
Page 103 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
There is no other Catholic monastery or former monastery in the Capital City Zone for
comparison but architecturally it relates to the strong classically styled brick
architecture of the City West Telephone Exchange and other government designed
inter-war buildings such as the former High Court and Female VD clinic, Little Lonsdale
Street.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1937, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Blessed Sacrament Fathers Monastery, St Francis, is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Blessed Sacrament Fathers Monastery, St Francis, is significant:
Historically as the first purpose built monastery for the Blessed Sacrament
Congregation in Australia and is closely associated with the continuing presence of St.
Francis church within the City of Melbourne. In this supporting role to St Francis, it is
the only Catholic Monastery in the City; and
Aesthetically, for the strong elevation treatment and excellent use of brick cladding,
pressed cement and terracotta mouldings distinguishes the building from any other in
the Capital City Zone.
Michaelis Hallenstein & Co building, 439-445 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1064
What is significant?
The four storey warehouse at 439-445 Lonsdale Street, was constructed by Shillabeer
& Sons for Michaelis Hallenstein & Co to the design of the Tompkins Brothers in 19231924 at an estimated cost of £33,000.
Started at Footscray in 1864 by Isaac Hallenstein, Michaelis Hallenstein & Co grew to
operate tanneries in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Dunedin: the business handled
leather, grindery, saddlery, canvas, sports goods and other lines as created by their
subsidiary factories.
The building is of note for its unusual façade, as an example of the Neo- Baroque
mode which continued in Melbourne after the Edwardian Baroque examples of prior to
WWI. These were largely from designs by the Tomkins Brothers such as the
Commercial Travellers Association buildings in Flinders Street. The building façade
adopts a vertical tripartite Palazzo arrangement: the heavy ground floor is rusticated
and springs from a fine rock face bluestone plinth with an ox-bow awning above the
principal entry. The intermediate floors are divided into vertical window strips (metalframed) by abstracted Ionic order columns, with spandrels containing understated
decorative panels. The composition is surmounted by a prominent dentilated classical
cornice and balustraded parapet above. The entry has original lacquered joinery (inner
and outer door suites), a grand white marble stair and polished marble wall or dado
linings.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
82.
Page 104 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
At the rear is a more austere red brick parapeted warehouse wing, abutting a lane,
which once connected with an earlier company building at the rear (since demolished).
The building is in good and near original condition externally with some minor changes
only to openings at ground level.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1924, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Michaelis Hallenstein & Co building is significant historically and aesthetically to
the Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Michaelis Hallenstein & Co building at 439-445 Lonsdale Street is significant:
Aesthetically, as a good and distinctive example of the Neo-Baroque style within the
Capital City Zone showing the transition in its application by the eminent Tompkins
Brothers from the ornate Edwardian-Baroque revival manner to this Modernistic form.
The building shows a later classical revival phase of the extensive work of the
Tompkins brothers, the best known commercial designers in Melbourne of the
Edwardian-era and inter-war periods; and
Historically, for its close association with the nationally prominent tannery firm of
Michaelis Hallenstein & Co.
Watson's warehouse, later 3LO and 3AR studios, 3AW Radio
Theatre, and Kelvin Club, 14-30 Melbourne Place, Melbourne
3000, HO1065
What is significant?
The Watson’s warehouse was constructed in 1871 for John Boyd (JB) Watson (18281889), a nationally prominent mining magnate and investor, by builder, Edward
Delbridge. The designer is thought to be Thomas Watts. When this building was
constructed Watson had become one of the Colony's richest men from his gold
enterprises in Bendigo, investing in property across Victoria and New South Wales.
The first occupants of the two-storey premises in Melbourne Place were Stanford & Co,
printers, followed by others in the trade, such as H.W. Mills & Co. and F.T. Wimble &
Co., The Worker newspaper; also N.S. Morrey Pty. Ltd., blouse & costume
manufacturers, were there in the early 1920s.
In the late 1920s the building was occupied by the Broadcasting Company of Australia,
as Australia's first networked `A-class' radio station 3LO (operating from 1924). The
upstairs floor was the studios of radio 3LO, originally designed in 1927 for the days
when music was broadcast live to an audience. In 1928, the company was acquired by
the Sydney-based Australian Broadcasting Company and, after an Act of Parliament,
by the Australian Government. The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC)
continued there from July 1932 as radio stations 3LO and 3AR until Broadcast House
was erected in Lonsdale Street, 1941.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
83.
Page 105 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Robert Menzies used these studios to declare war against Germany in 1939. Images of
the upper level interior, in its broadcast studio days, show exposed roof trusses.
By the mid 1940s, the upper level had become the 3AW Broadcasting Company’s
Radio Theatre or Studio One. Architect Charles N Hollinshed acted for 3AW
Broadcasting Company Pty Ltd. for the 1944 planned alterations.
From 1946 the Kelvin Club rented the ground floor of 3AW and commissioned changes
designed by Bernard (later Sir Bernard) Evans. The club was formed in 1927 as a
private member's club with membership drawn from the academic, corporate, legal,
medical, arts, public service and private business communities. The Kelvin Club was
named in honour of Lord Kelvin, the Scottish physicist.
Around 1950, the Club purchased the building freehold for £25,000, continuing in the
ground floor with 3AW as its tenant upstairs. In 1956, 3AW moved out, and after
extensive alterations, the Kelvin Club occupied the whole building.
This is a two storey face brick row of warehouses or workshops, with a deep cemented
cornice, terminated by bracketed blocks, and a brick string course at the first floor level.
Window openings are segmentally arched on both levels with deep voussoirs and
keystones and doorways have flat arch heads, all with stop-chamfered reveals
achieved with squint bricks. Quarry faced bluestone with tooled margins is used for the
wall plinths.
The southernmost façade bay has been clad with smooth, deeply rusticated render,
with a deep ogee-profile cornice at the first floor level, and an impost mould that rests
on stylised near flat modillions or banners on each side of the double entry doors. This
created a grander entry in a Modern Georgian style typical of the 1920s, indicating that
the façade changes were made for the new radio station use of that period.
Some windows at ground floor level have been enlarged and the façade painted,
presumably over coloured brickwork.
The building is uncommon in the Capital City Zone because of the use of face brick
(see more typically rendered and stone finished warehouses of the early Victorian-era),
the length of the building and the back lane siting.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates 1873-1874, c1927, 1944-6 and any new material
added in sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Watson's warehouse is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Watson's warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically, as a representative and relatively early example of a brick warehouse
building (probably dichrome) which is also distinguished today by its façade length and
uncommon (but appropriate for workshops) back lane siting; and
Historically, for its association with the millionaire investor JB Watson, and later the
beginnings of both public and commercial radio in Australia which is exhibited on the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
84.
Page 106 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
façade as a single bay of the Modern Georgian style. The former warehouse is also of
interest as an inner city `gentlemen's club', the Kelvin Club, since the 1940s.
Yorkshire House, 20-26 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1066
What is significant?
The former Yorkshire Insurance Company Building was constructed in 1922-1923 as a
ten storey office development at an estimated cost of £564002. It was designed by the
noted local architectural firm of HW & FB Tompkins for the Yorkshire Insurance
Company who had occupied an earlier building on the same site by 1912.
The Yorkshire Insurance Company Building grew with Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and
Sydney branches created from the early 1900s and the new Melbourne building as its
first purpose-built office in Australia. The construction of the Melbourne building is
indicative of the growth of financial institutions in Melbourne in the inter-war period,
then as the financial capital of Australia.
The Tompkins Brothers continued to work in a related Neo- Baroque mode after WWI,
also employing a modern classical revival based on a Commercial Palazzo form. The
Yorkshire Insurance Company Building (1922) is an example of the firm's work in this
style. The firm is perhaps the most prominent among Central Business District
designers in the 20th century.
The building adopts an elegant commercial palazzo form characterised by the tripartite
division of the façade into base, intermediate floors and attic level. The heavy,
rusticated base is finished in granite and distinguished by bold consoles to sculptural
awnings above the principal windows. The intermediate floors are understated with
ornamentation limited to rustication and decorative sills. The composition is completed
by a prominent classical cornice. The firm's many commissions from this period include
the Herald and Weekly Times Building (1921) and the London Stores building on the
corner of Bourke and Elizabeth Streets (1921), both of which are executed in a similar
style to the Yorkshire Insurance Company Building. During the mid to late 1930s, along
with many other designers, the Tompkins discarded the historical styles in favour of a
more Modernistic form of expression.
Window joinery throughout the building has been altered and an unsympathetic awning
constructed at ground level but the building is otherwise in good and near original
condition.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1922-1923, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Yorkshire House is significant is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Yorkshire House is significant:
Aesthetically, as a good example of an understated Commercial Palazzo style by the
distinguished and prolific architectural firm of HW & FB Tompkins as applied to a major
City office building; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
85.
Page 107 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Historically, as indicative of the growth of financial institutions including life insurance
companies in Melbourne during the Edwardian and inter-war periods, Melbourne then
being the financial capital of Australia.
Provident Life Building, 37-41 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1067
What is significant?
The former Provident Life Building was designed in 1937 by architects AS & RA
Eggleston as part of the ongoing boom in insurance architecture within Victoria from
the Edwardian-era into the inter-war period; Melbourne was then the financial capital of
Australia.
Built on the north-western corner of Queen Street and Flinders Lane, this limit-height
company headquarters building for the Provident Life Assurance Co. consists of twelve
storeys and a basement. Bounded by streets on three of its four sides, much was made
of the opportunity for natural lighting in the building's planning. All services such as lifts
stairs, ducts and lavatories were placed on the attached north wall thus dispensing with
light courts and maximising the lettable floor area. The structural beams were designed
with particular care to permit the future installation of air conditioning ducts without
interfering with the ceiling levels.
The Provident Life Building attracted the attention of architectural critic and award
winning designer, Robin Boyd in his `Victorian Modern' (1947) as an example of the
turning point from the all-pervading commercial classical revival towards functionalism
(here showing Frank Lloyd Wright's influence as well). Noting with approval the plain
spandrels, regular and continuous window strips, free internal planning and bright and
colourful interior, Boyd queried the need for the `weighty pi-sign' cornice applied to the
otherwise strictly functional elevation; and it was clad with stone. Boyd also commented
on the glass entrance screen which gave a sense of transparency with the building
name on the wall slipping through from inside to out. Boyd noted that, along with
Barnetts Building and McPhersons in Collins Street, the Provident Life Building was
one of the few City commercial buildings constructed during the 1930s to employ the
visual and functional principles of European modernism.
Although it still possessed the implied classical podium (high ground level, separately
expressed), the austerity and functional nature of the façade above resembled on the
one hand, the later column and spandrel-born elevations of the precast facades of the
1960s and, on the other, the reversion to massive pseudo-structural expression used in
the late 1960s, early 1970s commercial designs (i.e. MMBW Building). It was neither a
revival or in the expressive Moderne style as seen at Alkira House, Queen Street.
Instead, it foreshadowed (particularly the south face) the later preoccupation with
regular fenestration based on the structural grid and the shunning of all classical
trappings such as implied cornices (the corner piers bypass the almost floating
`cornice' and hence do not support it), architraves and punched fenestration. Another
adventurous attribute was the full-height glazed screen set inside the otherwise
monumental ground floor lobby which apparently achieved near invisibility, forsaking
the heavy surrounds typical of the formal ground floor entrances created in the period.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1936-1937, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
86.
Page 108 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
The Provident Life Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Provident Life Building is significant:
Aesthetically, for its recognition as one of the few influential pre-war proto-Modern
commercial multi-storey designs in Melbourne's Capital City Zone. The Provident Life
Building was one of a small number of commercial buildings in the Capital City Zone
constructed during the 1930s to employ the visual and functional principles of
European modernism which in turn reflects the general trend towards emphasised
verticality in a number of city buildings in the 1930s, notably HW and FB Tompkins'
Myer Emporium and Marcus Barlow's Manchester Unity and Century Buildings. While
the polished granite facing and abstracted neo-classical podium of the former Provident
Life Building creates a formal elevation to Queen Street, the Flinders Lane elevation is
articulated by a simple repetitive rhythm of piers and spandrel panels more typical of
1960s high rise construction. Open planning, the evident flow of interior to exterior
space achieved through the use of a large glass entrance screen placed midway
across the entry, and the provision of space for future air conditioning are further
significant features of the building; and
Historically, as evocative of the boom period of insurance buildings in the Capital City
Zone during a time when Melbourne was the financial capital of Australia.
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (R.A.C.V.) Building, former,
111-129 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1068
What is significant?
The RACV Club was erected in 1959-61 for use by members of the Royal Automobile
Club of Victoria. It was constructed by Lewis Construction Co to designs by Bates
Smart McCutcheon.
Believed to be the first building in Melbourne to employ the fast track or staged
approach to design and construction, the massive structure was completed in 1961 and
incorporated both an office and a club building each serviced by separate entries and
lifts to meet the strict licensing requirements. The club offered accommodation, bars,
billiard rooms, lounges and dining facilities for members all accessible directly from the
basement car park or via a well-appointed lobby. Then regarded as a quiet tree-lined
street, the architects provided a first floor terrace to overlook the sylvan scene in
Queen Street; balconies like this being now an uncommon element in the Capital City
Zone. The terrace would be off the dining and lounge areas and 'a beautiful summer
rendezvous before lunch or for after dinner coffee'. Although a romantic concept that
may not have lived up to its promise, the internal courtyard and flexible spaces of the
lounge and dining areas, were thought to be new to Melbourne at the time. The
building was claimed as setting a new accommodation standard for Melbourne.
Although the building was not unduly tall by local standards (215m), the façade width
and floor plan were exceptionally large and provided for a typical floor area of almost
20,000m2 where half that figure was regarded as a good sized area for City office use.
The club comprises a three storey transparent cantilevering podium, clad in elegant
aluminium framed glass, and polished black granite and with its own (added) canopy,
surmounted by a fifteen storey manganese brick clad tower free-standing on three
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
87.
Page 109 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
sides. The tower is distinguished by a rigidly regular arrangement of formerly brassframed windows (now white painted reveals) repeated at each floor level that echoes
the adjoining Perpetual Trustees Building 100-104 Queen Street.
This elevated masonry clad block rests on stilts above the podium as discrete and well
formulated massing, the stilts or columns being visible as they pass through the
podium on the south side. Not easily seen from ground level, the roof over the tower
block has a butterfly form that floats above the façade which, combined with the glazed
podium, gives the lightness and clarity of purpose sought by Modernist designers.
The first floor level has an undercroft that houses shops and allows the two exposed
entry stairs to float from ground to first floor. River stones fill the paving strip between
footpath asphalt and shopfront entry. On the south side a hit and miss upper-level brick
screen masks services, as a textured foil to the other all-glass cladding. The basement
was equipped with a car lift and the entry foyer is multi-level. Externally, the building
survives largely in its original form.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1959-1961, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The R.A.C.V. Building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The R.A.C.V. Building is significant:
Aesthetically and historically, as a substantial and well-preserved example of elegantly
massed post-war Modern architecture and an early example of fast-track design and
construction within Melbourne's Capital City Zone; and
Historically, for its close link with the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria as custom-built
premises for new much expanded club functions, some of which like the first level
terrace, being uncommon in the Capital City Zone as is the building type (private club)
for that period. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria was then the State's premier
road lobbyist and a major tourism promoter: many of its members were highly
influential within Victoria society.
Australasian Catholic Assurance (ACA) Building, 118-126
Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1069
What is significant?
Penfold House and the Gordon & Gotch buildings were replaced by a new Australasian
Catholic Assurance Company building, designed in 1934-35 by the Sydney architects
and engineers Hennessy & Hennessy and Co. and R Morton Taylor of Melbourne,
architects in association. Melbourne builders, Lewis Construction Company Pty. Ltd.
were the contractors and the building completed by early 1936.
No later than the cement rendered Myer Bourke Street facade, the ACA Building could
at least boast a `Benedict Stone' facade, a cladding block which could be produced in a
variety of colours, and in a colour similar to the terra-cotta faience of G.J. Coles Bourke
Street store (1928-), the forerunner of the modern Commercial Gothic or Jazz Moderne
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
88.
Page 110 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
style in Melbourne city. Although examples of the style used in the ACA Building are
earlier, such as the former Coles Building or Marcus Barlow's Manchester Unity
Building (1932), the ACA building is faced with a different material and is detailed in a
more ornate manner. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brisbane appears to have
acquired the Australian rights for the appropriately named `Benedict Stone' and it was
henceforth manufactured in Brisbane, where it was used for a number of significant
buildings across Australia.
The ribbed and fluted facade rises through eleven levels from ground level and
basement, either side of a central stepped tower, and is articulated by means of a
number of stages and bays. The lower three storeys provide a podium above which
rise a number of facade bays separated by moulded pilasters, with a dramatic increase
in vertical emphasis. The façade steps back at the ninth storey and again at the
eleventh storey, echoing the dramatic setbacks to upper storeys which characterise the
stepped Manhattan's skyscraper profiles of the 1920s. All elements of the facade are
detailed with commercial Gothic or Jazz Moderne incised or moulded ornament which
reflects the influence of Gothic architecture, illustrating one of the most vital fonts of
inspiration for the eclectic Jazz mode and the primary influence upon Jazz Moderne
skyscraper design in America and elsewhere.
Window frames and spandrels are of bronze, incorporating multi-paned glazing and
grilles, and the building's name is repeated in metal lettering, set as in a music score
on a three line bar. Jazz Moderne to Queen Street but, glimpsed from Little Collins
Street, the more contemporary Streamlined Moderne style occupies the building's rear
façade as a series of horizontal window strips with rounded spandrel-ends. The
Brooks Robinson shopfronts and lift lobby detailing, lighting, black marble and chrome
are all vital accessories to the Moderne style and are all near original and significant.
The ACA building relates, across Queen Street, to the similarly styled and finished
National Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Building also to the more recent but also
significant Scottish Amicable Building, adjoining, because of the similar vertical
fenestration.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1935-1936, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Australian Catholic Assurance Building is significant historically and aesthetically
to the Melbourne Capital City Zone and Victoria.
Why is it significant?
The Australasian Catholic Assurance Co Ltd (ACA) Building is significant
Aesthetically, as a large, very fine and substantially externally intact example of the
Gothic-influenced Jazz Moderne styled skyscraper mode. Although later than other
important examples such as the former G J Coles Building, Bourke Street or the
Manchester Unity Building the ACA Building is notable for its distinctive detailing, its
dramatic stepped form and its facade of rose pink Benedict Stone, a concrete product
developed in the 1920s in competition to terracotta faience; and
Historically, as a key part of the inter-war boom, when finance institutions (banks and
insurance companies) built headquarters and branch offices in the Capital City Zone
when Melbourne was the financial capital of Australia. The use of Benedict Stone in the
ACA Building is also illustrative of the strong and unusual association between the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
89.
Page 111 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Catholic Church, this new concrete product and the design firm of Hennessy &
Hennessy.
Clarke's Shops & Dwellings, 203-205 Queen Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1070
What is significant?
Williams John Turner (Big) Clarke, the colony's most prominent pastoralist and
landowner, commissioned architects Browne & Howitz to design this pair of shops and
dwellings in 1869, a few years before his death. The builder was Charles Brown. Long
term occupiers were the saddlery supplier, Thomas Eyton, and a variety of other small
business, including drapers, dressmakers, a poultry exchange and a patent medicine
vendor.
This parapeted two-storey pair of rendered shops and dwellings is designed in the
Italian Renaissance revival style for a corner site with a splayed corner entry. The two
street facades are trabeated, with stone pilasters, string and cornice moulds, dentils,
and the upper-level double-hung sash windows have moulded cement architraves and
bracketed and moulded sills. The timber-framed display windows appear to be of an
early design and have stone plinths. Chimneys have moulded cement cornices with at
least one terracotta chimney pot and the rear walls are typically of face brick. Stonebordered basement lights or vents are set into the pavement. The rear fence is of early
bricks and basalt but has been changed with openings infilled. The designer, George
Browne, is responsible for a number of significant structures, many linked with Clarke.
One display window (205) and two doors (203, 205) have been replaced; the stone has
been painted; and changes have been made to the single storey rear wing and fence.
A canopy has been added to 205. Many intrusive services have been added to the rear
upper-level.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1869-1870, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Clarke's Shops & Dwellings are significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
Clarke's Victorian-era shops & dwellings are significant:
Historically, as a well preserved example of their type within the Capital City Zone
context, as distinguished by the survival of the shopfronts and stonework; they are also
linked with the highly significant WJT Clarke; and
Aesthetically, as a good and early example of trabeated Italian renaissance style
applied to a medium sized Victorian-era commercial building in the Capital City Zone
and designed by a locally prominent architect of the era, George Browne.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
90.
Page 112 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Grant's factory-warehouse, 217-219 Queen Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1071
What is significant?
This three storey factory-warehouse was constructed by James SG Wright in 1904 for
the estate of well known Melbourne solicitor Alexander Grant to the design of
architects, Gibbs & Finlay. Grant died just before the application was lodged with his
son Frederick E Grant, also a solicitor, taking over the project. The first occupant was
Paul C Grosser, a lithographic printer, who leased the brick factory at ǧ135 per annum.
Gibbs & Finlay also designed the notable Druid House, Swanston Street, and neo-Grec
styled National Bank of Australasia Bank branches in the 1920s.
The building is an unusual example of the relatively small catalogue of works
ornamented with Art Nouveau detailing within Melbourne's Central Business District.
The building also recalls the local tall-arched American Romanesque style buildings
such as, the Ball and & Welch building, (1906-) by the Tompkins brothers.
Below a cemented cornice at the top of the façade, semicircular cemented and
ornamented arcading is carried on giant order red brick piers, with Romanesque
cushion capitals and Art Nouveau influenced whip-lash motifs in the arcade spandrels.
Below the first floor string mould are tiled panels and cemented tendril devices while
spandrel panels at the first floor and at the arches are decorated with floral stalks and
undulating wave motifs. Above a pronounced cornice, a profusion of leaves, buds and
other plant motifs, abstracted from the natural world feature within a large scrolled
parapet. This building is distinguished from similar designs by the extent and vigour of
its ornament. The building is an uncommon and distinctive example of Art Nouveau
ornament within Melbourne's Central Business District.
The rear lane elevation is well-preserved in a tall-arched red brick form with catheads
above each arch but the building has been modified at ground floor level (new
shopfronts) although stone pedestals survive either side of the central entry. These
support the giant red brick piers of the façade above, with their carved dado mouldings,
panelling and quarry faced plinths with tooled margins. The upper storeys are largely
intact to their original state.
The Traegerwellblech corrugated iron vaulted fire-proof roofing to the ground level
main chamber is of special interest. Developed in Melbourne from the 1880s, this form
of construction is now rare in the Central Business District.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1904, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Grant's warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Central
Business District.
Why is it significant?
Grant's warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically, as an unusually ornate well-preserved example of the noted American
Romanesque revival warehouse style and one of the relatively small body of Art
Nouveau ornamented architecture within Melbourne's Central Business District; and
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
91.
Page 113 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Grant's warehouse is of historical interest for possessing a rare if late example of the
Traegerwellblech corrugated iron vaulted fire-proofing.
West Bourke Club Hotel, 316-322 Queen Street, Melbourne
3000, HO985
What is significant?
The former West Bourke Club Hotel was built to the design of eminent architect,
George R Johnson, for Port Phillip pioneer, George Evans, in 1876 by the Fitzroy
builder, James Greenlaw. Built as two-storeys it received another matching level and
added facade bay on the east end late in the 1920s.
Designed in the Italian Renaissance Revival style the former hotel has a highly
detailed, rendered classical facade divided into bays by Corinthian order pilasters
rising, storey by storey, through the full height of the building. Ground level
vermiculated panels to the pilasters (Gibbs surrounds) and gabled pediments to
entrances lend richness to the façade. A distinctive mannerist window treatment with a
bracketed awning motif is used throughout the upper floors. The richness or detail I
consistent with Johnson’s work and resembles in part the windows details of the
contemporary Hotham town hall.
The original cornice is visible at the third floor level while the sympathetically added top
level has been scaled with a lesser floor to floor height, as a typical classical attic level.
Built in the 1870s, the hotel is evocative of the growth of the richly cemented Italian
style in the City at the start of a major building boom that would last until the late 1880s.
The ground level has been recently reinstated and is remarkably intact compared to
other City Victorian-era hotels. The former hotel is a good corner element at the
commencement of a significant Victorian-era government building precinct, extending
to the south-west.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include 19th century external fabric,
consisting of external walls and finishes, parapeted form, mouldings, fenestration,
pilistrade, along with any new material added in sympathy to the original fabric it
replaced and including the 1920s top level and added bay at the east end.
How is it significant
The former West Bourke Club Hotel at 316-322 Queen Street is significant aesthetically
and historically to the City of Melbourne.
Why is it significant
The former West Bourke Club Hotel at 316-322 Queen Street is significant:
Historically:
The former hotel still possesses that characteristic form of mid Victorian-era
commercial Melbourne derived from the growing effect of Italian Renaissance revival
architecture as applied at first to two-storey buildings at the beginning of two decades
of massive growth in Melbourne City. The relative integrity of the façade ground level is
high adding historical value to the place as expressive of this era. The historical link
with Port Phillip pioneer George Evans is also notable as one of his last major projects
in his transition from pastoralist to City developer. Evans was among the first settlers
to set foot in what was to be Melbourne town in the 1830s.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
92.
Page 114 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The hotel is of added interest historically as the home of the Celtic Club for the past 55
years.
The activities within and around the hotel have been documented over time, allowing a
depth of interpretation of the building’s history and that of its setting of significant
Victorian-era government buildings; and
Aesthetically:
The 1870s ornate classical façade is very detailed for its construction date judged
within hotel examples of the 1870s, and earlier, in the Melbourne City and metropolitan
context. As the work of the eminent architect, George R Johnson, well known for his
town hall designs in a rich Italian Renaissance revival style, the hotel offers breadth to
examples of his work The former hotel and its setting evoke an aesthetic linked with
early Victorian-era architecture in the city.
Royal Bank of Australia Ltd, later English Scottish & Australian
Bank Ltd., 42-44 Russell Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1072
What is significant?
Richmond builder, Clements Langford constructed this `new banking premises' for the
Royal Bank of Victoria at an estimated cost of ǧ14,000 from 1923. This project involved
retention of the existing Russell Street ground floor banking chamber (to the extent of 5
window bays from Russell Street) to allow banking business to carry on throughout the
construction phase and the addition of a separate bay on the east end of the site, with
three added upper levels over all. The architects were the Tomkins Brothers who had
been responsible for many significant commercial buildings in the Capital City Zone.
`The Argus' noted the construction of `these modern premises' in 1923.
Starting in Australia in 1840, the Royal Bank of Australia’s re-emergence in the mid 19th
century culminated in major growth during the Edwardian-era. This local bank however
was not to last, with a takeover by the English, Scottish and Australian Charter Bank
(ES&A) in 1927, soon after the construction of this branch. The ES&A had also
acquired the London Bank of Australia Ltd. and the Commercial Bank of Tasmania Ltd.
1921. A merger with the Australian and New Zealand Bank Ltd. in 1969 created the
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.
The Russell Street Royal Bank branch was built in a modern Italian Palazzo form with
arched ground level fenestration and deeply rusticated stone-like render on the
podium; a giant Ionic order pilistrade on the intermediate part of the façade; and an
attic level set below the main cornice, with balustraded parapet. The upper level walls
were finely ruled as stone and moulded architraves applied around the steel-framed
windows, each separated by a spandrel panel. Fine axed Harcourt granite formed the
plinth to the ground floor and stout panelled door pairs (doors at 105mm thick) were
fitted to the entry points in Russell Street (2) and Flinders Lane (1) while the banking
chamber walls were also panelled. A cart dock or loading bay was located at the east
end of the ground level. Terrazzo with a key-pattern border was used at the side entry
and on the walls of stairwells, with granite steps to doorways.
The exterior has been changed in detail only, at ground level (two new aluminium
glazed doors), with unrelated signs applied at the upper level. The building is on the
opposite corner to the significant American Romanesque revival style warehouse at
145 Flinders Lane.
Contributory elements
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
93.
Page 115 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1923-1924, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Royal Bank of Australia is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Royal Bank of Australia is significant:
Historically as the only surviving purpose-built bank erected in the Capital City Zone for
one of the colony's own early banking companies. It subsequently served as a banking
chamber, within what was then the financial centre of Victoria, for a long period to
follow; and
Architecturally, as a well-preserved and good example of the Tomkins Brothers
classical revival stylistic phase as applied to the incorporation of an existing building
into a major new project. The conservatism of the design also catered for the needs of
a company reliant on a traditional architectural image.
Union Hotel, later Tattersalls Hotel, 288-294 Russell Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1073
What is significant?
This two-storey corner hotel was built by Lawson & Richards for Mrs Mary Quirk, wife
of James Quirk Esq, to the design of architects Hennessy & Lalor who had called
tenders in 1872 for the erection of hotel and 2 shops, at the Russell & Little Lonsdale
Streets corner. This had been the site of hotels since the 1850s.
Quirk's new hotel had a bar, cellar and 9 rooms; it was also one of three Union Hotels
in the City. Occupiers of the shop attached on the north included a tailor, bootmaker,
and more recently the successful Levingstons Poster Advertising Company. James
Quirk was prominent in Port Phillip society, as club and investment company member,
and an early land holder in the City. Mary Quirk continued her husband’s role as a
property investor until her death in 1883.
The hotel building served as offices in later years.
This two-storey rendered and face brick hotel is in the Italian Renaissance Revival style
with applied Ionic order trabeation over arched fenestration. The building has the
traditional splayed corner former bar entry, double-hung sash window openings,
moulded architraves, impost moulds and cornices at first and parapet levels, and a
moulded cement chimney is visible above the parapet. The east wall facing the lane is
plain and of face brick (painted since), with three courses of quarry-faced basalt as a
plinth.
Openings have been closed-in on the east lane elevation and a two-storey addition
made to the north-east corner of the building. Segmental arched openings have been
added at the bar and the small shop in Little Lonsdale Street while an arched window
opening and wall panel between the pilasters has been removed to create a lobby
entrance for office use; another window has its sill dropped to plinth level. Three
aluminium shopfronts have been introduced on the Russell Street façade, the corner
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
94.
Page 116 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
bar entry changed and the remaining bar window sill facing Russell Street dropped to
plinth level. The hotel relates to the 3 storey Victorian-era pair on the north.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1873-1873, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Union Hotel is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Union Hotel is significant:
Historically and socially for its extended use as a public gathering place on a hotel site
that goes back to pre gold-rush times. It is associated with the James Quirk family, as
locally prominent investors of the time; and
Aesthetically, as an early combination of trabeation applied to an arcuated Italian
Renaissance Revival facade which retains only a fair integrity at ground level and
excellent upper-level integrity to its creation date.
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel, 2-8 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1074
What is significant?
From 1855 the Charles Hotham Hotel, in different forms, has graced this corner. With
increasing room numbers over the latter part of the 19th Century. The new Sir Charles
Hotham Hotel was built during the State's economic recovery after the 1890s
depression. It remains the largest hotel built in that period within the Central Business
District. Expanding to a frontage of some 132 feet down Flinders Street, the Charles
Hotham was erected to the design of the prolific William Pitt by builder, Clements
Langford, for the owner, Jane Hall, as `a hotel and two shops’ in 1912-1913.
When erected the hotel was described as follows in the daily press:
`….newly erected and one of the largest in this part of the City..' Includes cellar,
ground floor with large public bar, private bar, billiard room, four bar parlours
and offices; three storeys and open flat on roof; first floor has large dining room,
and services, drawing room, reading and smoking rooms, nine bedrooms with
linen press, bathrooms and lavatory accommodation; second floor has private
sitting and dining rooms, bedrooms servants bedrooms and facilities; third floor
has 14 bedrooms, servants dining room, modern kitchen; cellar one of the
largest and best in Melbourne; passenger and goods lifts, electric lighting. '
The architect, William Pitt, was well known in the Colonies for hotel and theatre design.
In 1900, Pitt entered a partnership with Albion H Walkley which appears to have
endured until Pitt's death c1918, but with each partner taking separate commissions
such as this one. The design for the Sir Charles Hotham Hotel dates from the closing
years of Pitt's association with Walkley and the building application was made in Pitt's
name only.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
95.
Page 117 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The composition of the Sir Charles Hotham Hotel centres upon a lofty corner entry
element with three storey bay window rising to a prominent belvedere. Along each of
the ground floor facades, large arched windows with radial rustication denote the hotel
sections of the building while simpler recessed entries are used for the shop fronts
along Flinders street. The shops are separated from the hotel by a gated carriageway
to a yard at the rear.
Pitt's street elevations are arranged as a series of alternating vertical piers, fenestration
strips and tall archways, which find a focus at the corner tower. At the first floor level,
along the main Spencer Street elevation, the tower is replicated (in part) within each
fenestration bay as oversize window bays protruding over the street. Above the
parapet is a terra-cotta tiled mansard roof, the tiles being a sign of the times, replacing
the slate of Pitt's favoured late Victorian-era mansard roof forms.
As if the archways of a medieval city gateway, the giant ground level openings span
from pier to pier, balancing the minor oriels and window strips above at each keystone.
Within each arch a central doorway, with a Queen Anne style scrolled pediment,
provides an opening through the dado-like moulding (taken through at each arch
centre-line) and rough stone plinth. Now obscured by various shades of paint, the
juxta-positioning of these rugged natural finishes concurs with the vigour of the design
itself. Arts and Crafts dado tiling and quarry floor tiling of entry hallways add to this
character, along with remnant polished timber stair joinery.
Of the many notable suburban Edwardian Freestyle or Edwardian Baroque hotels and
commercial buildings which utilize the corner tower motif, this is not the earliest, but
perhaps the largest example. Perhaps because of the importance of the hotel, and
hence the excellence and solidity of its ground level design, the distinctive treatment at
this level has survived, relatively unchanged, as a contrast to the many altered and
initially more simple ground-levels of suburban examples. English examples include
Townsend's 1896 design for the Whitechapel Art Gallery, the cement detailing (gum
nuts) of this building deriving from similar Arts and Crafts inspiration.
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel acts as a corner pivot to an important Edwardian and late
Victorian-era commercial streetscape in Flinders and Spencer Streets, including a
number of former and existing hotels, a former bank and one former coffee tavern. The
Victorian Railways administrative building on the opposite side of Spencer street gives
focus to the positioning of these buildings beside a major transport hub, first by water
and then by rail.
The stone and brickwork have been painted, intrusive signs added, and minor
alterations made to openings.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1913, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Sir Charles Hotham Hotel is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel is significant:
Aesthetically, as a large, well preserved and successful corner hotel design in the
Edwardian Freestyle, by the important architect, William Pitt, and is a major part of a
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
96.
Page 118 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
notable Edwardian and late Victorian-era commercial streetscape in both Flinders and
Spencer Streets, consisting mainly of hotels; and
Historically, for its location with other Edwardian-era and late Victorian-era hotels near
the wharves and railway that served them, underscoring the major means of travel at
that time. The new Sir Charles Hotham Hotel was built during the State's economic
recovery after the Great Depression of the 1890s and remains the largest Edwardianera hotel built within the Central Business District.
McCaughan's Coffee Palace, later Great Southern Private Hotel,
10-22 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1075
What is significant?
This was originally a coffee place, built in the mould of the nearby Federal Coffee
Palace (demolished) and close to a railway terminus. Temperance hotels or coffee
palaces were seen as a distinctive Melbourne phenomenon and lauded by the daily
press for the civility they brought to the City.
Patrick McCaughan of the Rialto commissioned his Rialto architect, William Pitt, in
partnership with the adjoining Melbourne Wool Exchange designer, Charles D'Ebro, to
prepare a scheme for the proposed palace and at least two shops. William Hearnden,
from Princes Hill, was the contractor.
With the exception of the giant gabled pediment set above the parapet and the Queen
Anne details, the three-bay four-storey rendered symmetrical façade of the building
presents as a mainstream Italian Renaissance revival street elevation with regular
window placement, moulded architraves, dentilated cornice, giant-order trabeation with
Queen Anne style scrolls as capitals, and rustication to pilaster bases. The more
contemporary Queen Anne style is again expressed by the broken pediment at first
floor level, cement scrolls and ox-bow cement mouldings over windows.
Although conservatively classical below the facade's cornice level, D'Ebro's influence
can be seen in the massive central gabled pediment (originally with its overblown
antefix on the apex). Similar facade compositions, with three bays and a gabled central
pediment may be seen on Angus & Robertson's Building, Elizabeth Street, and George
& George's in Collins Street: both are D'Ebro designs. Pitt had designed Melbourne's
first coffee palace in Bourke Street in 1879, followed by his collaboration with Ellerker &
Kilburn to design the five hundred room Federal Coffee Palace in Collins Street. His
design for the adjoining Edwardian-era Sir Charles Hotham Hotel dates from another
phase of Pitt's career.
The former coffee palace is integral in scale, general ornament and use to the later
Charles Hotham Hotel and is part of a transport oriented building group with the
Markillie’s Hotel, and Victorian Railways offices nearby, and the Batman's Hill Hotel to
the north.
The pediment detailing has been changed; double-hung sash windows reglazed; signs
attached, the ground-level altered, and a street canopy added.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1890-1891, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
97.
Page 119 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
McCaughan's Coffee Palace is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
McCaughan's Coffee Palace is significant:
Aesthetically, as an austere but prominent Queen Anne revival façade design by the
important architects, Charles D'Ebro and William Pitt, with D’Ebro’s involvement
characterised by the massive central gabled pediment and facade details; and
Historically, as expressive of the rise of the railway coffee palace at most busy termini.
The coffee palace was a distinctively Melbourne phenomenon that was looked upon by
Victorian-era society as an indication of the City's civilisation. This is Melbourne’s
second oldest purpose-built coffee palace that faces the railway lines which gave them
custom. Other key examples, such as the grand Federal Coffee Palace, have been
demolished.
Batman's Hill Hotel, 66-70 Spencer Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1076
What is significant?
The first Batman's Hotel operated here in the 1860s to be replaced by the Batman's Hill
Hotel in the 1870s. Inter-war renovation and additions to the Victorian-era three-storey
brick Batman's Hill Hotel were constructed 1926-8 at an estimated cost of ǧ11,000 by
Ivanhoe builder, George Andrew. The client was Mrs A A Riley and the design from
architects and engineers Greenwood Bradley & Allen working in association with hotel
specialist architects, Sydney Smith & Ogg. The decision to add to the old hotel rather
than redevelop the site was based on its remarkable sound condition. Apart from the
façade design every effort was made to complement the existing building during the
project.
The design had a sober Greek Revival façade designed solely by Greenwood Bradley
& Allen. Additions were made at the rear of the hotel on all existing levels and the two
added floors and roof level on the front existing wing followed the existing T-Shape
plan which allowed for light courts on both sides of bedrooms either side of a central
passage. Because the partitions were brick throughout, the existing Baltic pine floors
were able to be retained and extended despite regulations requiring fire proof
construction between floors.
The cement rendered Batman's Hill Hotel façade is parapeted with a classical cornice
and central raised pediment in the Greek Revival manner, complete with acroteria and
flagpole (removed). Reeded pilasters rise from the ground level podium to allow for
window strips between, with matching timber-framed windows separated by cemented
spandrels (windows replaced with similar joinery sections, fine balustrading added
since). At the façade centre is a series of balconies, some with cemented balustrading
and one with a wrought-iron Regency style balconette at the second floor level. The
ground level has changed but when built it was a series of stout panelled timber doors
with fine-axed basalt thresholds leading into the dining room, public and saloon bars.
Parts of the cast cement colonettes and brick dadoes remain. A metal clad
cantilevering awning, with ornamented soffit, was erected over the street and held the
hotel's name and some Greek revival ornamentation (replaced in 1973).
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
98.
Page 120 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The hotel complements the Greek revival detailing of the former State Savings Bank at
the Collins Street corner and is one of a series of Victorian, Edwardian-era and interwar hotels along Spencer and Flinders Streets fed by river and railway traffic.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1926-1928, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Batman's Hill Hotel is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Batman's Hill Hotel is significant:
Historically and socially as a well-preserved long-term hotel use, possessing elements
from the Victorian-era to the inter-war period, and has acted as a social gathering place
since its inception; and
Aesthetically as a well-preserved and good example of the Greek Revival style as
applied to a City hotel building. The hotel complements the Greek Revival detailing of
the former bank at the Collins Street corner and is one of a series of Victorian,
Edwardian-era and inter-war hotels along Spencer and Flinders Streets, fed by river
and railway traffic. .
Hotel Alexander, later Savoy Plaza Hotel, 122-132 Spencer
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1077
What is significant?
C. Alexander was the owner and occupier of a brick and stone `house’ being
constructed in 1865-6 at this site. A three storey hotel known as Alexander's Family
Hotel remained here into the 1920s when it was changed to the Sunshine Hotel. By
1929 Alexander Hotel Pty. Ltd. owned a brick hotel, of eleven floors on the site, with an
annual value of ǧ 7,500 pounds. Hotel entrepreneur, James Richardson, was a key
figure in the company that erected the hotel.
Opened by the Premier of Victoria early in 1928 the Hotel Alexander was immediately
the newest, largest and most modern hotel in town with views out over bay shipping.
Visiting dignitaries were entertained there as a matter of course. It was deemed the
largest hotel in Australia and built to Melbourne's height limit of 132 feet. The contractor
was T. Shillito.
Leslie M. Perrott designed the Alexander Hotel, Australia Hotel and the Chevron. The
hotel's lobby was described as magnificent, `...entered by a wide flight of stairs from
Spencer Street and filled with light through tall windows, it occupied the entire first
floor.' `The Argus' noted later that it was the first hotel in Melbourne to include en-suite
bathrooms to rooms when built.
After its sale in 1952 to the rival Federal Hotel Ltd. for £450,000, Hotel Alexander was
converted into one of the finest luxury-hotels in the Commonwealth and renamed the
Savoy Plaza. Its Rainbow Room and maître d' Albert Argenti became renowned in
Melbourne over the next decade, hosting a who's who of international show business
including Louis Armstrong, Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald. Some young Australians,
such as John Farnham, Rolf Harris and the Seekers, began careers there. Frank
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
99.
Page 121 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Sinatra, performing at nearby Festival Hall, was a guest, as were Ava Gardner, Fred
Astaire, Anthony Perkins and others during the filming of "On the beach".
The hotel as later purchased by Spencer Investments and rebuilt internally as the
Savoy Park Plaza Hotel to designs by McIntyre & McIntyre and reopened May 1991.
Later owners included Tobar Holdings Pty. Ltd. from 2004 when the name changed
again to the Vibe Savoy Hotel.
Designed in the Modern Palazzo style, the Alexander was built from reinforced
concrete, the speciality of Leslie M Perrott, with identical facades to Spencer and Little
Collins Street. Façade embellishments included a projecting cornice at third floor level
which marked the top of the podium, with a matching parapet cornice and balconettes
at the second and tenth floors. Podium level windows were more elaborate reflecting
the internal use for public function rooms.
The Hotel Alexander compares with other Palazzo style city buildings such as the more
ornate and highly significant former AMP Building, 425 Collins Street (1931) but is
earlier than most and some observed that the simpler detailing reflected a more
Modernist approach to architecture. Its near island site allows full expression of the
style in a similar manner to the AMP example, while other Palazzo examples were
more typically street facades only.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1928, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The Hotel Alexander is significant historically, socially and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Hotel Alexander is significant:
Historically and socially as one of the great Melbourne Hotels of the early 20th Century
bringing modernity to City accommodation in a new era of hotel construction. It was
located close to the City and country rail termini and reached new building heights for
hotel use. The Hotel Alexander was where visiting dignitaries and personalities were
housed and entertained as Melbourne's best of the 1920s-1930s. This was the first
20th-century American-style hotel in Victoria, with en-suite bathrooms and a controlled
temperature environment. Reborn as the Savoy Plaza the hotel took on a further
persona associated with international lifestyles and entertainment post Second War;
and
Aesthetically, as an early, well-preserved and good example of the commercial Palazzo
style in the city, the simple detailing reflecting a more Modernist approach to
architecture. Its near island site allows full expression of the style.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
100.
Page 122 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Elms Family Hotel, 267-271 Spring Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1078
What is significant?
This two storey corner hotel was designed by the architect, Harry James, and built by
W.B. Harford for Emma Elms in 1924-1925. It replaced an earlier Elms Family Hotel
and, before that, Heffernan's Old Governor Bourke Hotel.
This two storey pressed red brick and render hotel is designed after a stylised Old
English or Neo-Tudor mode, with twin high cemented gabled parapet to each street
façade, flanked by brick bartizans surmounted by cast cement balls on piers. Upperlevel windows are configured as T-shaped pairs with a common lintel over a recessed
pair of steel-framed casement windows, each with deeply corbelled brick sills. Cast
cement victory wreaths have been applied to panels below each window pair and the
parapet panels have diamond motifs. The splayed corner rendered panel bears the
hotel name in bas-relief with scrolls top and bottom. Remnant leadlight glazing on the
Little Lonsdale Street façade includes coloured and clear lozenge and rectangle
shapes arranged in an Arts & Crafts manner. Inside the hotel bar, glazed tiled dadoes
possess the original character of the hotel.
The hotel design is stylistically similar to some Sydney Smith & Ogg hotel designs of
the era, and the integrity is high despite changes to ground level joinery (doors,
windows), the openings themselves remain unchanged. Given the high integrity, the
hotel has social significance for its public use since the 1920s.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the hotel construction date 1925, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Elms Family Hotel is significant socially, historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne
Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
Elms Family Hotel is significant:
Socially and historically for its long use as a public house within the City and its
relatively high integrity to that use; and
Aesthetically the hotel design is significant as a well preserved and successful custom
design in a prevailing architectural style of the inter-war period.
Cann's Pty. Ltd. building, 135-137 Swanston Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1079
What is significant?
This originally five-level retail and office building plus basement was constructed in
1919-1920 by the Reinforced Concrete & Monier Pipe Co Pty. Ltd. for drapers Cann's
Pty Ltd. to the design of prolific commercial architect, Nahum Barnet. The ground level
was a series of showcases and there was a mezzanine floor, with an open light well to
the ground level retail floor. Stair and lift shafts were located at the back or west wall,
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
101.
Page 123 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
freeing up the typical floor for subdivision; an extra storey was added during
construction.
Two additional storeys were added in 1934, this time to the design of the eminent
designer, Marcus Barlow, who created a major and nearby part of Swanston Street to
the south with his highly significant Manchester Unity (1932) and Century Buildings
(1938), both on the Victorian Heritage Register. His addition for Cann's was in his
trademark Jazz Moderne style but nonetheless is sympathetic to the original neoBaroque character design. Vertical ribs or streamlines on spandrels replace the original
cement Baroque motifs, with a zigzag parapet profile, and there is the archetypal
flagpole at the corner. Staff luncheon rooms were located in a pent house on the new
roof. The additional storeys are indicative of the quick recovery of commercial building
in the City after the Great Depression.
Cann's building is a good example of a retail and office development, executed initially
in a neo-Baroque mode. The building is rendered and rusticated throughout, being
originally finished in a natural cement grey, similar to the existing. The design centres
upon a curved corner bay-window element, with some multi-pane glazing, set above
the intersection of Swanston and Little Collins Streets with further canted bays or oriels
along the Swanston Street facade. Curved spandrels at each corner bay are adorned
with decorative rectangular panels in a stylised Baroque fashion. A horizontally
undulating cornice with cement scrolls ties the composition together at the original roof
line. Original glazing and joinery appears to have survived throughout the upper
storeys as does the cast-iron balconette balustrade at first floor level. The west
elevation onto the lane is plainly treated.
Barlow specialised in tall thin sometimes corner (Altson's Building) City buildings
achieving a deal of publicity for his narrow frontages in the national `Building'
periodical, particularly in the Edwardian-era. He was also a devotee of reinforced
concrete construction, as in this building.
Marcus Barlow's adjacent Century Building has been described as his finest
Streamlined Moderne example, cementing his reputation as one of Melbourne's most
prominent commercial architects of the inter-war period and as one of the leading
exponents of Jazz and Streamlined Moderne as seen in Cann’s and the Century
Buildings.
The ground floor has been altered but the building's upper level is very intact to its
1930s state at the upper levels. Largely concealed roof top additions and a new awning
undertaken have been added in the recent past.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the key construction dates 1919-1920, 1934, and any new material added in
sympathy to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Cann's building is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone.
Why is it significant?
Cann's building is significant:
Aesthetically as a retail and office development in a successful fusion of the neoBaroque and Moderne styles within Melbourne's CBD, as part of a triptych of Marcus
Barlow designs along Swanston Street and as part of a highly significant Edwardianera and inter-war commercial streetscape that extends from the Leviathan Building at
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
102.
Page 124 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
the Bourke Street corner, down Swanston Street to the Nicholas Building at Flinders
lane; and
Historically, for the close association over a long period with Cann's Pty Ltd, one of the
household names in drapery retailing of the inter-war and immediate post-Second War
period when Melbourne City was the retail centre of Victoria. The staged construction
of the building is also a testimony to the boost in retail sales in the 1930s after the
Great Depression.
Swanston House, Ezywalkin Boot shoe and Slipper Store, 163165 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1080
What is significant?
Swanston House was constructed by AB Robertson at an estimated cost of ǧ18,000 for
the shoe retailer, Ezywalkin Company Pty Ltd, in 1921 to the design of the prolific and
important commercial architect, Nahum Barnet. The reinforced concrete building had
six upper-levels, ground floor and basement. Each floor was served by a concrete
encased lift, entry stair and concrete encased timber escape stair at the rear corner of
the building that also provided lavatory access. The ground level had deep retail show
cases with a recessed entry to allow after hours shopping via a maximised glass
display area. Pavement lights offered daylight to the basement and a cantilever awning
gave shelter over the pavement. An internal balcony ran the full length of the ground
level as a mezzanine or `Gallery' leading to superintending office space at the rear that
overlooked the retail floor. The roof was flat and accessible. Indicative of the minor
boom in retailing at this immediate post First War period were the planned extra two
levels that were never built.
including Walter David Cookes established the Ezywalkin Shoe Company Pty Ltd in
1901. The Melbourne factory was established in 1910 and in 1912 the first Ezywalkin
boot and shoe store was opened in Melbourne. The Ezywalkin factory was in Clifton
Hill and in time there was an extensive network of Ezywalkin shops throughout
Australia. The firm continued until Coles entered the footwear business by purchasing
Ezywalkin in 1981.
This retail and office development is notable for its boldly modelled rendered concrete
façade distinguished by a central projecting oriel bay rising through the intermediate
four storeys of the building to a novel arrangement of arches and projecting cornices at
the roof line. The ruled cement façade also features unusual floral devices in the form
of suspended garlands and the name of the building (Swanston House) in raised
lettering midway up. The ground floor has been extensively modified but the building is
otherwise in good and largely intact condition including the upper-level timber framed
windows.
The Ezywalkin Building is complementary to the significant adjoining Leviathan
Building, at the Bourke Street corner, as part of a highly significant inter-war
streetscape that extends down Swanston Street to the Nicholas Building at Flinders
Lane.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1921-2, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
103.
Page 125 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
Swanston House is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital
City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Swanston House is significant:
Aesthetically for its unusual modelled street façade and as a contributory part of a
highly significant Edwardian-era and inter-war commercial streetscape that extends
from the Leviathan Building, at the Bourke Street corner, down Swanston Street to the
Nicholas Building at Flinders Lane; and
Historically, as a household name in retailing in Swanston Street when the Capital City
Zone was Victoria's premier retailing centre. The building’s creation also has close links
to the personal history of noted businessman and rationalist, Walter Cookes.
George Evans shop and residence row, 309-325 Swanston
Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1081
What is significant?
This two-storey shop and dwelling row is on land first purchased by Port Phillip
speculators TB Payne, Hugh Glass & JS Brodie, along with their purchase of many
other nearby allotments. This corner allotment to Little Lonsdale Street (CA 9/28) sold
for a large ǧ270.
In 1847-8 Hugh Glass sold this site to pioneer Port Phillip District pastoralist George
Evans who mortgaged the property from 1848 to 1852. Evans then sold the property
for a substantial ǧ5500, indicating that this building row was in place. The row was
described in rate records of 1851 as seven 3 and 4-room brick houses, two as shop
and house, and another with a 4 stall stable.
A Launceston builder, George Evans, co-founded the settlement that became
Melbourne in 1835. At his death in 1876, Evans was described as one of the `earliest
pioneers of Melbourne'.
This shop and dwelling row is designed in a rare Regency style within the Capital City
Zone. With cemented façade and face brick rear walls, Regency detailing on the row
includes the shell motif in the tympanum of upper-level windows (some gone), inverse
scrolls either side of the parapet orb, brackets at the top of the pilaster blocks at first
floor level, inverse consoles terminating pilasters above the upper-level impost line,
and boldly formed scrolling to the upper-level window architraves. The row is adjacent
to the significant John Knox's Church, Charles Webb's design of 1863 (replacing an
earlier church) and it backs onto the important Sniders & Abrahams factory warehouse
complex.
All shopfronts have been replaced and a new shopfront introduced to the Little
Lonsdale Street elevation. Some shell motifs have been removed from the upper-level
windows. However, sufficient original fabric remains to allow restoration of this row.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date c1851, and any new material added in sympathy to
the original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
104.
Page 126 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
Evans shop and residence row is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
The Evans shop and residence row is significant:
Historically as perhaps the earliest of its type in the Capital City Zone. The historical
link with Port Phillip pioneer George Evans is also notable as one of his first major
development projects in his transition from pastoralist to City developer. Evans was
among the first settlers to set foot in what was to be Melbourne town in the 1830s; and
Aesthetically, for the rare Regency style cement detailing, as a precursor to the more
mainstream Italian Renaissance revival of later cemented commercial façades in the
Capital City Zone.
Melbourne Democratic Club and shops & residences, 401-403
Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1082
What is significant?
Architects Thomas Watts & Sons designed this three-storey building consisting of hall,
shop and dwellings in 1890 described then as five shops and the Democratic Club
rooms; the rooms were entered from a hallway at the north end of the building.
One of similar clubs formed across the nation, the Melbourne Democratic Club was
formed in 1887 to provide a forum for various self education courses. The club was
particularly active in the labour movement during the 1890s Depression when they
acted as a vehicle for debates on how to fix the depressed Colonial economy. Indoor
sport was another facet of the club's activities including national boxing championships.
The aims of the club were stated in 1899 as: ` (a) club, which is conducted for the
political benefit enjoyment and improvement of the working classes'.
The architecture of this three storey brick and render building has been masked to an
extent by the painting of the brick façade. However the cement mouldings and
fenestration provide for an architecturally sophisticated Mannerist Italian Renaissance
revival design with use of segmentally arched and gabled parapet pediments and
acroteria on both street elevations. A parapet balustrade with unusual raised piers is
set above the central Swanston Street façade pediment with other detailing including
pairing of upper-level windows with attached Corinthian order pilasters, moulded
architraves, deeply bracketed sills, and keystones; segmentally arched first level
windows with architraves and keystones; bold vermiculated quoining at first level and
smooth quoining at the second. The building makes a fine complement to the early
Queen Anne revival style of the Oxford Hotel on the next corner north and is visually
related to the inter-war classicism of Druids House adjoining.
The ground level to Swanston Street has been replaced except for the panelled timber
door and doorway to the former club but part of the Little Latrobe Street ground level
survives.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1890, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
105.
Page 127 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
How is it significant?
The Democratic Club building is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
The Democratic Club building is significant:
Historically, as the result of an unusual commission by a private club, and intended as
a vehicle for democratic activity and public education to be financed by commercial
adjuncts to the building, such as the five shops. The Melbourne Democratic Club was a
major venue for indoor sport, debate and public instruction of working people in
Melbourne during the great Depression of the 1890s, playing a role in helping to chart
recovery options for the Colony as well as promoting the cause and recreation of
labourers. This was the only building erected for the club in Melbourne; and
Architecturally, as a well preserved and sophisticated stylistically as part of the shift to
the brick aesthetic of the Queen Anne style via, in this case, a distinctive form of
mannered Italian Renaissance revival architecture.
Druids House, 407-409 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000,
HO1083
What is significant?
The Druids Friendly Society was founded in England in 1781. This institution was part
of the nineteenth century friendly society movement in which the members of each
society provided mutual assistance in times of need in areas of insurance, pensions or
savings, loans or cooperative banking. In essence, the United Ancient Order of Druids
was an early health insurance fund in which a regular, voluntary subscription entitled a
member or his family to an allowance, medical treatment and medicine in the event of
illness and a benefit in the event of a member's death.
Druids House, was built in 1926 as a seven storey headquarters for the Order,
designed by the firm of Gibbs, Finlay, Morsby & Coates, and constructed by EA Watts.
Druids House was located near to other friendly society buildings such as the
Independent Order of Foresters Forester Hall in Latrobe Street and the Guild Hall and
Manchester Unity Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Swanston Street. The Druids
Friendly Society is still active within Victoria but has sold the Swanston Street
headquarters.
Styled in the Greek Revival manner, Druids House is a unique architectural design in
which the building façade serves as a physical expression of the august institution
within. The street elevation takes the form of an abstracted temple front with a heavy,
rusticated plinth treatment to the lowest two storeys, boldly abstracted columns with
recessed window strips rising through the intermediate floors to a shallow pitched
pediment device to the upper floor level. The building is further distinguished by its
detailing and the sculptural relief to its summit. At the parapet centre a free-standing
statue of a hooded Druid is housed within a recess as a significant and distinctive part
of this building.
At ground level a major part of the original entry foyer and shopfront remain, with
terrazzo and tiled floors, lift lobby, three colour Buchan marble wall facing, a significant
stairway with pedestal lights, ornate metalwork, wall mounted directory cases, bronze
and brass joinery and the street awning with its embossed soffit.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
106.
Page 128 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
While temple fronted buildings are not uncommon within the Capital City Zone, the
approach here is unusual for a buildings of these proportions.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1926-1927, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Druids House is significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City
Zone
Why is it significant?
Druids House is significant:
Aesthetically, for its distinctive Greek Revival façade and associated Druid statue,
designed as a direct expression of the character and ideals of the United Ancient Order
of Druids. The building has a high level of integrity and finish for the exterior, lift and
stair lobby; and
Historically, as symbolic of one of the invaluable friendly societies active in Victoria
during early settlement providing access to health and social benefits for the
community.
W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust) Ltd tobacco warehouse, 411-423
Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1084
What is significant?
A prelude to construction this building was the partial collapse of the nearby reinforced
concrete British-Australasian Tobacco Co building project at 435-445 Swanston Street
inspiring Newspaper articles queried the use of this new construction technique for
multi-storey work. The works had been designed by Francis J Davies.
The five-storey tobacco warehouse and basement at the corner of A'Beckett and
Swanston Streets was erected September 1925. It was designed by the same
architect, Francis J Davies, for tobacco company, W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd.; the
builder was Walter E. Cooper and the contract amount ǧ39,000. The persistent use of
reinforced concrete in this building is evocative of the need for fire proof construction in
this industry despite the risks implied by the nearby building collapse in the same year.
The engineering was carried out by H.R. Crawford, who had designed the pioneering
Snider & Abrahams building in Drewery Lane of 1908-9. The structure was the Claude
Turner system of reinforcing column and slab connections, with half inch bar reinforcing
rings at each chamfered column head and flat slabs beyond.
An upper level typical floor had four lifts and two concrete encased stair shafts, one
serving as the lobby in the south-east corner of the building. A large men's lavatory
block was near the main stairs while the `Girl's' lavatories were in the far corner next to
a single lift. At ground level six offices lined the Swanston and part of the A'Beckett
Street frontages, with the entry lobby, ornamental stair and lift abutting a large strong
room on the south wall. At the north-west corner was the goods entrance and there
was liberal use of sliding fire shutters on fusible links throughout.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
107.
Page 129 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The building adopts a conservative style for an inter-war warehouse design with
Edwardian Free Style pylon-towers with ox-bow parapets at either end of its otherwise
plain rendered façade. It has a massive bracketed parapet cornice seemingly
supported on piers that extend the height of the building, providing continuous strips for
location of windows and intervening spandrel panels. The building has a similar but
plainer elevation to A'Beckett Street. The imposing corner structure is realised in
rendered reinforced concrete with multi-pane steel-framed windows throughout.
The building is in good and largely original condition although the cantilevering
concrete canopy at the former lobby entry and associated joinery have been removed,
as has the firm's name from the parapet panels at the north-west and south-east
corners.
W.D. & H.O. Wills and its parent British American Tobacco were among the major
tobacco companies active in Australia during the 20th century.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1924-1925, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
The W.D. and H.O. Wills building is significant historically and of aesthetic interest
within the Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
The W.D. and H.O. Wills building is significant:
Historically for its long and close association with the tobacco firm W.D. and H.O. Wills
within the Central Business District, as well as the controversy surrounding the
architect, Davies, with another tobacco warehouse that collapsed shortly before the
erection of this building. The early use of flat slab Turner reinforced construction
method is also of historic interest.
The W.D. and H.O. Wills building is of interest:
Aesthetically, 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.
County Court Hotel , later Oxford Hotel, Oxford Scholar Hotel,
427-433 Swanston Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1085
What is significant?
The County Court Hotel was constructed by H Maxwell, as hotel and two shops, for a
Mrs Hill in 1887 to the design of eminent architect, Charles D'Ebro, and on the site of
an earlier hotel of the same name. The hotel adopted the name, Oxford Hotel, in 1892
under licensee, Mrs M Norris. This was not long after the Working Men's College had
opened opposite in June 1887 to take the first students and vastly extended its role in
the following year. The hotel played a key role in student social life since that date.
The building presents a well-resolved English Queen Anne Revival parapeted façade
to each of its street frontages, as expressed by the use of face red brick with cemented
classical mouldings in contrast to the prevailing all-rendered hotel examples that also
drew on classical detailing. The design centres upon a corner entry element rising to a
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
108.
Page 130 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
massive foliated, raised and gabled cement pediment at the parapet with the words
`erected 1887' in raised lettering. The parapet has a deep bracketed cornice, gablets
set over façade bays, and a deep parapet entablature. Cemented red brick chimney
pieces form a part of the picturesque building outline created by the gabled main
pediment and parapet gablets.
The hotel ground floor retains early smooth rustication, arched window groupings within
façade bays, ornate cemented architraves and the aedicules above many of the
windows and doors provide for a high overall integrity for a City hotel. The upper
storeys have also retained a high level of integrity with first floor level windows
possessing decorative pediments while those at second floor level are simpler with a
linking string mould and the signature Queen Anne scroll details to sills. New ground
level openings have been created in a visually related manner along the Swanston
Street north façade. A large development is underway (2011) adjoining the hotel,
meaning demolition of rear service buildings.
The County Court Hotel is contemporary with another important Queen Anne pioneer
design, Queen Bess Row in East Melbourne, which was built 1886-87 and designed by
the Melbourne architects Tappin Gilbert & Dennehy.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1887, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
County Court Hotel, later Oxford Hotel, is significant socially and historically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone and aesthetically to Victoria.
Why is it significant?
County Court Hotel, later Oxford Hotel is significant:
Aesthetically, as an early, successful and well preserved example of English Queen
Anne revival as applied to a corner Capital City Zone hotel. This is exemplified by the
face brickwork which accentuates, by way of contrast, the high standard of cemented
mouldings. The design is a precursor to highly significant designs executed by D'Ebro
immediately before and after the 1890s depression; and
Historically and socially, as a building that has served continuously as a hotel since
1887, paralleling the development of the nearby Working Men's College and attracting
public memories over an extended period, as meeting and community gathering place.
State Electricity Commission of Victoria building, later Lyle
House, 22-32 William Street, Melbourne 3000, HO1086
What is significant?
In a policy speech in Castlemaine in June 1918, (later Sir) HSW Lawson announced
his Government's intention to create a State Government power system.
It quickly became clear that suitable accommodation would be required for the
Melbourne staff of the Electricity Commission and in November 1920 plans were
prepared for an eight storey (with more to follow) office building to be erected at the
corner of William Street and Flinders Lane. This was next to the Western Market, the
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
109.
Page 131 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Melbourne Customs House, and the Port Authority Building (occupied by the SEC 1983
to 1987) as part of a government and local government building group.
The building design was prepared by AR La Gerche, who was appointed architect to
the Commission in November 1920 and served in that position until his retirement in
August 1938.
The William Street building provided the usual clerical, administrative and engineering
office areas required by a large utility, but was unique in that it housed the central
control room of the Commission's power production pool. Data relating to generation
and regulation was fed to the control room by land and radio lines and staff on duty
would continuously regulate voltage, carry out system switching procedures, locate and
rectify faults throughout the generating facilities, transmission lines, stations and
substations that comprised the power production pool.
The building took the form of a large but simplified modern Commercial Palazzo form
with restrained Greek revival detailing. Key features of the Commercial Palazzo style
found here include the vertical tripartite division of the façade into a heavy rusticated
base and neutral intermediate floors surmounted by a prominent classical cornice.
Each of the two principal facades was distinguished by a central metal-framed and clad
window panel rising through the full height of the intermediate floors. Two additional
matching floors were added to the building 1948-1949 but few other external changes
have been undertaken and the building remains in good and largely original condition.
Details like the heavy panelled bronze clad door to the south William Street entry are
notable.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1921, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
State Electricity Commission of Victoria building is significant historically and
aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone
Why is it significant?
The former State Electricity Commission of Victoria building is significant:
Aesthetically, as an early and good example of Greek Revival details applied to a
Commercial Palazzo form within Melbourne's Capital City Zone; and
Historically, as one of a small number of 20th century multi-storey government offices
erected in the pre World War Two era. The building has a long association with the
expansion of the State Electricity Commission and development of the state power
system.
Dillingham Estates House, Former, 114-128 William Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1087
What is significant?
Yuncken Freeman Architects Pty Ltd., were the designers of this 24 storey office
building in the 1970s. The partner in charge was Barry Patten and the design architect,
Llew Morgan.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
110.
Page 132 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
The building, then called Dillingham Estates House, housed the Dillingham Corporation
of Australia Ltd. a group of companies involved in building construction, engineering,
dredging, ship building, mining, real estate, property development, earth moving, road
building , quarrying and cattle stations. This building was a product of the 1960s, early
1970s mineral and energy boom of the time.
Placement of the service core centrally maximised the extent of full height glass
windows on all four façades. This in turn allowed full expression of the archetypal
commercial glass box but unlike the 1950s predecessors (such as 100 Collins Street),
this was a `skin' building that was not transparent and did not reveal its structure
except as implied on the external walls. The windows were set in aluminium clad
panels on a strict module, placing the aluminium and glass surfaces, seemingly into
one gleaming plane or skin. There was no reference to a traditional window as a
framed wall opening except for the chair or vertigo rail.
Fire separation between floors was achieved by turning the fire wall down below the
floor level so rentable floor measurement was taken from the chair rail and not the
typically thicker spandrel or fire wall which fell within the false ceiling space below. This
achieved spectacular floor to ceiling glazing at dizzy heights over the street below.
Unlike the naturally ventilated early 1950s glass boxes there was now a service
chamber above the ceiling housing air-conditioning ducts. This chamber was, in turn,
reflected on the external elevation as horizontal bands of aluminium and served to
obscure part of the structure (floor slab) and, in effect, took its place. Hence the façade
presents the impression of a structural grid rather than the transparent façade of the
1950s, revealing the structure behind.
Estates House is located in a paved and landscaped plaza of the same era shared with
its architectural mentor, BHP House, to provide an unequalled grouping of this style of
office block in its original plaza setting. A six-level parking block to the east is in a
related minimalist style while a shuttered ramp leads to basement parking under
Estates House itself. The ground level interior has changed with minor external
additions and limited unrelated corporate signage
Although Estates House was superficially similar to Eagle Star and part of the Barry
Patten stable of Mies Van der Rohe architectural inspirations, it nevertheless has the
qualities of all of these buildings while having the advantage of a free standing site, like
BHP, that displayed fully the shining glass and aluminium skin wrapped on a simple
rectangular shaft. Yuncken Freeman had an unequalled national reputation for superb
architectural detailing and classically simple forms. This building is well-preserved and
a very good example of a distinct and valuable body of work within the commercial
architectural idiom that has no equal in Victoria.
Estates House is a key part of a group of highly significant Modernist office designs in
this part of the finance district of the Central Business District, including many by
Yuncken Freeman: they include Royal Insurance Group Building, BHP Building, Eagle
Star, the AMP tower and St. James building complex by Skidmore Owings and Merrill.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1973-1976, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Estates House is significant aesthetically to the Melbourne Central Business District
and Victoria.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
111.
Page 133 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Why is it significant?
Estates House is significant:
Aesthetically as one of the three superb Yuncken Freeman International Modern styled
multi-storeyed office buildings within the Central Business District which is
distinguished by its flush aluminium and glass façade displayed to full effect on an
island corner site within the financial centre of the Central Business District. The
building is also part of a highly significant International Modern styled office group.
Spier and Crawford, warehouse, 259 William Street, Melbourne
3000, HO1088
What is significant?
Wine and spirit merchants, Spier and Crawford, commissioned architect Nahum Barnet
to design this four storey brick warehouse and Smith and Upton of Collingwood to build
it, commencing in mid 1888. New owners, liquor merchants Fogarty and Doyle Pty Ltd,
remained there into the 1960s.
The designer, Nahum Barnet, was one of the most prolific architects of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Barnet uses his favourite Victorian-era
architectural vocabulary on this early commission. The English Queen Anne or
Baroque period provided exaggerated classical detailing in this strongly modelled
façade. The main architectural forms within the strong tripartite massing of the
elevation include scrolls to the parapet, relatively restrained twin pediments beneath,
and more impressive gables supported by Barnet's distinctive long consoles (see Moss
White factory), near ground level. A ground floor window arch with foliated spandrels
and an iron palisade fence are valuable period details.
Unlike many Capital City Zone warehouses from this period the ground level has not
been drastically altered. At the rear however, the arched former loading doors are now
long windows.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1889, and any new material added in sympathy to the
original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
Spier and Crawford's warehouse is significant historically and aesthetically to the
Melbourne Capital City Zone.
Why is it significant?
Spier and Crawford's warehouse is significant:
Aesthetically for its well-preserved and strong architectural expression of Baroque and
English Queen Anne revival forms by the eminent architect, Nahum Barnet, and
Historically as a particularly well-preserved example of a commercial warehouse and
offices long associated with the Melbourne and Victorian wine industry.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
112.
Page 134 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
James White's hay and corn store, 261 William Street,
Melbourne 3000, HO1089
What is significant?
This shop and dwelling was constructed in 1854-5 as, architecturally, a contiguous part
of the Metropolitan Hotel (opened on this site in October 1854) but used as a separate
retail shop at the south end, for James White, a hay and corn dealer.
An 1881 view shows the store with an entrance at the north end of the shop façade
with a display window adjoining. The upper-level has a dressed stone string and
parapet cornice mould and two double-hung sash windows each pulled half-way up;
the roof, like that of the hotel, is hipped with a slate roof. The name `A Harris' is placed
above the display window and just under the parapet cornice on the upper-level: three
suspended orbs denote that this was a pawn shop. Harris is noted for his house
Rosaville (1882-83) now part of Medley Hall, Carlton and designed by Nahum Barnet.
The parapeted shop and dwelling is finished in dressed and tuck-pointed stone with
slate to its hipped roof. The building is a typical example of a small early Victorian-era
shop and residence, made distinctive by its dressed stone facade construction. The
small scale of the building compared to the adjoining replacement hotel building is of
note showing the evidently higher ceilings of the mid Victorian-era compared to this
early colonial building.
The ground level wall has been rendered, the stone upper-level has been painted, the
double-hung sash windows at the first floor have been sheeted over but their original
dressed stone sills survive. The carved stone cornice and parapet are intact. Signs
have been added.
Despite these largely reversible alterations and additions, the building remains legible
as one of the oldest shops in Melbourne, made more distinctive by the dressed stone
construction that is firmly linked with early Melbourne building. This was before the
Italian influence meant cemented facades were used almost exclusively for City
commercial buildings in the mid to late Victorian-era. The former hay and corn store
retains its early form and much of its original detail and is generally in good condition.
Contributory elements
The contributory elements within this property include, but are not restricted to, external
fabric from the construction date 1854-1855, and any new material added in sympathy
to the original fabric it replaced.
How is it significant?
James White's hay and corn store, part of former Metropolitan Hotel, is significant
historically to the Melbourne Central Business District.
Why is it significant?
James White's hay and corn store, once part of the old Metropolitan Hotel, is
significant:
Historically as one of the oldest group of shops and dwellings within Melbourne's
Central Business District, in this case the remnant of the Metropolitan Hotel
development which coincided with the opening of the first Melbourne Exhibition
Building once located opposite in William Street. The building's small scale juxta-posed
with the later rebuilt Metropolitan Hotel adjoining, and dressed stone construction
remind us of how different early colonial buildings were from those of the Victorian-era,
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
113.
Page 135 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
post gold rush. The combination of a Colonial freehold shop & dwelling with a hotel
development is also uncommon.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS – CLAUSE 81 - SCHEDULE
114.
Page 136 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
02/08/2012
C210
SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 81.01
Name of document
Introduced by:
346-376 Queen Street, 334-346 LaTrobe Street and 142-171 A'Beckett
Street Open Lot Car Park, Melbourne
NPS1
80 Collins Street Melbourne Development, June 2011
C182
Advertising Signs - Mercedes-Benz, 135-149 KingsWay, Southbank
C103
Big Day Out Music Festival, January 2006
C112
Building Envelope Plan – Replacement Plan No.1, DDO 20 Area 45
NPS1
Car Parking in the Capital City Zone, May 2002
C10
Car Parking in the Docklands Zone
C92
Car parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 – Royal Melbourne
Showgrounds
C8
Car Parking provision for residential development in specific inner city
areas of Melbourne Parking Precinct Plan July 2009
C133
Carlton Brewery Comprehensive Development Plan October 2007
C126
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011: Statements of
Significance
C186
Charles Grimes Bridge Underpass, December 2011
C191
Cliveden Hill Private Hospital, 29 Simpson Street, East Melbourne, July
1999
C6
Crown Casino Third Hotel, September 2007
C136
David Jones Melbourne City Store Redevelopment, May 2008
C139
Dynon Port Rail Link Project
C113
Emporium Melbourne Development, July 2009
C148
Federation Arch and Sports and Entertainment Precinct Signs, April 2002
C66
Flinders Gate car park, Melbourne, July 1999
C6
Former Fishmarket Site, Flinders Street Melbourne, September 2002
C68
Former Herald and Weekly Times building, 46-74 Flinders Street,
Melbourne, August 2002
C69
Former Olympic Swimming Stadium, Collingwood Football Club signage,
April 2004
C91
Former Queen Victoria Hospital Site - Open Lot Car Park, Melbourne
NPS1
Former Southern Cross Hotel site, Melbourne, March 2002
C64
Former Victoria Brewery site, East Melbourne – ‘Tribeca’ Redevelopment
October 2003
C86
Freshwater Place, Southbank, August 2001
C51
Hamer Hall Redevelopment July 2010
C166
Heritage Places Inventory July 2008
C134
High wall signs - 766 Elizabeth Street, Carlton
NPS1
Hilton on the Park Complex Redevelopment, December 2004
C101
Hobsons Road Precinct Incorporated Plan, March 2008
C124
Hotham Estate
C134
Incorporated Plan Overlay No. 1 – 236-254 St Kilda Road
NPS1
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS - CLAUSE 81.01 - SCHEDULE
PAGE 1 OF 3
Page 137 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Name of document
Introduced by:
Judy Lazarus Transition Centre, March 2005
C102
Kensington Banks Development Plan (Subdivisions)
NPS1
Lynch’s Bridge Development Plan, June 1995. Revised December 2001
C134
M1 Redevelopment Project, October 2006
C120
Major Promotion Signs, December 2008
C147
Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Shrine Vista Details and St
Kilda Road Preservation of Shrine Vista (Plans)
NPS1
Melbourne Aquarium Signs, July 2001
C11
Melbourne Central redevelopment, March 2002
C62
Melbourne City Link Project – Advertising Sign Locations, November
2003
VC20
Melbourne Convention Centre Development, Southbank and North Wharf
redevelopment, Docklands, April 2006
C116
Melbourne Girls Grammar – Merton Hall Campus Master Plan, June
2002
C22
Melbourne Grammar School Master Plan - Volume One, Senior School
South Yarra Campus, Issue Date 14 October 2003.
C90
Melbourne Park Redevelopment February 2010
C159
Melbourne Recital Hall and MTC Theatre project , August 2005
C111
Mirvac, Residential Towers, 236-254 St. Kilda Road, Southbank
NPS1
Moonee Ponds Creek Concept Plan
C134
Myer Melbourne Bourke Street store redevelopment, Melbourne, October
2007
C137
North West Corner of Mark and Melrose Street, North Melbourne
C134
Promotional Panel sign, Crown Allotment 21D, Power Street, Southbank,
July 1999
C6
Rectangular Pitch Stadium Project: Olympic Park and Gosch’s Paddock,
Melbourne, August 2007
C130
Regional Rail Link Project Section 1 Incorporated Document, June 2012
C210
Rialto South Tower Communications Facility Melbourne, November 2002
C57
Royal Melbourne
December 2004
–
C100
Royal Melbourne Showgrounds Redevelopment Project – December
2004
C100
Scots Church Site Redevelopment, Melbourne, August 2007
C129
Simplot Australia head office, Kensington, October 2001
C52
Sky sign - 42 Clarendon Street, South Melbourne
NPS1
Spencer Street Station redevelopment, August 2007
C130
Sports and Entertainment Precinct, Melbourne, August 2007
C130
State Coronial Services Centre Redevelopment Project, August 2007.
C130
State Netball and Hockey Centre, Brens Drive Royal Park, Parkville, May
2000
C26
The Alfred Hospital Helipad Flight Path Protection Areas Plan, Vertical
View, reference No. AOS/00/015, dated 7-9-2001 and The Alfred
Hospital Helipad Flight Path Protection Areas Plan, Profile View,
C18
Showgrounds
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS - CLAUSE 81.01 - SCHEDULE
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
PAGE 2 OF 3
Page 138 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
Name of document
Introduced by:
reference No. AOS/00/016, dated 7-9-2001
The Games Village Project, Parkville, September 2006
C115
The New Royal Children’s Hospital Project, Parkville, October 2007
C128
Tram Route 109 Disability Discrimination Act compliant Platform Tram
Stops, August 2007
C130
University of Melbourne Bio 21 Project Parkville, November 2001
C53
University of Melbourne, University Square Campus, Carlton, November
1999
C17
Yarra Park Master Plan Implementation September 2010
C158
Young and Jackson’s Hotel, Promotional Panel Sky sign, Melbourne, July
1999
C6
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS - CLAUSE 81.01 - SCHEDULE
PAGE 3 OF 3
Page 139 of 273
Amendment C186
List of changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme
Clause / Map
Numbers
Map No. 8H01
22.04
Change
PLANNING SCHEME MAP CHANGES
Amend Planning Scheme Map No8HO1, as shown on the attached map marked “Melbourne Planning
Scheme, Amendment C186”
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Amend Clause 22.04 by inserting the following wording under Policy after the words “…Review 1993”:
”except for the buildings detailed in the incorporated document titled Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage
Review 2011: Statements of Significance, in which case the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review
2011: Statements of Significance will apply.”
Include the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review as a Policy Reference.
Heritage Overlay
Schedule
Clause 81.01
Schedule
List of
Amendments
Comment
Amends the planning scheme maps to apply
the Heritage Overlay to 98 new heritage
places.
Amends Clause 22.04, Heritage Places within
the Capital City Zone, by requiring the
incorporated document titled Central City
(Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011:
Statements of Significance to be taken into
account and by including as a reference the
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review
2011.
OVERLAYS
The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is amended to include 98 new places. External paint controls apply but
none of the other requirements in the schedule will apply.
Applies the Heritage Overlay to include an
additional 98 new heritage places.
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS
Insert: Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011: Statements of Significance
Introduces incorporated document
LIST OF AMENDMENTS (Information to accompany amendment)
Insert:
Amendment number “C186”, In operation from DATE with the brief description, “Amends Clause 22.04 and
introduces 98 new heritage places to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.”
Updates list of amendments to the planning
scheme
Page 140 of 273
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:
ƒ
Insert the following wording after the words “…..Review 1993” in fourth dot point under the
heading “Policy”: “except for the buildings detailed in the incorporated document titled
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011: Statements of Significance, in which case
the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011: Statements of Significance will apply.”
ƒ
Include the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 as a Policy Reference.
3.
In Overlays – insert the 98 new entries into the table to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 as shown on
the attached document.
4.
In Incorporated Documents – Clause 81.01, replace the schedule with a new schedule in the form
of the attached document.
End of document
Page 141 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PROVISION
ST
VICTO
R
IA
PDE
ST
ANS
SW
Z AB
ELI
QUEE
N
TON
ST
22
O110044
HHO
ETH
RRY
THE
025
HO1
43
HO10
02244
HHOO110
023
1
O
H
008855
1
1
O
O
HH
008844
1
1
O
O
HH
002222
HHOO11
IN
NKL
A
R
F
ST
008833
1
1
O
O
HH
008822
HHOO11
93
HO9
EEN
QU
C KE
AB E
02 1
1
O
H
94
HO9
TT
ST
020
1
O
H
95
HO9
0 19
H O1
006600
1
1
O
O
HH
ST
8855
HHOO99
T
LA
RO
BE
018
1
O
H
061
1
O
H
LE
LITT
59
HHO10
ST
049
1
O
H
tral
C en
r ne
u
o
b
Mel
tion
Sta
St.
ncis
Fra
006633 OO11008811
1
1
O
O
HH
HH
rch
C hu
001144
1
1
O
O
HH
017
1
O
H
ST
045
H O1
LE
SDA
N
O
L
0
50
100
metres
ST
LE
ST
S DA
LON
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
LEGEND
HO
HERITAGE OVERLAY
AMENDMENT C186
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
001
Page 142 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
ST
008899
HHOO11
nty
Cou urt
Co
1051
HO
0064
1
O
H
ST
008888
1
1
O
O
HH
n
ldre
Chi urt
Co
LE
SDA
N
LO
ETH
ZAB
ELI
006622
1
1
O
O
HH
EEN
QU
M
LIA
WIL
LE
LITT
ST
ST
rne
bou
Mel istrate
Mag ourt
C
L
SDA
N
O
L
1071
O
H
E
054
1
O
H
e
rem
Sup urt
o
C
0
30
44
HHO10
050
HHO1
070
1
O
H
16
HO10
1053
HO 1
052
HO 1
60
metres
ST
LITT
005
1
O
H
006
1
O
H
KE
OUR
B
LE
E
ST
ST
RK
BOU
004
1
O
H
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
LEGEND
HO
HERITAGE OVERLY
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
AMENDMENT C186
002
Page 143 of 273
0(/%2851(3/$11,1*6&+(0(/2&$/3529,6,21
ST
++22
ST
G
M
LIA
WIL
L
KE
EN
QU E
KIN
LITT
R
OU
EB
+2
2
2
++
++22
ST
2
2
++
++22
RKE
R
NCE
TL
LLIN
S
++22
+
2
ET
RK
++22
SPE
LIT
O
EC
++22
MA
2
+
++22
2
2
++
2
2
++
LA
ST
++22
ST
++22
S
DER
++22
2
2
++
2
2
++
++22
NDE
FLI
RS
ST
F LIN
2
+
ST
S
LIN
L
O
C
ST
ST
B OU
2
2
+
+
2
2
+
+
2
2
++
U
YH
5L
ST
U UD
<D
0
50
100
metres
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
/(*(1'
+2
+(5,7$*(29(5/$<
$0(1'0(17&
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
Page 144 of 273
0(/%2851(3/$11,1*6&+(0(
/2&$/3529,6,21
ETH
ZAB
ELI
QUE
EN
2
2
++
ST
2
2
++
S
LLIN
CO
LA
+22
++22
ST
S
DER
FLIN
++22
ST
ST
RS
NDE
I
L
F
++22
0
40
80
metres
5LYH
U
D
<DUU
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
/(*(1'
+2
+(5,7$*(29(5/$<
$0(1'0(17&
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
Page 145 of 273
0(/%2851(3/$11,1*6&+(0(/2&$/3529,6,21
ST
G
R IN
SP
I
EXH
BE
RO
T
LA
ION
BIT
2
2
++
0
40
ST
80
2
2
++
metres
2
2
++
ST
LL
SSE
RU
ST
TL E
L IT
LE
DA
S
LON
2
2
++
LE
ST
ST
DA
NS
O
L
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
/(*(1'
+2
+(5,7$*(29(5/$<
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
$0(1'0(17&
Page 146 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PROVISION
ST
SSE
RU
LL
RK
BOU
E
L
LITT
E
ST
AN
SW
000022
HHOO11
ON
000011
HHOO11
9988
HHOO99
7
OO99997
H
H
000000
HHOO11
9999
HHOO99
E
URK
BO
9966
HHOO99
006644
HHOO11
ST
ST
008800
1
1
O
O
HH
IN S
OLL
ST
C
LE
LITT
0
80
metres
ST
007799
1
1
O
O
HH
40
ST
S
LLIN
CO
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
LEGEND
HO
HO
HERITAGE OVERLAY
AMENDMENT C186
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
006
Page 147 of 273
MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PROVISION
IBIT
EXH
I ON
L
LITT
IN
OLL
EC
ING
SPR
ST
005555
1
1
O
O
HH
002288
1
1
O
HH
S
ST
ST
002277
1
O
O
HH
S
LIN
COL
LA
003300
HHOO11
L
SEL
RUS
007722
1
O
O
HH
N
FLI
002266
1
1
O
O
HH
S
DER
ST
00332
1
1
O
O
HH
003333
HHOO11
ST
003366
HHOO11
ST
034
1
O
H
035
1
O
H
0
40
80
metres
S
D ER
FLIN
Part of Planning Scheme Map 8HO2
LEGEND
HO
HERITAGE OVERLAY
AMENDMENT C186
PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SERVICES
Statutory Systems
Planning, Heritage and Urban Design
Department of Planning and Community Development
007
Page 148 of 273
Attachment 3
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
4 September 2012
PlanningandEnvironmentAct1987
PanelReport
MelbournePlanningScheme
AmendmentC186
‘IndividualHeritagePlaces’
11July2012
Page 149 of 273
PlanningandEnvironmentAct1987(theAct)
PanelReportpursuanttoSections153and155oftheAct
AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme
‘IndividualHeritagePlaces’
JenniferAMoles,Chair
RayTonkin,Member
Page 150 of 273
Contents
1
Page
AmendmentSummary................................................................................................1
2
Background.................................................................................................................4
2.1 BackgroundtotheproposedAmendment.............................................................4
2.2 DetailsoftheAmendment......................................................................................5
2.3 Processingbytheplanningauthority......................................................................6
2.4 Panelprocessingandreport....................................................................................6
3
Policycontext.............................................................................................................9
3.1 Planningpolicyframework......................................................................................9
3.2 OtherPlanningSchemeprovisions.......................................................................13
4
Generalissues...........................................................................................................15
4.1 Adequacyofthe2011Review...............................................................................15
4.2 Otherchallengestoproposedlistings...................................................................29
5
Placesfromtheperiodto1852:’FrontierTown’.......................................................40
5.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................40
5.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................40
5.3 Writtensubmissiononly.......................................................................................40
5.4 Nosubmissions......................................................................................................40
6
Placesfrom1852Ͳ1859:‘Gold’..................................................................................41
6.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................41
6.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................41
6.3 Writtensubmissiononly.......................................................................................44
6.4 Nosubmissions......................................................................................................45
7
Placesfrom1860Ͳ1899:‘BoomandBust’..................................................................46
7.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................46
7.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................48
7.3 Writtensubmissionsonly......................................................................................54
7.4 Agreementathearing...........................................................................................55
7.5 Nosubmissions......................................................................................................55
8
Placesfrom1900Ͳ1929:‘TheCityBeautiful’..............................................................56
8.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................56
8.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................58
8.3 Writtensubmissionsonly......................................................................................75
8.4 Nosubmissions......................................................................................................78
AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 151 of 273
9
Placesfrom1930Ͳ1956:‘TheNewImage’..................................................................79
9.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................79
9.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................80
9.3 Writtensubmissionsonly......................................................................................82
9.4 Nosubmissions......................................................................................................82
10
Placesfrom1956Ͳ1975:’TheUrbanSpurt’................................................................83
10.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment.........................83
10.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing........................................................................83
10.3 Writtensubmissionsonly......................................................................................99
10.4 Nosubmissions....................................................................................................101
11
Generalconclusionsandrecommendations............................................................102
11.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................................102
11.2 Recommendations..............................................................................................103
AppendixA Listofbuildingproposedforinclusion
AppendixB
DocumentList
AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 152 of 273
1 AmendmentSummary
TheAmendment
MelbournePlanningSchemeAmendmentC186
PurposeofAmendment Inclusion of an additional 99 places in the Heritage Overlay and
inclusion of initiating study and one building investigation as
referencedocuments
TheProponent
MelbourneCityCouncil
PlanningAuthority
MelbourneCityCouncil
Exhibition
1September–14October2011
ThePanel
JenniferMoles
(Chair)
RayTonkin
Appointed23January2012
Panelhearings
DirectionsHearing21February2012
Hearings26Ͳ30Marchand2,16–17and20April2012
FinalCorrespondence
26April2012
Siteinspections
27 and 29 February, 16 March and 12 and 20 April 2012. The site
inspections included all buildings for which interior controls are
proposed(whetherornottherewasasubmission)andallbuildings
for which only external controls are proposed where submissions
werereceived.
Dateofthisreport
11July2012
Appearances
MrPeterO’Farrell,barrister,appearedfortheCityofMelbourneby
directinstruction.HecalledMrGraemeButler,GraemeButlerand
Associates,heritageconsultants,togiveexpertevidence.
Mr Greg Tobin, Harwood Andrews, lawyers, and Mr Paul Roser,
Conservation Manager for the National Trust, appeared for the
National Trust of Australia (Victoria). They tendered an expert
reportbyMrRohanStorey,heritageconsultant,relatingtomostof
the buildings in contention. Mr Storey was not called to give
evidenceduetoillhealth.
Messrs Rupert Mann and Tristan Davies, both members of the
executive of the group Ͳ Melbourne Heritage Action, appeared in
person.
Ms Susan Brennan, barrister, instructed by Norton Rose, lawyers,
appearedfor:
ƒ VapoldPtyLtd,ownerof104ExhibitionStreet
ƒ TackellyNo6PtyLtd,ownerof114WilliamStreet
ƒ ISPT Pty Ltd, owner of 433Ͳ455 Collins Street and 267Ͳ271
SpringStreet.
Shecalledthefollowingexpertwitnesses:
ƒ Professor Miles Lewis, architectural historian (re 433Ͳ455
CollinsStreet)
Page1of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 153 of 273
ƒ Mr Mark Sheldon, structural engineer (re 433Ͳ455 Collins
Street)
ƒ MrPeterBarrett,architecturalhistorian(re114Williamand
104ExhibitionStreet).
Ms Jane Sharp, barrister, instructed by Hansen Partnership,
appearedforGoodyearPropertiesPtyLtd,owner441Ͳ447Elizabeth
Street.ShecalledtheMrMichaelTaylor,heritagearchitect,togive
expertevidence.MsSharpalsoappearedoninstructionbySackville
WilksLawyersforShiffNomineesPtyLtd,theownerof9Ͳ13Drewery
Lane and 2Ͳ20 Drewery Place. She called Mr Peter Barrett,
architecturalhistorian,togiveexpertevidence.
MrAndrewWalker,barrister,oninstructionofHansenPartnership,
appeared for Ace Body Corporate Management, the Owners’
Corporation for 473Ͳ481 Elizabeth Street. He called Mr Peter
Barrett,architecturalhistorian,togiveexpertevidence.
Mr Gary Testro, lawyer, appeared for the Law Institute of Victoria
Ltd, the owner of 468Ͳ470 Bourke Street. He called Ms Helen
Lardner,HLCDPtyLtd,heritagearchitect,togiveexpertevidence.
MrPhilBisset,MinterEllison,lawyers,appearedfortheCelticClub,
owner of 316Ͳ322 Queen Street. He called Mr Peter Lovell, Lovell
Chen,heritageconsultants,togiveexpertheritageevidence.
MrDominicScally,BestHooper,lawyers,appearedforWaynesbury
PtyLtd,ownerof99Ͳ101FlindersLane.HecalledMrPeterLovellto
giveexpertheritageevidence.
Sandra Rigo, Hansen Partnership, appeared for Victoria University,
owner of 372Ͳ378 Little Lonsdale Street. She called the following
expertwitnesses:
ƒ MrMichaelTaylor,heritagearchitect,and
ƒ MrDarylJackson,architect.
Mr Edgar Gottschalk, Urbis, appeared for Enwerd Pty Ltd and SHL
Nominees(1965)PtyLtd,ownersof430Ͳ442CollinsStreet.
Mr Marcus Rose, appeared for Victoria Body Corporate Services
actingfortheownersof415–419BourkeStreet.
Mr Paris Kyne, owner of Suite 3, 479 Elizabeth Street, appeared in
person.
Mr James Iles, TGM Group Pty Ltd, appeared for T Corporation Pty
Ltd,ownersof351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet.
MrDanielBowden,SongBowden,appearedforRMIT,ownerofthe
property at 459Ͳ469 Swanston Street and 63Ͳ67 Franklin Street,
another at 411Ͳ423 Swanston Street and a third at 427Ͳ433
SwanstonStreet.HecalledMsAnitaBrady,LovellChen,historian,to
giveexpertevidence.
Mr Chris Karagounis, owner of 261 William Street, requested to be
heardbythePanelbutlateradvisedhedidnotwishtoattend.
Page2of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 154 of 273
Submissions
Inresponsetopublicexhibition,28writtenresponseswerereceived
by the Planning Authority. All were referred to the Panel. 22
opposedtheAmendmentoutright,6supportedit.
AfterthePanelwasappointed,alatesubmissionwasalsoreceived
andreferredbytheCounciltothePanel.
Recommendations
Basedonthereasonssetoutinthisreport,werecommend:
Amendment C186 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme should be
adopted as exhibited subject to the recommendations set out in
Chapter11.2ofthisreport.
Page3of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 155 of 273
2 Background
2.1 BackgroundtotheproposedAmendment
TheCityofMelbournehasundertakenfourcentralcityheritagestudiessince1985:
x 1985: Graeme Butler and Associates: Central Activities District Conservation Study,
1985(the1985Study).
x 1993:PhillipGoad,MilesLewis,AlanMayne,BryceRaworthandJeffTurnbull:Central
CityHeritageStudyReview,November1993(the1993Review).
x 2002:BryceRaworth:ReviewofHeritageOverlayListingsintheCBD,2002(the2002
Review).
x 2011:GraemeButlerandAssociates:CentralCity(HoddleGrid)HeritageReview,2011
(the2011Review).
ThepresentAmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme(PlanningScheme)seeks
toimplementthefindingsofthe2011Reviewwhichisinturninpartbasedontheoutcomes
of the earlier investigations. This is the first time that the recommendations of the four
heritagestudieshaveproceededtoanexhibitedamendment.Inadditiontoproposingthat
the98buildingsrecommendedbytheReviewasofatleastlocalsignificance1beincludedin
individualHeritageOverlays,theAmendmentalsoproposestheinclusionoftheCelticClub
at316Ͳ322QueenStreetinanindividualHeritageOverlay.Alateevaluationofthisbuilding
wasdonebyMrButler.
The 2011 Review was commissioned in 2010 and completed in 2011. The Review is
presentedinonevolume.
In
the buildings
were of
of local
local significance,
significance, the
the 2011
2011 Review
Review assessed
assessed
In considering
considering whether
whether the
buildings were
thebuildingsinthecontextofthecentralcityonlyratherthanthewidermunicipality.This
the buildings in the context of the central city only rather than the wider municipality.
wasinrecognitionofthespecialhistoricalroleofthecentralcityasthecentreofVictorian
settlement and the dominating economic engine. No
No party
party at
at the
the Panel
Panel Hearing
Hearing took
took
exception
exception to
to this
this approach
approach –
– indeed
indeed some
some argued
argued that
that the
the central
central city
city setting
setting was
was a
a
consideration in the Panel’s assessment
considerationinthePanel’sassessmentoftheirbuilding.ThePanelsupportsconsideration
ofthebuildings’significancewithinthisdefinedlocalcontext.
The2011Reviewwasprecededbyanenvironmentalhistoryofthecentralcitypreparedasa
consequence of the 1993 Review2. The environmental history discusses the development
historyofthecentralcityunderthefollowingperiodheadings:
x FrontierTownto1852
x Gold1852Ͳ9
1
Six properties were recommended as suitable for recommendation to the Victorian Heritage Register.
ThesewouldalsobeincludedinthePlanningScheme.
2
Melbourne, The City’s History and Development by Miles Lewis with Philip Goad and Alan Mayne, April
1994.
Page4of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 156 of 273
x BoomandBust1860Ͳ1900
x TheCityBeautiful1900Ͳ1929
x TheNewImage1930Ͳ1956
x TheUrbanSpurt1956Ͳ1975
TheCouncilresolvedon7June2011toseekauthorisationtoexhibittheAmendmentwhich
wouldadd99buildingssaidtobeofatleastlocalheritagesignificancetothescheduletothe
Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The Minister
authorisedexhibitionon26July2011.
ExhibitionoftheAmendmenttookplacebetween1September2011and14October2011.
PublicnoticeswereplacedinanumberofnewspapersandintheGovernmentGazette.
Some corrections were made to the mapping during exhibition and relevant owners were
directlynotifiedofthese.
Interimcontrolssought
While the Capital City Zone provisions which currently apply to all of the sites do require
planning permission for buildings and works as well as demolition, they do not call into
consideration heritage issues. We understand that, therefore, prior to exhibition of the
Amendment,theCouncilsoughttheapplicationbytheMinisterofinterimheritagecontrols
forthesubjectproperties.
At the time of the Panel hearing, no response to this request had been received. This
absence of interim controls has allowed works detrimental to the assessed heritage
significancetooccurunregulatedbythePlanningSchemeatleastatthe‘Rosati’propertyat
95Ͳ101FlindersLane.Also,theabsenceofinterimcontrolshasbeenamatterofwhichthe
PanelhashadtobemindfulinconsideringtheoutcomesofthisPanelinvestigationandin
formulatingourrecommendations.
2.2 DetailsoftheAmendment
TheAmendmentproposestheinclusionof99newindividualHeritageOverlays.Inthecase
of 12 places, the interior of the building or part of it is also proposed to be specified as
subjecttoheritagecontrol.Paintcontrolsareproposedtobeappliedtotheexteriorofall
buildings. A complete list of affected properties is included as Appendix A to this report.
TheissueofinteriorcontrolsisdiscussedinSection4.1(ii)ofthisreport.
Specifically,theAmendmentproposesto:
x Add 99 buildings to the schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 of the
PlanningScheme.
x AmendPlanningSchemeMapno8HO1toshowthenewsites.
x InClause22.04HeritagePlacesintheCapitalCityZone,addthefollowingadditional
mattertobetakenintoaccountwhenconsideringapplicationsforbuildings,worksor
demolitiontoheritageplacesasidentifiedintheHeritageOverlay:
Page5of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 157 of 273
The recommendations for individual buildings and controls as detailed in the
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment 316Ͳ
322QueenStreet2010.
x InClause22.04,addtheCentralCity(HoddleGrid)HeritageReview2011andHeritage
Assessment316Ͳ322QueenStreet2010asPolicyReferences.
x Makeotherminorconsequentialadministrativechanges.
2.3 Processingbytheplanningauthority
In response to public exhibition of the Amendment, some 29 public submissions were
received by the Council (28 within the exhibition period). All objected to the inclusion of
buildings in the Heritage Overlay (in some cases more than one building)3 except for the
submissions by the National Trust and Melbourne Heritage Action group which generally
supported the Amendment, and three fully supportive submissions by individuals. One
objectingsubmissionwaslaterwithdrawn.4
(i)
Issuesraisedinwrittensubmissions
Theissuesraisedintheobjectingwrittensubmissionsincluded:
x Absence of adequate heritage significance to warrant introduction of heritage
controls.
x Proposedcontrolswouldlimitfutureredevelopment.
x Planning permits have already been granted for buildings and works on the site
(includingdemolitioninsomeinstances).
(ii)
Councilresponsetosubmissions
The Council considered the submissions at its Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee
meeting of 6 December 2011 and resolved to request the appointment of a panel to
considerthesubmissions.
2.4 Panelprocessingandreport
ThePanelhearingwasconductedoverninenonͲconsecutivedaysinMarchandApril2012.
Inallbut11cases,thesubmittersrequestedtoelaborateontheirwrittensubmissionsatthe
Panelhearing.Inmostcasesexpertevidencewascalledinsupport.
3
TwosubmissionswerefromtheRMIT–theybothdealtwiththesamethreesites.
4
TheowneroftheKingsgateHotelat131KingStreet.
Page6of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 158 of 273
The Panel also heard from the representative of the owner of the building at 351Ͳ357
Elizabeth Street whose late submission was received by the Council and forwarded to the
Panelonlyafter5theothersubmissionshadbeenreferredtoaPanel.
(i)
DeclarationbyPanelmember
Atthedirectionshearing,MrTonkinadvisedthathehadactedasaconsultanttotheCityof
Melbourne in April 2010 when he had provided advice on options for the City to provide
heritageassistance. The advice did not relate to any particular property. He also advised
that,whileinhisformerpositionasExecutiveDirector,HeritageVictoria,hehaddealtwitha
numberofcentralcityheritageissuesandwaswellfamiliarwithmuchofthebuildingstock
inthearea,hehadnot,tohisknowledge,dealtdirectlywithanyofthebuildingswhichare
thesubjectofthisAmendment.
Thematterwasstooddownbrieflytoallowthosepresenttoconsiderthematter.Onour
return,itwasestablishedthatnopartytookissuewithMrTonkincontinuingasamemberof
thePanel.
(ii)
RequesttoremoveNationalMutualbuildingfromfurtherconsiderationas
partoftheAmendment
Atthedirectionshearing,MsBrennan,barrister,onbehalfofISPTPtyLtdasownersofthe
NationalMutualsiteat435Ͳ455CollinsStreet,soughttohavethePaneldirecttheCouncilto
considerwhetherornotitwishedtocontinuewiththeproposedinclusionoftheNational
MutualbuildingintheHeritageOverlayaspartoftheAmendment.Thisrequestwasbased
onanEmergencyBuildingOrderhavingbeenservedbytheCouncilinrelationtothebuilding
inJanuary2012followingthedislodgementofoneofthefacingpanelswhichhadfalleninto
thestreet.MsBrennansubmittedthatitwasthoughtthatsome10percentofthefacing
panelswereindangeroffalling.
ThePanelwasadvisedthatthemattercouldbeconsideredbyaCouncilofficeractingunder
delegationfromtheCouncilormightbefurtherconsideredbytheCouncilataforthcoming
Councilmeeting(whichwasMsBrennan’sclient’spreference).
ThePanelruledthatasthePanelsimplyisrequiredtoknowwhatbuildingsitisrequestedto
consider, it was sufficient that we direct that further advice be provided by the Council
concerning the National Mutual building by no later than 21 March 2012 after the matter
wouldbefurtherconsideredbytheCouncilunderdelegationorotherwise.Latecirculation
of witness reports by the submitter was also permitted because of the uncertainty as to
whetherthebuildingwouldbewithdrawn.
Before
Beforethehearing
the hearing6,,thePanelreceivedwrittenadvicefromtheCouncilthatithad
the Panel received written advice from the Council that it had further
further
considered the matter and it was requested that the National Mutual building continue to
consideredthematteranditwasrequestedthattheNationalMutualbuildingcontinueto
be considered by the Panel as a part of the Amendment.
beconsideredbythePanelasapartoftheAmendment.
5
28March2012.
6
On8March2012
Page7of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 159 of 273
(iii)
Untestedevidence
Asnotedinthesummaryabove,MrStorey,whowastobecalledtogiveexpertevidenceat
thePanelhearingbytheNationalTrust,didnotfinallyattendduetoillness.
Weacknowledgethathisevidencethereforehasremaineduntestedandcannotbeascribed
thesameweightastheevidenceoftheotherexpertswhoweresubjecttocrossexamination
(somedaysinthecaseofMrButler).
Neverthelesswefoundhiswrittenevidencetobewellpresentedandhelpful.AsMrTobin
submitted, his evidence adds to the long list of respected heritage advisers to the Council
(andtosomesubmitters)thathaverecognisedthatthepropertiesintheAmendmenthave
heritagevalue.
(iv)
Panelinspections
ThePanelhasinspectedallthebuildingsaboutwhichobjectingsubmissionswerereceived
includingthelatesubmissionconcerningthebuildingat351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet.Wehave
inspectedalloftheinteriorsproposedtobeincludedinthescheduletotheHeritageOverlay
whetherornotobjectingsubmissionswerereceivedconcerningthoseinteriorsandmostof
thecomparativeinteriorsreferredtoinMrButler’sevidencefortheCouncilandMrStorey’s
evidencefortheNationalTrust.
ThePaneldidnototherwisemadeinspectionsofthebuildingsnotincontentionexceptas
incidentallyobservedduringthefourdaysofinspections.
The inspections conducted by the Panel were in part accompanied: representatives of the
NationalTrustandCouncilattendedthoseinspectionsofbuildingswheretheowneroran
owner’srepresentativewaspresent.
(v)
ThePanelreport
The previous sections of this report have set out a summary of the Amendment, the
backgroundtoitandthepostexhibitionprocessing.
InChapter3,wesetoutthepolicycontextfortheAmendment.
In Chapter 4, of this report we discuss and make recommendations about some general
issues that apply across some or all of the properties. They include matters raised by the
Panelitselfatthehearing.
In Chapters 5Ͳ10, we deal with the individual buildings in contention7. Each chapter deals
withbuildingsinoneofthedevelopmentperiodsreferredtointheenvironmentalhistory.
Chapter11providessomegeneralconclusionsandthePanelrecommendations.
7
Generallywehavenotreportedonsupportingsubmissionsbyowners.
Page8of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 160 of 273
3 Policycontext
ThissectionofthereportconsidersthepolicycontextfortheAmendmentandfocuseson
thestrategicandpolicyissues.ItassesseshowtheAmendmentmeetstheobjectivesofthe
PlanningScheme.ThefollowingsectionsofthisreportincludeabriefappraisaloftheState
Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local
PlanningPolicyFramework(LPPF)asrelatetotheissuesunderconsideration,andaspectsof
thezoneandoverlaycontrols.
3.1 Planningpolicyframework
(i)
StatePlanningPolicyFramework
Clause15BuiltEnvironmentandHeritageincludes:
x Clause15.01Ͳ5CulturalidentityandneighbourhoodcharacterwhichhastheObjective
‘To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of
place’.Strategiesinclude:
x Ensure development responds to its context and reinforces special
characteristicsoflocalenvironmentandplacebyemphasising:
- Theunderlyingnaturallandscapecharacter.
- Theheritagevaluesandbuiltformthatreflectcommunityidentity.
- Thevalues,needsandaspirationsofthecommunity(ouremphasis).
x Clause 15.03Ͳ1 Heritage conservation which has the Objective ‘To ensure the
conservationofplacesofheritagesignificance’.Strategiesincludeto:
x Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage
significanceasabasisfortheirinclusionintheplanningscheme.
x Providefortheconservationandenhancementofthoseplaceswhichareof
aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social
significance,orotherwiseofspecialculturalvalue.
x Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified
heritagevaluesandcreatesaworthylegacyforfuturegenerations.
x Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage
place.
x Encouragetheconservationandrestorationofcontributoryelements.
x Ensureanappropriatesettingandcontextforheritageplacesismaintained
orenhanced.
x Support adaptive reuse of heritage buildings whose use has become
redundant.
The Policy guidelines state that planning must consider as relevant the findings and
recommendationsoftheVictorianHeritageCouncil.
Page9of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 161 of 273
(ii)
LocalPlanningPolicyFramework
Clause21.05relatestoCityStructureandBuiltForm.Itincludesthefollowingcommentary
ontheimportanceofheritageatClause21.05Ͳ1:
Heritage features, buildings and streetscapes are a significant part of
Melbourne’s attraction, distinguishing it from other cities in Australia and
internationally. Much of Melbourne’s character is defined by its historic street
pattern, boulevards and parks, the collection of buildings within heritage
precincts,aswellasindividuallysignificantbuildings,identifiedandprotectedfor
their high cultural heritage value. Sensitivity to heritage buildings and places,
local landmarks, landscape, views and character is an important component of
developmentincontext.
Italsoincludesthefollowingrelatedobjectivesandstrategies8:
x Toconserveandenhanceplacesandprecinctsofidentifiedculturalheritage
significance.
x Conserve, protect and enhance the significant fabric of identified heritage
placesandprecincts.
x Supporttherestorationofheritagebuildingsandplaces.
x Maintainthevisualprominenceofhistoricbuildingsandlocallandmarks.
x Protect the valued historic buildings, subdivision pattern, boulevards and
significantpublicopenspacewithintheheritageprecincts.
x ProtectthesignificantlandscapeandculturalheritagefeaturesoftheCity’s
parks,gardens,waterwaysandotheropenspaces.
x Protectbuildings,streetscapesandprecinctsofculturalheritagesignificance
from the visual intrusion of built form both within precincts and from
adjoiningareas.
x Clause 21.05Ͳ3 also contains a policy section relating to Structure and Character. It
containsthefollowing:
Scaleofexistingandfuturedevelopment
The City of Melbourne offers a range of opportunities for new development.
Some areas can absorb higher density development without threat to their
existing valued character or heritage and some are suited to less intense infill
development.Thereareopportunitiesinsomeareastodevelopanewbuiltform
character.
x Clause21.08containspoliciesrelatingtoLocalAreas.InrelationtotheCentralCity,
relevantlyitincludes:
8
Said to be read in conjunction with Figure 10 Ͳ Built Form Character and the detailed Implementation
StrategiessetoutinClauses21.08(LocalAreas).
Page10of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 162 of 273
TheCentralCityisVictoria’slargestandmostvariedfocusofactivity, avibrant
mixeduseareawhichoperates24hoursadayandistheState’sgatewaytothe
globaleconomy.Itisoneofthenation’sprincipalconcentrationsofhighͲorder
business activity including a broad range of financial, legal, administrative and
government,aswellasrecreational,tourist,culturalandentertainmentuses...
The Central City also contains both nationally and internationally significant
icons.InadditiontotheYarraRivercorridorwithitsVictorianbridges;iconssuch
as Federation Square, Flinders Street Station, the Rialto,Eureka Tower,and the
tram networks assist in making Melbourne an international tourist destination.
Heritage buildings and intact streetscapes, the Hoddle Grid, comprising wide
boulevards and narrow bluestone lanes; significant avenues of street trees and
landscaping;andimportantpublicspacesandparks;alsomakeforanationally
significant,vitalandattractivemetropolitancitycentre....
The Central City continues to be the primary place of employment, business,
finance, entertainment, cultural activity and retail in Victoria, and a place that
facilitatesthegrowthofinnovativebusinessactivity....
Important components of the Central City’s built form and public realm have
beenprotectedandenhanced,includingtheYarraRivercorridor,significantparks
andgardensandtheCentralCity’ssignificantheritageassets.Thecreationofa
high quality, useable and exciting public realm continues to make the city an
attractiveandexcitingplaceforworkers,residentsandvisitors.
x Clause21.08alsocontainsthefollowingpoliciesconcerningtheCentralCity:
OfficeandcommercialuseintheCentralCity
x Support the Central City’s role as the principal centre in the State for
government,commerce,professional,businessandfinancialservices.
x Encourage the development and establishment of new and innovative
professional, commercial and retail business which take advantage of the
City’s central location, technology, and its accessibility by a range of
transportnodes.
x Support the continued development and growth of the broad range of
existingbusinessintheCentralCity.
EducationandhospitalsintheCentralCity
x Supporttheconsolidationofeducationclustersonthenorthernandwestern
edgesoftheCentralCityandinFlindersStreet,consistentwiththeLandUse
AmenityPrinciples.
Builtformimplementationstrategies
x ImplementationoftheobjectivesandstrategiesinClause21.05includes:
Page11of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 163 of 273
HeritageintheCentralCity
Protect the unique qualities of the Hoddle Grid including heritage buildings
and precincts, the regular grid layout, laneways, treeͲlined boulevards and
identifiedsignificantpublicopenspaces.
x Clause21.10FutureWorkliststhefollowingitemsaspotentialworkitems:
Reviewstatementsofsignificanceforheritageplacesthroughoutthemunicipality
andwherenecessaryincorporaterecommendationsintotheplanningscheme.
Prepare a Heritage Strategy to provide a framework that coͲordinates future
actionsandprogramsregardingheritagewithinthemunicipality.
x Clause 22.04 Heritage Places within Capital City Zone has the following relevant
Objectives:
x Toconserveandenhanceallheritageplaces,andensurethatanyalterations
or extensions to them are undertaken in accordance with accepted
conservationstandards.
x To consider the impact of development on buildings listed in the Central
ActivitiesDistrictConservationStudyandtheSouthMelbourneConservation
Study.
x To conserve and enhance the character and appearance of precincts
identified as heritage places by ensuring that any new development
complementstheircharacter,scale,formandappearance.
x Clause22.04relevantlystatesthatthefollowingmattersaretobetakenintoaccount
whenconsideringapplicationsforbuildings,worksordemolitiontoheritageplacesas
identifiedintheHeritageOverlay:
x 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
ConservationofPlacesofCulturalSignificance1992(TheBurraCharter).
x The demolition or alteration of any part of a heritage place should not be
supportedunlessitcanbedemonstratedthatthatactionwillcontributeto
thelongͲtermconservationofthesignificantfabricoftheheritageplace.
x The recommendations for individual buildings, sites and areas contained in
theCentralCityHeritageStudyReview1993.
x Alldevelopmentaffectingaheritageprecinctshouldenhancethecharacter
oftheprecinctasdescribedbythefollowingstatementsofsignificance.
x 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
BuildingIdentificationSheet.
Page12of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 164 of 273
The Amendment proposes add to this list of matters for consideration Ͳ the Central City
(HoddleGrid)HeritageReview2011andHeritageAssessment316Ͳ322QueenStreet2010.
x Clause22.04thenlists11precinctsalongwiththeirkeyattributes:BankPlace;Bourke
Hill;BourkeWestPrecinct;CollinsEastPrecinct;FlindersGatePrecinct;FlindersLane
Precinct; Little Bourke Precinct; Post Office Precinct; The Block Precinct; The Market
Precinct;andLittleLonPrecinct.
The Panel was advised that none of the 99 buildings which are the subject of the
Amendmentwouldfallwithinanyoftheseprecincts.
3.2 OtherPlanningSchemeprovisions
(i)
Zoning
As noted earlier, all sites proposed for inclusion in new individual Heritage Overlays are
includedintheCapitalCityZone.
Inadditiontotheimplementationofpolicy,thezonehasthefollowingpurposes:
x ToenhancetheroleofMelbourne’scentralcityasthecapitalofVictoriaand
asanareaofnationalandinternationalimportance.
x To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for specific
purposesasidentifiedinascheduletothiszone.
x To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasurable, safe and
stimulatingenvironment.
Relevantly,thecombinedeffectoftheheadclauseandtheschedule(s)tothezonemeans
that planning permission is required for the construction of buildings and works and
demolitionsubjecttospecifiedexemptions.
(ii)
Overlays
Clause43.01HeritageOverlayhasthefollowingPurposes:
x To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning
Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local
planningpolicies.
x Toconserveandenhanceheritageplacesofnaturalorculturalsignificance.
x Toconserveandenhancethoseelementswhichcontributetothesignificance
ofheritageplaces.
x To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of
heritageplaces.
x To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that
would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the
conservationofthesignificanceoftheheritageplace.
Page13of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 165 of 273
The Amendment intends to insert the 99 new entries into the table to the Schedule to
Clause 43.01 and activate the interiors controls in relation to 12 buildings and additional
paintcontrolsforall99buildings.
(iii)
Referencedocuments
Clause22.04currentlyincludesfourreferencedocumentsincluding:UrbanConservationin
theCityofMelbourne1985andtheCentralActivitiesDistrictConservationStudy1985.
Itisproposedtoaddtothelist:theCentralCity(HoddleGrid)HeritageReview2011andthe
HeritageAssessment316Ͳ322QueenStreet2010.
Page14of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 166 of 273
4 General
Generalissues
issues
In this
In
this chapter
chapter we
we discuss
discuss some
some general
general issues
issues which
which arose
arose in
in relation
relation to
to aa number
number of
of
submissions
submissions or
or which
which go
go to
to the
the fundamental
fundamental adequacy
adequacy of
of the
the strategic
strategic basis
basis for
for the
the
Amendment.
Amendment.
4.1 Adequacyofthe2011Review
(i)
Theissue
AkeyissuetobeaddressedinassessingtheAmendmentoverallisthesuccessorotherwise
of the 2011 Review in providing a sound strategic justification for the Amendment. The
consequencesforsuccessfulstatutoryimplementationarealsodiscussedinthissection.
Allthemattersaddressedinthissectionofthereportariseeitherfromsubmissionsmadeto
thePanelorfromPanelquestions.
Specificissuesare:
x Originsofthelistofbuildings
Origins of the list of buildings
x Limitations
on comparative analysis
Limitationsoncomparativeanalysis
x Problems
with the use of the A, B, C and D grading approach
ProblemswiththeuseoftheA,B,CandDgradingapproach
use of the out of date National Estate criteria and their utility at the local level
x The
TheuseoftheoutofdateNationalEstatecriteriaandtheirutilityatthelocallevel
x Thedraftingofstatementsofsignificance
The drafting of statements of significance
lack of precinct identification as an outcome of the Review
x The
ThelackofprecinctidentificationasanoutcomeoftheReview
Interior listing proposals
x Interiorlistingproposals
x Paintcontrols.
Paint controls.
(ii)
Paneldiscussionandviews
It is not the role of the Panel to reͲwrite the heritage study or redesign the methodology
underpinning it. However, the Panel is obliged to assess how well the study provides
strategic support for the Amendment, to test its findings and conclusions against the
submissions made, and finally to assess whether it provides a sound basis for statutory
decisionmakingintothefuture.
The
The Panel
Panel is
is of
of the
the view
view that,
that, whilst
whilst the
the 2011
2011 Review
Review is
is a
a substantial
substantial piece
piece of
of work
work
incorporating vast amounts of information, it fails on a number of counts to provide the very
incorporatingvastamountsofinformation,itfailsonanumberofcountstoprovidethevery
strong
strong strategic
strategic justification
justification for
for the
the Amendment
Amendment that
that was
was obviously
obviously possible
possible given
given the
the
extentofthereport.
extent of the report.
Page15of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 167 of 273
Originsofthelistofbuildings
IttooksometimeintothehearingforthePaneltogainaclearunderstandingoftheorigins
It took some time into the hearing for the Panel to gain a clear understanding of the origins
ofthelistofplacesbeingproposedforthisAmendment.Whilstitultimatelybecameclear
of
the list of places being proposed for this Amendment.Whilst it ultimately became clear
that the
the 999 places
that
places were
were originally
originally identified
identified in
in the
the 1985
1985 Study,
Study, the
the Panel
Panel believes
believes that
that it
it
would
would have
have been
been useful
useful for
for the
the City’s
City’s initial
initial submissions
submissions and
and its
its expert
expert evidence
evidence to
to have
have
beenclearerinintroducingthesequenceofstudiesasthebasisforthisAmendment.Ifit
been clearer in introducing the sequence of studies as the basis for this Amendment.
hadnootherbenefit,suchanintroductionwouldhaveassistedincommunicatingabetter
understandingofthegradingsattributedtoplacesinthisAmendmentwhichwasamatter
debatedbysubmitters.
ComparativeAnalysis
The organisation of the report on a geographic basis, whilst convenient to find particular
propertycitations,failstodirectthereadertoanunderstandingofthecomparativebasisof
therecommendations.Toassistourownunderstanding,wepreparedtablesofplacesunder
To assist our own understanding, we prepared tables of places under
theheadingsestablishedbytheenvironmentalhistory.Thisenabledustogainafarbetter
the headings established by the environmental history.This enabled us to gain a far better
understandingoftherelativemeritsofthedifferentbuildingswithineachthematicgroup.
understanding of the relative merits of the different buildings within each thematic group.
Wewouldalsomaketheobservationthatthe2011Reviewgenerallyfailstodrawuponthe
We would also make the observation that the 2011 Review generally fails to draw upon the
themes in
themes
in the
the environmental
environmental history
history as
as a
a means
means of
of potentially
potentially justifying
justifying the
the significance
significance
ascribedtothebuildings.
ascribed
to the buildings.
The Review was subject to criticism by several submissions for its failure to undertake
rigorous comparative analysis in support of its recommendations. The argument was put
thatsimplyassemblingalonglistofotherplaces,asitwasalleged wasdonebyMrButler,is
notareasonablecomparativejustification.Itwasalsoputthattherewasanecessityinany
comparative analysis that places considered better and worse should be highlighted to
justifytheinclusionofaplaceintheoverlay.10
ThePanelbelievesthatthisisasensibleapproachtocomparativeanalysis andifithadbeen
undertakenwouldhaveassistedinprovidinganimprovedjustificationfortheAmendment.
ThePanelwouldobserve,however,that,despitethecriticismsmadeinsubmissions,byand
large the expert evidence supporting those submissions generally listed only alternative
exampleswhichwereconsideredbetterthanthebuildinginquestionandthusdidnotoffer
afairassessment.
The group of nine buildings tabulated under the Urban Spurt theme, which represents a
majorphaseinthedevelopmentofmodernMelbourne,wereparticularlythefocusofthis
discussion.ThePanelhasfounditdifficulttounderstandwhytheseninewerechosenrather
thansomeotherapparentlyequallydeservingbuildingsnotsubjecttoheritagecontrols.It
was unclear to us how they compared with one another or other buildings in the greater
Melbourneareaandwhethertheremaybeotherswhichalsowarrantconsiderationforthe
applicationoftheHeritageOverlay.ThereisnodoubtthatMelbournehasmany
There is no doubt that Melbourne has many buildings
buildings
9
98placescomefromthe1985StudyplusthelateadditionoftheCelticClub.
10
SubmissionsbyMsBrennanforISPTPtyLtdasownerofNationalMutualbuildingat435Ͳ455CollinsStreet,
quotingPanelreportonBaysidePlanningSchemeAmendmentC37.
Page16of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 168 of 273
constructed during the
constructed
the period
period 1956
1956 –– 75
75 and
and the
the Panel
Panel was
was concerned
concerned that
that the
the selection
selection
proposedheremaynotadequatelyrepresentthespectrumofbuildingsfromthisimportant
proposed here may not adequately represent the spectrum of buildings from this important
phaseofMelbourne’sarchitecturaldevelopment.
phase of Melbourne’s architectural development.
The Panel notes the view alluded to in some of the evidence, that this period was more
significant for its role in destroying Melbourne’s nineteenth century character rather than
beingimportantinitsownright.ThePanelbelieves,however,thatwhileitcanbeviewedas
aperiodofdestruction,itshouldalsobeviewedasaperiodofcreativity.Wenotethatthe
environmental history contains a statement of significance for the central city as a whole
which takes the perspective that the central city is principally a Victorian city. It also
indicates that the post 1950’s development eroded much of the earlier architectural
characterofthecitybutitdoesrecognisethatthepost1950’sperioddidproducemuchof
individualarchitecturalquality.
ThePanelwasfacedwiththeoptionofrecommendingthatallnineplacesfromthisgroup
The
Panel was faced with the option of recommending that all nine places from this group
be
be included
included in
in a
a more
more extensive
extensive review
review of
of the
the building
building developments
developments from
from this
this period.
period.
However,
However, we
we have
have decided
decided that
that there
there is
is sufficient
sufficient consideration
consideration of
of these
these places
places in
in other
other
reference
reference material,
material, including
including the
the environmental
environmental history,
history, to
to enable
enable the
the individual
individual merits
merits of
of
eachplacetobedetermined.
each place to be determined.
Gradings
The 2011 Review adopts an A to D grading for all buildings assessed. These gradings are
drawnfromapotentialAtoErangewhichisdescribedintheReviewasfollows:
Definitions
(Taken from both the 1985 policy document, Urban Conservation in the City of
Melbourne: 21Ͳ 24, and the 2008 Heritage Places Inventory, with references to
theNationalEstateRegisterremoved).
‘A’GradedBuildings
1985ͲBuildingsofnationalorstateimportance,irreplaceablepartsofAustralia’s
builtheritage.….
200811ͲThesebuildings areofnationalorstateimportance,andareirreplaceable
partsofAustralia’sbuiltformheritage.
‘B’GradedBuildings
1985ͲBuildingsofregionalormetropolitansignificance,andstandasimportant
milestonesinthedevelopmentofthemetropolis.….
2008ͲThesebuildingsareofregionalormetropolitansignificance,andstandas
importantmilestonesinthearchitecturaldevelopmentofthemetropolis.
11
Itwouldseemthatreferenceto2008gradingsisareferencetothecurrentgradings.
Page17of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 169 of 273
‘C’GradedBuildings
1985Ͳ Buildings make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution that is
importantinthelocalarea.ThisincludeswellͲpreservedexamplesofparticular
stylesofconstruction,aswellassomeindividuallysignificantbuildingsthathave
beenalteredordefaced.
2008Ͳ These buildings demonstrate the historical or social development of the
localareaand/ormakeanimportantaestheticorscientificcontribution.These
buildingscompriseavarietyofstylesandbuildingstypes.Architecturallytheyare
substantially intact, but where altered, it is reversible. In some instances,
buildings of high individual historic, scientific or social significance may have a
greaterdegreeofalteration.
‘D’GradedBuildings
1985ͲBuildingsareeitherreasonablyintactrepresentativesofparticularperiods
or styles or they have been substantially altered but stand in a row or street
whichretainsmuchofitsoriginalcharacter.
2008ͲThesebuildingsarerepresentativeofthehistorical,scientific,architectural
or social development of the local area. They are often reasonably intact
representativesofparticularperiods,stylesorbuildingtypes.Inmanyinstances
alterations will be reversible. They may also be altered examples which stand
withinagroupofsimilarperiod,styleortypeorastreetwhichretainsmuchofits
originalcharacter.Wheretheystandinaroworstreet,thecollectivegroupwill
provideasettingwhichreinforcesthevalueoftheindividualbuildings.
‘E’GradedBuildings
1985Ͳ Buildings have generally been substantially altered, and stand in relative
isolation from other buildings of similar periods. Because of this they are not
considered to make an essential contribution to the character of the area,
althoughretentionandrestorationmaystillbebeneficial.
2008Ͳ These buildings have generally been substantially altered and stand in
relativeisolationfromotherbuildingsofsimilarperiods.Becauseofthistheyare
not considered to make an essential contribution to the character of the area,
althoughretentionandrestorationmaystillbebeneficial.
The gradings therefore in part derive from the 1985 study. Despite the claim in the
introductoryparagraphtothegradings,thechangesmadefromthe1985definitionsarenot
confined,however,tothoseresultingfromtherecentdiscontinuanceoftheRegisterofthe
NationalEstate.
The
ThePaneldoesnotbelievethatthegradingsystemusedinthe2011Reviewandimposedby
Panel does not believe that the grading system used in the 2011 Review and imposed by
the City
City is
the
is at
at all
all useful
useful in
in 2012. It
It appears
appears to
to the
the Panel
Panel that
that continuing
continuing an
an A Ͳ
Ͳ E
E grading
grading
system
system similar
similar to
to that
that adopted
adopted in
in the
the 1980s
1980s does
does not
not reflect
reflect the
the current
current approach
approach to
to
heritage
1998, Australia has utilised an approach which
heritage conservation
conservation in
in Australia. Since
S
provides statutory protection at world, national, state and local levels. Most commonly
buildings are identified as of significance in contemporary conservation studies are simply
saidtobeoflocalsignificanceorStatesignificance(orotherhighergrades).
Page18of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 170 of 273
The Panel concurs with the observations made about the consequences of using an AͲE
gradingsystematpage12ofthe1993Reviewonthismatter:
AfterextensivediscussionwithrepresentativesoftheMCCandwiththereview’s
Steering Committee the study team was asked to consider the possibility of
changing to an A, B, C structure to reduce the pejorative associations often
impliedbygradingsDandEandtosimplifythelistoverall.MCCplanningstaff
hadcitedconsistentproblemswiththeoldsysteminthatownersanddevelopers
generally assumed that D and E graded buildings were clear candidates for
demolition,regardlessofotherissuessuchasstreetscapeandvisual,culturaland
historicrelationshipwithassociatednotableorhistoricbuildings.
The1993Reviewthenwentontoadoptathreelevelgradingforthebuildingsassessedasof
significance: AͲgraded buildings were said to be of State or national importance and to be
recommendedforinclusiononStateandnationallists(aswellasthethen‘notablebuildings’
listinthePlanningScheme); BͲgradedbuildingsweresaidtobe‘importantmilestonesinthe
cultural development of the city and ... seen to be of metropolitan significance’; CͲgraded
buildingsweresaidtobe‘ofculturalsignificancefortheirrepresentationofdifferentphases
of development in the central city’ and ‘make a contribution to the cultural value of the
streetscapeorprecinctwithinwhichtheyarelocated’.12
This1993gradingapproachthereforecanbeseentoascribeState(ornational)significance;
local(ormetropolitan)significance;andcontributorysignificanceinaprecinctcontext.This
is consistent with contemporary heritage studies. So far as local significance of places is
concerned (as is the principal subject of this Amendment), in the 1993 Review places are
eitheridentifiedassignificantintheirownrightorasmakingacontributiontoaprecinct.
ThePanelnotesthatthegradingsystemadoptedinthe1993Reviewdoesnotconfusethe
The Panel notes that the grading system adopted in the 1993 Review does not confuse the
level of significance with the values ascribed to the place nor the criteria used to assess the
levelofsignificancewiththevaluesascribedtotheplacenorthecriteriausedtoassessthe
levelofsignificance(seealsodiscussionbelow).Valuesarethereasontheplaceisimportant
level of significance (see also discussion below).
such as the list set out in section 4(1)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 –
‘...scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural
value’.Criteriaareamethodoforganisinginformationandevidencetoshowhowaplace
demonstratestheheritagevalues.Wehavethefurtherconcernthatthefivelevelgrading
We have the further concern that the five level grading
usedinthe2011Reviewmixesvalueswithgradings.
used in the 2011 Review mixes values with gradings.
Moreover, we
Moreover,
we are
are concerned
concerned that
that there
there are
are a
a number
number of
of different
different systems
systems of
of gradings
gradings
proposed
proposedforthePlanningScheme(evenasitrelatestothecentralcityalone).
for the Planning Scheme (even as it relates to the central city alone).
Clause 22.04 (which relates to heritage placeswithin the Capital City Zone) as it would be
revisedbythisAmendmentlistssevenmatterstobetakenintoaccountwhenconsidering
permitapplicationsrelatingtoheritageplaces.Relevantlytheyinclude:
x The recommendations for individual buildings, sites and areas contained in
theCentralCityHeritageReview1993.
12
The1993Reviewalsorecommendedagainstthecontinuationofstreetscapegradingsduetothedifficulty
ofapplyingthatapproach,whichhadbeensuccessfulinsuburbanlocations,tothediversestreetscapesof
thecentralcity.
Page19of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 171 of 273
x Therecommendationsforindividualbuildingsandcontrolsasdetailedinthe
Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 and Heritage Assessment
316Ͳ322QueenStreet2010.
x Regard shall be given to buildings listed A, B and C in the individual
conservation studies, and their significance as described by their individual
BuildingIdentificationSheet.
We note also that a reference document for that clause is the 1985 booklet: Urban
Conservation in the City of Melbourne (dated November 2005) which was prepared by a
team of planners and architects including Mr Butler under the guidance of a steering
committeeandapprovedbytheCouncilinJuly1985.Itisproposedtoretainthatbookletas
areferencedocument.Thegradingsinthatdocumentareconsistentwiththe1985gradings
describedabove.
The
The listed
listed matters
matters for
for consideration
consideration and
and the
the reference
reference document
document collectively,
collectively, therefore,
therefore,
referthereadertonolessthanthreesetsofgradingsforbuildingsintheCBD:1985,1993
refer the reader to no less than three sets of gradings for buildings in the CBD: 1985, 1993
and2011(2008).Thisisclearlyunsatisfactorilyconfusingforthereader.
and 2011 (2008).This is clearly unsatisfactorily confusing for the reader.113
ThePanelhasotherreservationsaboutretainingthe2005bookletasareferencedocument
forClause22.04whichrelatestotheCentralCityZone.Thebookletitself,initsintroduction
bytheChiefExecutiveOfficer,indicatesthatitappliestoplacesoutsidetheCentralActivities
DistrictandinparticulartoallexistingandproposedbuildingsinUrbanConservationAreas
and buildings outside the Central Activities District graded A, B or C ‘under the Council’s
gradingsystem’.Itexplicitlyprovidesthat:
Within the Central Activities District, the provisions of the Central City Interim
Development Order and its Heritage Guidelines take precedence over the
informationincludedinthisbooklet.
The
Thetransparencyoftheplanningsystemisinnowayassistedbytheretentionasareference
transparency of the planning system is in no way assisted by the retention as a reference
document,
document, aa booklet
booklet which
which in
in its
its own
own introduction
introduction indicates
indicates that
that it
it does
does not
not apply
apply to
to the
the
relevantpartofthemunicipality.Wewouldalsocommentthatthereisalmostnocontent
relevant part of the municipality.
relevant to assessing the types of commercial places found in the central city (even if the
guidewastoapplythere)withthepossibleexceptionofPart4containingpolicystatements
about standards for permit applications. The document is also largely out of date in a
statutorysense.
To retain
retain this
this booklet
a reference
reference document
the central
no sense
sense
To
booklet as
as a
document for
for the
central city
city simply
simply makes
makes no
and compounds the gradings uncertainties.
andcompoundsthegradingsuncertainties.
In summary, local protection is what is proposed in this Amendment. The
The Panel
Panel does
does not
not
believe that
that applying
applying B
B or
or C
C gradings
gradings to
to places
places included
included in
in the
the overlay
overlay assists
assists in
in future
future
believe
managementdecisionsaboutthoseplaces.Afterall,theproposalisthattheyareoflocal
management decisions about those places.After
A
all, the proposal is that they are of local
importance
importance and
and aside
aside from
from that,
that, management
management decisions
decisions should
should be
be made
made on
on the
the basis
basis of
of
their
theirstatementsofsignificance,notsomerelativevaluewithintheoverlay.
statements of significance, not some relative value within the overlay.
13
We
We note
note also
also that
that the
the Melbourne
Melbourne Heritage
Heritage Action
Action group
group also
also supports
supports a
a new
new system
system of
of grading
grading ‘which
‘which
reflects the contemporary valuee that Melbournians place on the heritage of Melbourne’.
reflectsthecontemporaryvaluethatMelbourniansplaceontheheritageofMelbourne’.
Page20of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 172 of 273
Ms Sharp who appeared for the owner of the property at 441Ͳ447 Elizabeth Street (the
former Royal Saxon Hotel) made a number of submissions about how the existing poor
structureofthelocalheritageprovisionsofthePlanningSchemewouldbecompoundedby
thisAmendment.Weagreewithherviewthatdraftingofanewpolicytoaddressindividual
We agree with her view that drafting of a new policy to address individual
buildings
in the
central city
city appears
buildings in
the central
appears appropriate
appropriate –– though
though we
we do
do not
not believe
believe this
this
Amendmentshouldbedeferredpendingthattask.
Amendment should be deferred pending that task.
The gradings that have been allocated to the buildings in the 2011 Review will of course
remainpublicknowledgeanddebatesaboutthelevelofsignificanceofthosebuildingsand
whether the particular gradings allocated in the Review are appropriate, will continue
beyondthisPanelprocess.
ThePanelbelieves,however,thatthisshouldbeavoidedforanyfutureamendments.
ThePanelrecommendsthat:
The
The Planning
Planning Authority
Authority undertake
undertake a
a general
general review
review of
of the
the grading
grading system
system as
as part
part of
of
developingastandardisedapproachtobuildinglistingsinthecentralcityarea.
developing a standardised approach to building listings in the central city area.
The Planning
Planning Authority
Authority consider
whether the
1985 booklet:
Urban
The
consider retaining
retaining whether
the 1985
booklet: Urban
Conservation in
in the
the City
City of
of Melbourne
Melbourne (dated
(dated November
November 2005)
2005) should
should be
be a
a reference
reference
Conservation
document for Clause 22.04.
documentforClause22.04.
The Planning Authorityundertake a review of
the structure of the heritage sections of
ThePlanningAuthorityundertakeareview
ofthestructureoftheheritagesectionsof
the
Local Planning
Planning Policy
Policy Framework
Framework (and
(and related
related incorporated
incorporated and
and reference
reference
the Local
documents) of the Planning Scheme.
documents)ofthePlanningScheme.
Criteriaandthresholds
The Panel believes that it is unhelpful today for a study such as this to have utilised the
NationalEstateRegistercriteriatodescribethebasisofsignificance.
ThePanelacceptsthattheVPPPracticeNote‘ApplyingtheHeritageOverlay’stillrefersto
theRegisteroftheNationalEstatecriteria(describedastheAustralianHeritageCommission
criteria). However, as mentioned above, the Register of the National Estate has been
discontinued. Also, in 2008, Australia’s environment ministers agreed to a set of national
criteria to be adopted by all jurisdictions at the earliest opportunity (these are commonly
referredtoastheHERCONcriteria).Thesecriteria(withappropriatethresholds)areutilised
bytheAustralianHeritageCouncil(forthenationallist)andtheVictorianHeritageCouncil
fortheVHR.
The onͲline guide produced in March 2009 Ͳ Protecting local heritage places: a national
guideforlocalgovernmentandthecommunity(revisededitionpreparedwithpermissionby
HeritageVictoriaaspartoftheSupportingLocalGovernmentProjectfortheCommonwealth
GovernmentandtheHeritageChairsandOfficialsofAustraliaandNewZealand)atpage47
liststheHERCONcriteria:
ThefollowinglististheCommonCriteriaadoptedbytheEnvironmentProtection
and Heritage Council of the Australian & State/Territory Governments in April
2008 (comprising the model criteria developed at the National Heritage
Convention(HERCON)inCanberra,1998):
A.Importancetothecourse,orpatternofourculturalornaturalhistory.
Page21of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 173 of 273
B.Possessionofuncommon,rareorendangeredaspectsofourculturalornatural
history.
C.Potentialtoyieldinformationthatwillcontributetoanunderstandingofour
culturalornaturalhistory.
D.Importantindemonstratingtheprincipalcharacteristicsofaclassofcultural
ornaturalplacesorenvironments.
E.Importanceinexhibitingparticularaestheticcharacteristics.
F. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical
achievementataparticularperiod.
G.Strongorspecialassociationwithaparticularcommunityorculturalgroupfor
social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to
Indigenouspeoplesaspartoftheircontinuinganddevelopingculturaltraditions.
H.Specialassociationwiththelifeorworksofaperson,orgroupofpersons,of
importanceinourhistory.
TheHERCONcriteriaarecommonlyusedincontemporarymunicipalheritagestudies.The
PanelrecommendsthisapproachtotheCouncilforfutureworkasapplicationofthelistof
criteria presents many fewer problems of interpretation at local level than the former
National Estate criteria. The Panel also suggests that the Council should request that the
Department of Planning and Community Development should immediately adjust the VPP
PracticeNotetobringitintolinewithcurrentpractice.
StatementsofSignificance
ThePanelisconcernedthatGraemeButlerandAssociateshasnotfollowedcurrentpractice
in preparing Statements of Significance for places proposed for inclusion in the overlay in
this Amendment. In particular the approach does not follow the guidance provided by
HeritageVictoria.Whilstitusesthethreecommonheadings:Whatissignificant?,Howisit
significant? and Why is it significant? It fails to pursue the following guidance on writing
WhatisSignificant?:
This should be dedicated to a description of the place or object including facts
aboutsize,layout,constructiondate,designersandbuilders,materials,integrity,
conditionandsoon.Whilethissectionshouldbebrief,usuallynomorethanone
paragraph,thereshouldbenodoubtabout theelementsoftheplaceorobject
whichareunderdiscussion.
The statements of significance proposed in the Review include long statements under this
heading containing pieces of history and elements of description. The Panel believes that
this approach will not assist the future management of these places, nor assist owners,
managersandplanningofficersindealingwithfuturedevelopmentoptions.
ThePanelwasadvisedthatthecitationsforthebuildingsasoriginallydraftedbyMrButler
did contain a section dealing with the building elements of importance but these were
removed on the suggestion of the expert peer review panel which assessed the draft
citations. We understand this was because there might be inconsistency with the
identificationofsignificantelementsinotherpartsofthecitation.
Page22of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 174 of 273
In the Panel’s view, the statements of significance should be reviewed with a view to
clarifyingthekeyelementsofthebuildingthatwarrantconservation.Thismightbedoneby
reinstatingMrButler’ssectiondealingwiththeseelements.
Relatedtothismatteristheissueofwherethestatementsofsignificantaretobe‘housed’
in a statutory sense. Are they best simply to remain part of the 2011 Review which is
proposed to be a Reference Document of the Planning Scheme or should they be
incorporatedintothePlanningScheme?
The report of the Advisory Committee on the Review of Heritage Provisions in Planning
Schemes of August 2007 discusses this matter at part 3.8 and recommends that the
statementsshouldbecomeincorporatedinplanningschemes–asitwouldmaximisetheir
importanceindecisionmaking.ThePanelsupportsthisapproach.Werecognisethatwhile
statements of significance for a relatively small number of precincts can practicably be
housed directly in the policy section of a planning scheme(such as has been donefor the
centralcityprecincts),itisnotpossibletoallocatetherequiredmanypagesoftheplanning
schemetoindividualbuildingstatementsofsignificance.Theyneverthelesscouldbereadily
includedasagroupinasingleincorporateddocumentofthescheme.
DuringthePanelhearingtherewereanumberofsuggestionsmadeaboutimprovementsto
thewordingandclarityofstatementsofsignificanceaswellasinclusionofrevisedmaterial
coming to light after exhibition of the Amendment. They included changes to the
statementsfortheCelticClubandtheRoyalSaxonHotel.ThePanelrecommendsthatthe
review of the statements of significance should also take these suggested changes into
account.
ThePanelrecommendsthat:
ThestatementsofsignificancebeincludedinanincorporateddocumentofthePlanning
Scheme.
Thestatementsofsignificanceforallbuildingsberewrittento:
a) beconsistentwiththeHeritageVictoriaguidancenotes;
b) clarify the building elements of importance so as to assist statutory decision
making;and
c)
incorporate any new information coming to light after the Amendment was
exhibited.
Precinctsandcomplementarybuildings
Within the central city area, the Melbourne Planning Scheme currently has 11 heritage
precincts(thestatementsofsignificanceareincludedinClause22.04ofthescheme).Allof
theseprecinctsarelargerareas,withamixedgroupofVictorianorEdwardianbuildings,but
represent parts of the city that are generally seen to have some historic and architectural
significanceregardlessoftheimportanceofindividualbuildingswithinthem.
ThePanelnotesthatwhilstthestudybriefcalledfortheconsultanttoconsiderthepotential
for further heritage precincts, he did not identify any and it is not clear whether he
addressed that requirement. As a result the Amendment proposes only individual place
Page23of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 175 of 273
HeritageOverlays.TheCouncilpresentationreinforcedthatthisAmendmentprovidedfor
individualplaceHeritageOverlaysandnotforprecinctoverlays.
Nevertheless the issue of whether some buildings might have more appropriately been
includedinprecincts(somebeingquitesmallintermsofbuildingnumbersandothersmore
extensive)wasraisedatthePanelhearing.InparticularthePanelreferstothesubmissions
andevidencerelatingtotheSnidersandAbrahamsWarehousewhereitwassuggestedthat
therewasperhapsasmall‘precinct’ofSnidersandAbrahamsbuildings,orperhapsalarger
industrial/warehouseprecinct;andDillinghamEstatesHouse,whichononeviewispartofa
groupofYunckenFreemanbuildingsonWilliamStreetjustsouthofBourkeStreet.
ThisledthePaneltoconsider:whatisaprecinct?Arethereaminimumnumberofplaces
requiredbeforeaprecinctcanbesaidtoexist?Canaprecinctsimplybeseveralassociated
buildings?Doesasenseofplacealsohavetobecreated?
Ithasnotbeennecessarytoformaviewonthismatter,butwewouldcommentthatserial
listing Ͳ providing a number of separate but related and linked places with the one HO
numberͲmayprovideanalternativeapproachinthosecaseswheredefiningevenasmall
precinct seems inappropriate. Neither the VPP Practice Note nor the Heritage Victoria
websiteprovidesmuchinthewayofguidanceonthisissue.
Ofthe99buildingsinthisAmendment,thePanelbelievesthat,apartfromthosementioned
above, few, if any, would warrant consideration as part of a precinctor as part of a serial
listing.
InevaluatingAmendment186andtheappropriatenessofapplyingtheHeritageOverlayto
theindividualplaces,wedomakesomeobservationsinrelationtothismatterforasmall
numberofplaces.Ourfocus,however,hasnecessarilybeenonthemeritsofincludingthe
placeswithinindividualplaceHeritageOverlays.
ThePanelsuggests,however,thattheCityshouldinfuturemorefullyconsiderotheroptions
foridentifyingandmanagingheritageplaces,includingthedesignationoffurtherprecincts
oradoptingaseriallistingapproach.Wewouldpointoutthatrecommendationsforfurther
precincts were made in the 1993 Review and it commented particularly on the collective
valueofremainingwarehousesandfactorieswhicharemorevulnerabletodemolitionwhen
individuallyassessed(page15of1993Review).
Interiors
ThisAmendmentproposesforthefirsttimethattheinteriorsofcentralcitybuildingssaidto
beoflocalheritagesignificancebeincludedintheHeritageOverlay.Nootherinteriorsof
local significance are yet included in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay,14 despite there
beingrecommendationsconcerningpotentiallysignificantinteriorsinthe1993Review.
We were advised that the brief for the 2011 Review did not include an assessment of
buildinginteriors.Nevertheless,somebuildinginteriorswereidentifiedbyMrButlerduring
the study as being of heritage significance. The Council supported the inclusion of all
14
TheinteriorsofthosebuildingswhichareincludedontheVHRareincludedbyvirtueoftheprovisionsof
theHeritageAct1995.
Page24of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 176 of 273
interiorssubjecttosomeminormodificationsinthecaseoftheLawInstitutebuildingand
CentenaryHall.
Anumberofsubmittersdidnotopposetheinclusionoftheexterioroftheirbuildingsinthe
HeritageOverlaybutwereopposedtointeriorcontrols.Theyraisedavarietyofobjections–
most related to restrictions upon required internal changes. This, like external building
changes,isnotamatterwebelieveisrelevanttotheissueofwhethersignificanceismade
out(seeSection4.2).Otherswerecriticaloftheevaluationwhichhadbeencarriedoutand
thatsignificancehadnotbeenestablished.
Collectively,theobjectingsubmissionsraisetheissueofwhetherthe12nominatedlocally
significantinteriorshavebeenadequatelyassessedaspartofthe2011Review.
Appendix 5 to the 2011 Review contains information about the approach taken to the
interiorsofthebuildingswhichwereassessed.
Itincludes:
Recommendations in the Central City Heritage Review 2011 Ͳ Heritage
Assessmentsreport
AlthoughCentralCityHeritageReview2011assessmentshavebeenconfinedto
external fabric, contributory interior elements were identified for places where
they interfaced with the public domain. The following places have been
identified as possessing valuable or contributory interior elements and the
protectionoftheseelementsshouldbeexaminedfurtherunderclause43.01of
thePlanningScheme.
Scopeofwork
The following table lists the existing interior identified elements plus a short
significancestatement.Thereare14sitesidentified,withthreeoftheserequiring
further inspections. It is possible that more significant elements are in the
buildingssotherecommendationsmustbequalifiedasconfinedtogroundlevel
interior elements and known large public spaces at upper levels. Ongoing
managementoftheseinteriorsrequiresanincorporatedplanforeachplaceto
allow for permit exemptions for non significant parts of the building interiors
(Panelemphasis).
Thisappendixgoesontolistthe14buildings15wheresignificantinteriorswereidentifiedor
believedtooccur.
While 12 buildings forming part of the Amendment are proposed for interior controls, no
incorporatedplanshavebeenproposedfortheinteriorstoidentifythepartsoftheinteriors
notsubjecttocontrols.Instead,theapproachtakenintheAmendmentwastospecifyinthe
15
TheAmendmentlaterproposedthatinteriorcontrolsbeappliedtothe11buildingswheretheinteriorshad
been noted as making a contribution to the significance of the exterior of the building as seen from the
public realm and one further building where inspection of a further part was recommended. The two
buildings which had no internal inspection conducted did not have interior controls proposed in the
Amendment.
Page25of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 177 of 273
‘HeritagePlace’(address)columnoftheproposedrevisedscheduletotheHeritageOverlay
those parts of the interior subject to controls. For example, in relation to the building at
104Ͳ110ExhibitionStreetthefollowingdescriptionoftheinteriorintendedtobesubjectto
controlisincluded:
Extent of internal control: Exhibition Street ground floor and hall lobbies with
twoͲcoloured Buchan marble dadoes; lacquered timber entry door joinery with
etchedglassandbuildingnametodoorsandtoplights;doorglazingandbrass
fittings; coloured and patterned terrazzo in the foyer flooring with the Orange
Orderstarmotif,andacascadingstepped,entrystairtothefirstlevelhallwith
streamlinedmetalbalustrading.
Itisthereforeclearfromthe2011Reviewitself,andindeedfromMrButler’sevidenceatthe
It is therefore clear from the 2011 Review itself, and indeed from Mr Butler’s evidence at the
hearing,thattheidentificationofinteriorsforheritagecontrolswassomethingwhicharose
hearing, that the identification of interiors for heritage controls was something which arose
incidentallyinthecourseofMrButler’sinspectionofthespecifiedbuildingsforhisreview.
incidentally in the course of Mr Butler’s inspection of the specified buildings for his review.
Heacknowledgedinresponsetoquestioningthattheidentifiedinteriors,forthemostpart,
were(asstatedinthe2011Reviewappendix)oneswhichcontributedtotheappreciationof
theexteriorviewofthebuilding.Thiswasnotalwaysso;someoftheinteriorswerepartially
orwhollynotvisiblefromthestreet.Healsoacknowledgedunderquestioningthatsomeof
the interiors he identified as worthy of controls were regarded as more significant than
othersandlaterprovidedasheetsummarisinghisevaluationofeachinterior.
TheinteriorsthatMrButlersuggestedforheritagecontrolswerereviewedbyMrStoreyfor
theNationalTrust.Hecommentedfavourablyonsomebutwaslessthanenthusiasticabout
others. In his assessment of whether the interiors were worthy of special controls, Mr
Storey compared many of the interiors to other interiors not recommended by Mr Butler
(largely because they were in buildings not surveyed) which were from a similar
developmentperiodorbuildinggenre.
The Melbourne Heritage Action group also made a quite comprehensive review of the
interiorsof81ofthebuildingsproposedforcontrolsandcomparativeonessuggestedbythe
National Trust. They presented this at the Panel hearing. Again they were supportive of
some interiors and not others. They made their own suggestions about other worthy
interiors.TheyincludedPelligrini’scafe/restaurantinBourkeStreet.
The Panel inspected all of the interiors proposed for listing (whether or not there was a
submissionbytheowner)andmostofthecomparativeinteriorsreferredtobyMrStorey.
LiketheMelbourneHeritageActiongroupandMrStorey,webelievethattheinteriorsdo
vary considerably in the extent to which they have been altered and whether they are
special or merely unremarkable examples of interiors of the period or associated with the
buildingtype.Insomeinstances,alloftheinteriorfabricremainsinaportionofabuilding
(usuallythepublicfoyer)oratleastsufficientinteriorfabrictoidentifythewholeofthatpart
oftheinteriorspaceasofsignificance.Inotherinstances,therearequitestrikingoriginal
elementsremaining,suchaswallorfloortiling,letterboxes,cascadingstairsandthelikebut
oftentheyarevirtuallytheonly significantremainingelementsortheinteriorpresentationis
incomplete.ExamplesofthisarethehallwaytilingintheSirCharlesHothamHotelwhichis
supplementedonlybyunremarkablepressedmetalceilingsandapaintedstairrailandthe
pressed metal ceiling with lantern light in the shop at 160Ͳ162 Bourke Street which is not
supportedbyotherremainingoriginalinteriorfeatures.Inothercases,itisunclearwhether
Page26of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 178 of 273
ornottheinteriorelementisoriginalorjustasympatheticupdatesuchastheliftinteriorin
theACAbuildinginQueenStreet.
During the course of our inspections, we incidentally observed even more interiors which
arguably are worthy of consideration for heritage controls. They include the ground floor
andfirstfloorpublicareasoftheformerRACVbuildinginQueenStreet,thevaultedlobbyof
101CollinsStreet,themarbleͲcladgroundfloorlobbyofDillinghamEstatesHouseandthe
entryareatotheAthenaeumClub.
We
We have
have formed
formed the
the view
view that
that it
it is
is not
not appropriate
appropriate in
in the
the absence
absence of
of a
a systematic
systematic and
and
comprehensivestudyofallpotentialinteriorsinthecitybuildingstoproceedtolistthesmall
comprehensive study of all potential interiors in the city buildings to proceed to list the small
groupincidentallyidentifiedbyMrButler.Thesomewhatrandomselectionofinteriorsof
group incidentally identified by Mr Butler.T
varying ages, ranging from simple to quite elaborate, with different levels of intactness,
affordsnoclearthresholdofsignificanceagainstwhichinteriorscanbejudged.
We also suggest that it may be useful for the more comprehensive work on interiors to
considerwhethertheinteriorswhichmightbelistedshouldbecategorised intermsoftheir
significance in their own right or whether they make a contribution to the external
appearanceofthebuilding.Therearethoseinteriorswellwithinthebuilding(includingon
upper floors) which cannot be observed except from within the interior space itself (an
example of this is meeting hall in Centenary Hall in Exhibition Street); there are other
interiors, usually public foyers but some shop interiors, that can be glimpsed incidentally
from the street (such as the ACA building in Queen Street); and there are the large open
glassedpublicgroundfloorsofmanyofthebuildingsconstructedsincethe1950s(examples
being the Law Institute building and Dillingham Estates House) which can readily be seen
from the street. In the latter case, the interiors are arguably an important element of the
exteriordesignirrespectiveofwhethertheyareimportantfortheirownsake.
Inrelationtothelattercategoryof‘interior’,weagreewiththesubmissionspresentedby
MrTestrofortheLawInstitutethattheyfallintosomethingofalacunainthecontrolsofthe
planning scheme which are neatly divided into external and internal controls. That
internal/external categorisation of the parts of the building applies comfortably to those
buildings typically developed before the Second World War, where interiors are well
shieldedfromthepublicrealmbysolidwallspunchedonlybylimitedwindowanddoorway
openings. The categorisation of internal space versus exterior does not sit well, however,
withthedesigncharacteristicsofmanymodernbuildings(generallyofficesinthecentralcity
context), where there is a clear view to the ground floor interior. Indeed, a transparent
groundfloorbasewithmoresolidbuildingaboveisadesignelementofmanyofficessince
the 1950s. In terms of their streetscape role or contribution to the appearance of the
exteriorofthebuilding,itislikelynottobethedetaileddesignofelementsoftheinteriorso
muchastheopennessofthegroundfloorspacethatisimportant.
Thisbeingsaid,however,statementsofsignificanceaffordtheopportunitytostatehowan
interiorisimportanttothebuilding.Itwouldseempossibletoclarifytheinternal/external
roleforinteriorsaspartofsuchastatement.
The discussion of interiors also raised the matter of how only part(s) of the interior of a
building might be best designated in planning schemes. The schedule to the Heritage
Overlayallowsaboxtobetickedindicatingthatinteriorcontrolsapplybutdoesnotdirectly
indicatehowonlypartialinteriorsaretobeshown.Asnotedearliertheincorporatedplan
Page27of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 179 of 273
approach was recommended in the 2011 Review but the approach taken in the proposed
Amendment was to describe the area affected in the ‘Heritage Place’ (that is address)
column. An alternative approach might have been to define the affected area in the
‘Internalcontrolsapply’columnitselfbyproviding:‘...butonlytotheextentof...’(aswas
suggestedbyMrTestroandlateragreedbyMrO’Farrellinclosingsubmissions).Thisisthe
approachtakeninthePortPhillipPlanningScheme.ItwasalsosuggestedbyMrO’Farrell
thatClause52.03applyingtospecificsitesandexclusionsmaybeanotherapproach.
Therewasconsiderablediscussionaroundtheissueofthelegalproblemsoccurringbecause
ofthelimitationsimposeduponpartialinternaldesignation–notleastbeingtheissueofthe
mappedareaoftheHeritageOverlays(whichmightshowasapplyingtotheentirebuilding)
havingbeenheldbytheVictorianCivilandAdministrativeTribunaltotakeprecedenceover
any inconsistent description of the land in the overlay schedule (in the case of an interior
perhaps part only)16. It was also noted that if interior controls were to be applied to a
number of floors in a multiͲlevel building or even one upper floor, for example to a lift
interior or lift lobby, the different ownerships in a strata titled building could cause
difficulties. These matters which have been highlighted by the proposed application of
interiorcontrolstohighrisecitybuildings requirerectificationandshouldbebroughttothe
attentionoftheDepartmentofPlanningandCommunityDevelopment.
In our view, there is a need for more thorough investigation of all interiors before any
interiorsarelistedinthecentralcity.Aclearunderstandingofthethreshold(s)tobemet
shouldbedeveloped.Thelistingoftheinteriorofapropertycanquiteseriouslyrestrictthe
flexibility of an owner to adapt the building to his or her needs and should not be lightly
appliedasaresultofsomeincidentalidentification.
ThePanelrecommendsthat:
None of the proposed internal alteration controls be applied..
Noneoftheproposedinternalalterationcontrolsbeapplied.
Statutorydocumentsandpaintcontrols
Itisconvenienttodealwiththisaspectofthe2011ReviewandAmendmentinthisgeneral
sectionofthereport.
External paint controls are proposed to be applied to all of the 99 buildings. This is the
control additional to the standard requirement for permission to paint an unpainted
external surface and where the painting of the external surface would constitute an
advertisement(seeClause43.01Ͳ1).
Therewasnospecificoppositiontothisparticularcontrolinanysubmission.
The Panel sees no reason why this element of the Amendment should not proceed as
exhibited.
ArelatedmatterwasraisedintheLawInstituteofVictoria’swrittensubmissionconcerning
itsbuildingat468Ͳ470BourkeStreet,however,whichhasgeneralapplication.
16
Alphington Grammar School v Yarra City Council (2008) VCAT 995. See also Exhibit T45 for a fuller
discussionofthisissue.
Page28of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 180 of 273
The submission pointed to inconsistent and confusing wording between the Explanatory
ReportandtheAmendment’sListofChangesdocumentconcerningwhetherexternalpaint
controls applied to those 12 buildings where interior controls are proposed. On the one
handtheExplanatoryReportincludesundertheheading‘WhattheAmendmentdoes’:
Externalpaintcontrolsapplyfor99placesbutnoneoftheotherrequirementsin
theschedulewillapply.Twelve(12)placesincludeselectbuildinginteriors.
TheListofChangesdocumentprovidesundertheheading‘Overlays’:
The Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is amended to include 99 new places.
Externalpaintcontrolsapplyto99places,12placesareselectbuildinginteriors
with interior controls but none of the other requirements in the schedule will
apply.
Thesedocumentsmightbereadasindicatingthatofthe99places,12areinteriorsandin
thelattercasenoexternalpaintcontrolsapply.
TheNoticeofPreparationofAmendmentputsitmoreclearly:
Amendment C186 introduces the 99 places and 12 select building interiors into
theHeritageOverlay...Externalpaintcontrolsapplyfor99buildingsandselect
internalcontrolsfor12places,butnoneoftheotherrequirementswillapply.
Whilethesubmissiondidnot suggestthatanyonewould havebeenmisleadtotheextent
thatfurthernoticeoftheAmendmentwouldbenecessary,thePanelagreesthatitwouldbe
appropriatetoensurethatif,contrarytoourrecommendations,theCouncilproceedswith
internallistings,thewordingofthefinalExplanatoryReportandListofChangesshouldbe
consistent and make it clear that 99 places are proposed to be included in the Heritage
Overlay(orthefinalnumberasadopted);for12oftheseinteriorcontrolsaretobeapplied;
andforall99externalpaintingcontrolswouldapply.
4.2 Otherchallengestoproposedlistings
There were a number of other common matters raised in the written submissions and in
presentationsatthehearingrelatingtoindividualbuildingswhichitisconvenienttomake
generalcommentsabout.
(i)
Theroleofabuilding’spastoccupancyindeterminingsignificance
This Amendment includes a number of buildings which were originally factories and
warehousesͲthoseuseshavingnowlargelydisappearedfromthecentralcity.Thebuildings
inmostcasesshownooutwardsignoftheirpastoccupancy.Thisistruealsooftheformer
VenerealDiseasesClinicinLittleLonsdaleStreet.
During the hearing, several of the experts presenting evidence in relation to individual
buildingssuggestedthatthepreviousoccupancyofabuildingwasofnoconsequencetoits
significance unless there was a clear reflection of that previous occupancy in the exterior
building fabric. This was a generally a reference to there being no obvious sign that a
particular company had occupied the building originally or for a significant period, rather
thanmerelytheformerlandusenotbeingapparent.Itwassuggested,forexample,thata
factor reducing the significance of the Sniders and Abrahams tobacco warehouse was its
Page29of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 181 of 273
anonymity. It was even suggested that it would be better understood and hence more
significant if it had a large cigar attached to it. Whilst this was clearly a ‘tongue in cheek’
response,itconvenientlysumsupthepositionbeingputinanumberofsubmissions.
It seems to us that this argument is a variant on the argument presented in A Heritage
Handbook edited by Graeme Davison and Chris McConville for the Monash Public History
Group(AllenandUnwin,NorthSydney,1991).Inthatbook,ProfessorDavidsoniscriticalof
the identification of places as of local heritage significance through their association with
localidentities–anassociationthatusuallywasnotevidentinthebuiltfabric.Itmightbe
considered that ‘local identity’ could be extended to a company or firm Ͳ which originally
occupiedthebuilding.
The following quotation from page 91 of the book perhaps best expresses the criticism of
significancegiventoabuildingbyassociation:
As Sir John Summerson, the British architectural historian, once remarked, ’the
objectivefactthatacertainmandidliveinacertainhouseisofpurelysubjective
value’. The connection becomes more than sentimental only if the historic
personageandthebuildingsomehowhelptointerpreteachother.
ThePanelbelieves,however,thattheapproachthatthehistoricpersonageandthebuilding
musthelptointerpreteachotherisperhapsanapproachthatisnotsousefulatthelocal
level17 and certainly not relevant when a warehouse or factory building was built for a
particular type of business. A lack of labelling of previous occupancies, or identifying
featuresfromthoseoccupanciessuchasnamesonpediments,inthemaindoesnotprevent
these buildings being seen as former factories and warehouses. It is the generic land use
whichinthemainwhichisoftenthecriticalfactorinsignificanceratherthantheparticular
business.
So far as the former Venereal Diseases (VD) Clinic is concerned, the anonymity of the
buildingisperhapshardlysurprisingandshouldnotberegardedasreducingitssignificance.
Generally each place has been dealt with in terms of its historic and architectural
significance,regardlessoftheexistenceoflabellingoridentifyingfeatures.
(ii)
Theroleofeconomicpolicyconsiderations
Theissue
The issue that was addressed in a number of submissions was whether, in assessing if a
buildingshouldbeincludedintheHeritageOverlay,considerationshouldbegiventoother
policiesoftheplanningscheme,inparticularthosewhichsupporteconomicdevelopmentin
thecentralcity.Itwassuggested,atleastinthecaseofmarginallyimportantbuildings,that
their inclusion in the overlay Ͳ with its attendant presumption of conservation Ͳ should be
tradedoffagainstotherplanningobjectives.
17
SeethediscussionofthismatterinthePanelreportonBoroondaraPlanningSchemeAmendmentC99page
38.
Page30of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 182 of 273
ThesematterswereaddressedinsomedetailinMsBrennan’ssubmissionforISPTPtyLtdas
owner of the National Mutual site at 433Ͳ455 Collins Street, as well as in Mr Walker’s
submissions for the Currie and Richards property at 473Ͳ481 Elizabeth Street. They were
responded to by Mr O’Farrell in his submissions for the Council and in Mr Tobin’s
submissionsfortheNationalTrust.
MsBrennan’ssubmissionsincluded:
x The Council as planning authority is under a statutory obligation to implement all of
the objectives of planning in Victoria not merely those relating to heritage
conservation.
x Inpreparing(andassessing)planningschemeamendmentstheCouncilandPanelare
obligedtohaveregardtoStateandlocalplanningpolicies,includingthosefortheCBD
and must consider economic and social effects if the circumstances appear to so
require.
x The decision in Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Planning (2004)
VCAT 2029 establishes that all relevant planning issues, including indirect social and
economiceffects,mustbeconsidered.
x ThePanelinconsideringwhethertoapplytheoverlayshouldallowthecitytoperform
itscapitalcityfunctions.
MrWalker’ssubmissioninrelationtothismatteralsoreliedontheAustralianConservation
Foundationcase.Inparticular,herelieduponitsfindingsconcerningindirecteffectsbeinga
legitimatesubjectforasubmissiontoaproposedAmendment.Hesubmittedthattheeffect
oftheAustralianConservationFoundationdecisionincombinationwithsection12(2)ofthe
Act is that a planning authority must consider all planning policies which have a sufficient
nexustotheamendment–inthiscasenotjustheritagepolicies.Hesaidthatasoneeffect
of imposing heritage controls is to constrain development, the policies relating to the
primaryfunctionsofthecityshouldalsobeconsidered.
Mr Walker’s submission acknowledged that previous panels had not generally taken this
approachinrelationtoconsiderationofheritageamendments.
TheCouncilresponse
InhisclosingreplyfortheCouncil,MrO’Farrelladdressedthismatter.Hesubmittedthat
referencetotheAustralianConservationFoundationcasewasmisplacedanddistinguishable
in that there were terms of reference purporting to limit the considerations of the panel
(whichdoesnotapplyhere).
HenotedthatpreviouspanelshadconsistentlytakentheviewthattradeͲoffsagainstother
objectives and requirements of the planning schemes are to be dealt with at the planning
permit stage rather as part of the consideration of the appropriateness of a heritage
amendment.
Mr O’Farrell quoted the following passage from the report of the panel in relation to
Amendment C99 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme as a convenient summary of the
panels’approach:
Page31of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 183 of 273
Panelshavegenerallybeenconsistentintheirviewthatconsiderationofmatters
beyond the issue of whether or not an individual site or a precinct has the
requisiteleveloflocalsignificance,lieoutsidetheproperscopeoftheassessment
of a proposal to apply a Heritage Overlay.[1] These views have normally been
expressed in response to submissions about personal disadvantage to the
submitter as a result of the heritage listing such as such as economic
consequencesforalandowner,costsofrepairofabuildinginpoorcondition,a
desiretodemolishandrebuild,andthelike.
Itisourview,however,thatevenwhenthecompetingissuesraisedarebroader
and of a public nature such as urban consolidation, they remain outside the
proper scope for consideration in relation to the matter of whether a Heritage
Overlayshouldbeapplied.
The decision as to whether a planning scheme overlay which signals and
regulates particular characteristics of land should apply to any site is not a
decision which is normally taken having regard to ‘tradeͲoffs’ against other
competingobjectivesandcontrolsofascheme.Placesarenotexcludedfromthe
EnvironmentalSignificanceOverlay,forexample,becausetheplanningauthority
wishes to see the land developed. The consideration of application of that
overlayisbasedonwhetherornotthelandhassignificance.Similarlyareasare
includedornotincludedwithinfloodingoverlayspurelyonthebasisofwhether
floodliabilityapplies.Inthesameway,whenaHeritageOverlayisproposedto
be applied to a property or area, the consideration should be whether or not it
haslocalheritagesignificance.
We would also say that planning scheme overlays with few exceptions do not
imposeprohibitionsondevelopmentbutrequirethatcertainvaluespertainingto
the land are taken into account in any proposal to develop the land. Some
development proposals may be judged to be inappropriate having regard to all
thefactorsrelevanttothepermitdecisionandrefusedasaresult,butotherswill
bejudgedassatisfactory.ThisistrueoftheHeritageOverlay.
Inthepresentcase,thePanelisineffectbeingrequestedtomakeadecisionin
the context of the Amendment about potential demolitions in the area(s)
proposedtobemadesubjecttotheHeritageOverlay.Inourview,thesematters
arenormallyandproperlydealtwithunderplanningpermits.Itisonlywhena
permit application outlining the proposed use and development is before a
planningbodythatthepropertradeͲoffsorbalancingofpoliciescanbemade.
In this respect we refer to the report of the Panel considering Whitehorse
AmendmentC140whichincludes:
The Panel notes that the management of heritage places is a two stage
planningprocess.Firstlytheobjectiveidentificationofheritagesignificance
(the current stage); and secondly the ongoing management of the place
havingregardtosuchmatterssuchastheeconomicsofbuilding,retention
and repair, reasonable current day use requirements etc as part of the
considerationofanapplicationfordevelopment.
Page32of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 184 of 273
Thisapproachtothemanagementofheritageplaceshasbeenadoptedin
practice by planning panels and by the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal. The comments by the panel considering the Ballarat Planning
SchemeAmendmentC58areoftenreferredto.
Atpage53oftheirreportthePanelsaid:
Panelshaveconsistentlyheldthatwhenevertheremaybecompeting
objectivesrelatingtoheritageandothermatters,thetimetoresolve
themisnotwhentheHeritageOverlayisappliedbutwhenadecision
must be made under the Heritage Overlay or some other planning
schemeprovision.Theonlyissueofrelevanceindecidingwhetherto
apply the Heritage Overlay is whether the place has heritage
significance.
Mr O’Farrell also submitted that at the permit stage the balancing against other policies
wouldnecessarilyoccurasaresultofClause10.04oftheschemewhichdirectsintegration
ofpoliciesinfavourofnetcommunitybenefitandsustainabledevelopment.
Othersubmissions
MrTobinfortheNationalTrustalsoreferredtoanumberofotherpanelreportswhichhave
takenthesameapproachtothematterstobeconsideredatthetimeofaproposedheritage
amendment. His submission also pointed out that to do otherwise would be to ‘second
guess’thefutureuse(ordevelopment).
MrTobinalsopointedoutthatundertheCapitalCityZoneprovisionspermissionisrequired
for buildings and works and these provisions would invite consideration of broader
competingpolicyobjectives.
Paneldiscussionandviews
The Australian Conservation Foundation case is one which is concerned with the issue of
whethertheambitofconsiderationsbyapanelcanbeconstrainedbytermsofreference.It
finds that they cannot and that the decision maker is obliged by section 12 of the Act to
entertainsubmissionsonenvironmentalmattersandconsidertheenvironmentaleffectsofa
proposedamendmentincludingitsindirecteffects.
It appears that it is by analogy that it is argued that we must consider the economic
consequencesofthepresentheritageAmendment.
The Australian Conservation Foundation decision was considered by the panel considering
AmendmentC84totheBrimbankPlanningScheme.Ashere,itwasaheritageamendment
proposing individual place Heritage Overlays. Relying on two cases (one being Australian
ConservationFoundation),itwasarguedforasubmitterthatthepanelshouldhaveassessed
the heritage study’s recommendations against the State and local planning policy
frameworksofthescheme(includingeconomic,environmentalandsocialobjectives)prior
topreparationoftheamendment.
The Panel commented that the two cases relied upon revolved around the question of
whether the discretion to consider social and economic effects implied in the wording of
section12(2)(c)shouldorshouldnothavebeenexercised.Notingthatneithercaserelated
Page33of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 185 of 273
to heritage controls, they found that the cases did not have specific relevance to
AmendmentC84.
WesimilarlybelievethatthefindingsoftheAustralianConservationFoundationcasearenot
directlyrelevanthere.
Section12oftheActtowhichitreferssetsouttheresponsibilitiesanddutiesofaplanning
authority.Theyrelateinteraliatothematterswhicharetobeconsideredwhenaschemeis
beingprepared.
Relevantpartsofsection12are:
12(2) Inpreparingaplanningschemeoramendment,aplanningauthorityͲ
(a) musthaveregardtotheMinister'sdirections;and
(aa)musthaveregardtotheVictoriaPlanningProvisions;and
(ab)in the case of an amendment, must have regard to any municipal strategic
statement, strategic plan, policy statement, code or guideline which forms
partofthescheme;and
(b) musttakeintoaccountanysignificanteffectswhichitconsiderstheschemeor
amendment might have on the environment or which it considers the
environmentmighthaveonanyuseordevelopmentenvisagedinthescheme
oramendment;and
(c) maytakeintoaccountitssocialeffectsandeconomiceffects(ouremphasis).
Itappearsthatthereisamandatoryobligationtoconsidersignificantenvironmentalmatters
in the preparation of an amendment (the matter in contention in the Australian
Conservation Foundation case) but there is discretion as to whether social and economic
effectsaretobeconsidered.
Weareconsciousthattheapparentdifferencebetweenthetwoprovisionsmaynotbeas
greatasitfirstappears.
ThesecondcasetowhichtheBrimbankpanelwasreferredwasGlenroyRSLvMorelandCity
CouncilVSC29;[1997]VICSC29(3July1997)reportedin19AATR.TheSupremeCourtwas
considering the whether a similarly worded discretion to consider social and economic
effects under section 60 of the Act, which relates to the matters to be considered by a
responsible authority (and the Tribunal) when considering an application for permit, was
indeeddiscretionaryinallcircumstances.
Thatsectionprovides:
(1A) Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, if the
circumstancesappeartosorequire,mayconsiderͲ
(a) anysignificantsocialandeconomiceffectsoftheuseordevelopmentfor
whichtheapplicationismade...
TheCourtheld:
If"thecircumstancesappeartosorequire"Iamoftheviewthattheresponsible
authority(andthus,onarehearing,theTribunal)isthenboundtohaveregardto
Page34of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 186 of 273
whichever of the four specified subject matters bears upon the issue. I do not
accept that the expression "may consider" is to be read in s.60(1)(b)18 as
conferringadiscretiononthedecisionͲmakerbutrather,inthewordsofJervisCJ
in argument in MacDougall v. Paterson [1851] EngR 973; (1851) 11 C.B. 775 at
773; [1851] EngR 970; 138 E.R. 672 at 679 "the word 'may' is merely used to
confer the authority: and the authority must be exercised, if the circumstances
are such as to call for its exercise" (See Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v. Federal
Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 127 C.L.R.106 at 134Ͳ135 per Windeyer J; see
alsoMitchellvTheQueen(1996)184C.L.R.333at345Ͳ346).Toadoptandadapt
the language of Windeyer J in Finance Facilities, the responsible authority (and
the Tribunal) are each given power to consider the matters mentioned in subͲ
s.(1)(b) in forming their decisions but upon proof of the particular case out of
which the power arises, that is "if the circumstances appear to so require", the
responsible authority, or the Tribunal (as the case may be) is then bound to
considerthem.
While there is no similar reference to ‘if the circumstances so require’ in section 12, the
Glenroy case nevertheless provides some guidance on whether there are obligations to
considerothermattersbeyondheritagewhenurgedtodosobysubmitters.
InrelationtothisheritageAmendmentwedonotthinkthatthecircumstancesrequireusto
consider matters beyond whether the places which are the subject of the proposed
HeritageOverlayshaveheritagesignificance–inparticularwedonotthinkwearerequired
to consider and tradeͲoff other economic policies of the Planning Scheme. We adopt the
reasoningofthepanelwhichconsideredBoroondaraPlanningSchemeAmendmentC99as
quotedaboveinmakingthisfinding.TheHeritageOverlaylikemostotheroverlaysinthe
VPPsisatoolwithaparticularpurposetorecogniseandmanageheritageplaces.Itshould
beappliedtothoseplaceswhereheritagesignificanceisfoundtoapply.
InthisrespectwenotethattheVPPPracticeNoteonApplyingtheHeritageOverlay,inthe
sectionheaded‘Whatplacesshouldbeincludedintheheritageoverlay?’,indicatesthat,in
addition to heritage places not relevant here, the overlay is to be applied to ‘places
identifiedinalocalheritagestudy,providedthesignificanceoftheplacecanbeshownto
justifytheapplicationoftheoverlay’.ThereisnomentioninthePracticeNotethatother
tradeͲoffsaretobemade.
Webelievethatthepropertimeforeconomicimperativesandtheliketobeconsideredisat
thepermitapplicationstagewhenthedetailofwhatistobedonetoaplaceisknownand
heritageconsiderationscanbefairlyweighedagainstotheroutcomes.Thisisanapproach
consistent separating heritage assessment and management as described in the Burra
Charter.
Therecanbenoconcernthatthislaterbalancingofcompetingobjectiveswillnotoccur.As
Mr Tobin noted, the Capital City Zone provisions impose the need for permission for
buildingsandworksanddemolition,andthemultiplepermissionsunderthezoneandthe
18
Nowsection60(1A)(c)
Page35of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 187 of 273
overlaywillensurethatconsiderationsapplyingatthetimeofapermitapplicationwillnot
be confined only to heritage matters as they might be if only heritage permission were
triggered. The balancing of heritage considerations against other scheme policies and
requirementswillalwaysoccurwhereworksareproposedonthesitesofthesebuildings–
allowingtheworthoftheirretentionordemolitiontobeconsideredwhenthereisaknown
proposalforbuildingsandworks.
With respect to this issue of whether other competing considerations should apply at the
timetheAmendmentisbeingconsidered,wewerenotreferredtoanyotherpanelreport
whereadifferentapproachtoourshasbeentaken.
(iii)
Permits
Theissue
There were a number of matters raised concerning the relationship of the Amendment to
extantplanningpermitsandapplications,mostnotably:
x The role that an existing permit for redevelopment of a site plays in considering
whethertheHeritageOverlayshouldnowbeappliedandwhetherthereisaneedto
accommodateitinsomeway.
x Theeffectoftheincomingheritagecontrolsuponcurrentapplicationsforpermitsand
theneedforadditionalpermissions.
ThesematterswerethesubjectofsubmissionsmadeonbehalfoftheownersoftheCeltic
ClubandtheNationalMutualbuildinginparticular.Weunderstandthatplanningpermits
existorpermitapplicationshavebeenalsomadeinrelationtotheWomen’sVDClinic,the
RoyalSaxonHotel,theCurrieandRichardssite,andtheLawInstitutesite.
Someofthekeymattersraisedwere:
x Ms Brennan advised that there is a permit to develop the National Mutual site19,
currentto2December2015,whichallowsthedemolitionoftheopenplazaforecourt,
part of the basement car park and façades of the existing building; together with
refurbishmentoftheexistingofficetowerandtheconstructionofan11storeyoffice
buildingtoCollinsStreetwithgroundfloorretail;atwostoreyiconbuildingforuseas
arestaurant;andapedestrianlaneway.TheearlierwrittensubmissionforISPTPtyLtd
suggeststhatheritagemattershadbeenconsideredwhenthepermitapplicationwas
made.
Whilethispermitseemstoallow‘contemporising’changestobemadetothecladdingofthe
existingbuilding,itisnotclearwhetherthispermissionwouldallowanychangesrequiredto
deal with the complete replacement of new external panels as a result of the recent
problems.
x Mr Bisset advised that his client has an application before the Minister for Planning
seekingtodemolishpartofthebuildingonthesite(retainingthefacadetowhichthe
19
PlanningPermitNo2006/0419
Page36of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 188 of 273
Heritage Overlay would apply) and to construct a 48 storey mixed use development
with threebasementlevels housing theCelticClub and 256 dwellings. Permission is
alsosoughtforuseofthelandasahotel(withgaming),afunctioncentre,restricted
recreationfacilityandaliquorlicence.
He advised that his client sought to have an incorporated document added to the
Amendment (see Clause 43.01Ͳ2) which would provide for a two20 dimensional building
envelope allowing the proposed development to proceed behind the retained façade
without the need for further planning permission under the incoming overlay (which was
notopposed).Thiswasonthebasisthattheplanningpermitapplicationhadbeencarefully
designed having regard to all relevant matters which included heritage and it was
inappropriateforittohavetobereassessed.
TheCouncilresponse
MrO’Farrell’sclosingsubmissionsincludedthatsubmitters’referencetothesepermitswas
againtotrytopersuadethePanelfromrecommendingtheapplicationoftheoverlayhaving
regardtoothermatters.Henotedthatitwasinthecontextofthe‘accruedrights’debate.
Sofarasaccruedrightsareconcernedhenotedthatpermissionfordemolitionisrequired
under the Capital City Zone (which applies to all of the sites) and in circumstances where
permission for demolition under the zone has been granted the question arises whether
furtherpermissionfordemolitionunderanyincomingoverlaywouldberequired.Healso
notedtheprovisiontothePaneloflegaladvicewhichhadbeenprovidedtoISPTPtyLtdin
relation to the National Mutual building which is to the effect that no further permission
wouldberequiredfordemolitiongiventheirexistingpermit.Hesaidthattheremaybea
futuredebateaboutthis,butitwasunnecessaryforthePaneltoresolvethismatter.
He also indicated that the Council opposed the inclusion of an incorporated plan for the
CelticClubpropertyasthebuildingenvelopehadnotyetbeenagreedandtheCouncilwere
proposingaseriesofchanges.
MrO’Farrellalsosuggestedthattheissueofwhetherapermitwouldberequiredforrepairs
totheNationalMutualbuildingifanoverlaywasappliedwasanissueforanotherday.He
notedhowever,theinterpretativeissuearoundwhethertheexemptionforroutinerepairs
and maintenance would apply (Clause 62.02Ͳ2) or whether a permit would be required
becausetheappearanceofthebuildingwouldbealtered(Clause43.01Ͳ1).
Othersubmissions
SubmissionsonthismatterwerealsomadebyMrTobinfortheNationalTrust.MrTobin
indicated that the Trust did not take issue with the notion that where the relevant
permissions are regulated by the Planning Scheme and a planning permit is obtained that
this constitutes an accrued right. He indicated an acceptance that theintroduction of the
HeritageOverlaywouldnothaveretrospectiveapplicationandthepermitwouldstand.
Hissubmissionwentontosay:
20
Thedraftincorporatedplanprovidedshowednomaximumtowerheight.
Page37of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 189 of 273
However,themereexistenceofaplanningpermitdoesnotmeanthatthepermit
will be acted on. All permits have expiry dates and will expire should the
development not proceed within the time permitted under the permit (and no
extensionoftimeissoughtorgranted).
Theexistenceorotherwiseofpermitsisanirrelevanceinsofarastheapplication
of the Heritage Overlay is concerned. The primary question, in fact the only
question, remains whether or not a particular site should be the subject of the
Heritage Overlay, and it has no bearing on this question, it being part of the
second type of enquiry, on the question of whether or not the Overlay should
apply.
Paneldiscussionandviews
We agree that it does seem that the Panel has been advised of these permits and
applicationstosupportofthesubmitters’positionthatconsiderationneedstobegivento
othermattersbesidesheritage–mostnotablythedevelopmentpotentialofthesesites.As
Mr O’Farrell submitted, this is similar to the argument about the need to consider and
balance other development policies of the Planning Scheme against those relating to
heritageconservation.
Itisagainourviewthatitisappropriate,inthecontextofconsideringtheAmendmentand
whether Heritage Overlays should be applied,to consider only the heritage significance of
the buildings. We do not believe that it is appropriate to consider the permits and
applicationsͲprincipallyforthereasonthatthepermitsmayneverbeactedupon(andthe
applicationsnotgranted),andthustheconsequencesfortheintegrityofthebuildingremain
uncertain.
SofarastheincorporatedplanfortheCelticClubsiteisconcerned,wedonotbelievewe
canendorseanyunknownfinaloutcomefortheland.
Theotherissuearoundpermitsandapplicationswhichrequiresconsiderationisthematter
ofwhethertheincomingcontrolswillrequirenewpermitapplicationstobemade.Itwas
suggested or implied that it would be an unreasonable outcome if further permission was
necessary.
It would seem that further permits for development (including demolition) would not be
required either where permits have been granted and acted upon, or, if not acted upon,
wherethepermitscontainallofthenecessarypermissionstodeveloptheland(acomplete
accruedright).
We agree with Mr O’Farrell that this matter should be left for another day, however, and
anotherarena.Wesimplydonothavesufficientinformationaboutpermissionsthathave
beengranted,controlsinplaceatthetimeetc,tomakeaninformedjudgmentabouttheir
relationshiptotheincomingcontrols.Wewillcommentthatweexpectthattherewillbe
somedebatearoundthesematters21.
21
Considering the possibly conflicting decisions in Brimbank City Council v LS Planning Pty Ltd [2006] VCAT
2218andTheUniversityofMelbournevMinisterforPlanning[2011]VCAT469.
Page38of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 190 of 273
So far as this matter relates to underlying concerns about the fairness of imposing new
controlsonthoselandownerswhohavealreadyobtainedpermitsorhaveembarkedonan
applicationprocess,weadvisethatwearesatisfiedthatthereissufficientflexibilityinthe
managementoftheplanningsystemthattheseproblemscanbeovercome.
Page39of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 191 of 273
5 Placesfromtheperiodto1852:’FrontierTown’
5.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
GeorgeEvansshopandresidence
HO
HO1081
Grade
B
Int*
Written
Sub**
Presented to
Panel
row309Ͳ325SwanstonStreet
*Internalalterationcontrols
**Submission
5.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
TherewerenoplacesinthiscategoryaddressedatthePanelhearing.
5.3 Writtensubmissiononly
Nowrittensubmissionsaddressedthisproperty.
5.4 Nosubmissions
OnlyoneplaceoriginatingfromthisperiodisproposedforinclusionintheHeritageOverlay,
beingthepropertyat309Ͳ325SwanstonStreet–GeorgeEvansShop.Itwasnotthesubject
ofsubmissions.ThepropertywasnotinspectedbythePanelandweseenoreasonwhythe
Amendmentshouldnotproceedinrelationtothisplace.
Page40of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 192 of 273
6 Placesfrom1852Ͳ1859:‘Gold’
6.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
HO
Hoffman'sflourstores,laterHenryBox&Son HO993
Companyofficesandwarehouse
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
B
HO1018
B
Pattinson's general store, later Prince of HO1020
WalesandFederalClubhotels,laterBulley&
Co.Building
C
HO1022
B
Y
Y
Savings Bank of Victoria Flinders Street HO1040
branch,former
C
A
B
C
Y
104A'BeckettStreet
Pynsent'sstoreandwarehouse
303Ͳ305ElizabethStreet
380ElizabethStreet
RoyalSaxonHotel,former
441Ͳ447ElizabethStreet
520Ͳ522FlindersStreet
Bayne's shops and residences, later Little HO1055
Reatarestaurant
68Ͳ70LittleCollinsStreet
Cleve's Bonded Store, later Heymason's Free HO1062
Stores
523Ͳ525LittleLonsdaleStreet
James White's hay and corn store, part of HO1088
MetropolitanHotel
261WilliamStreet
6.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
(i)
FormerRoyalSaxonHotel,441–447ElizabethStreet
Theplace
Thisbuildingconsistsofapartthreeandparttwostoreyformerhotelbuildingconstructed
in several stages. The buildings facing Elizabeth Street include a three storey face brick
building(southernpart)usingaRegencyarchitecturalstyleandatwostoreybasaltbuilding
tothenorth(asimilarwingtothesouthwasdemolishedatsomestageinthepast).Ared
brickbuildingattherearwasconstructedaslateradditiontothehotelandaportionofthe
originalhotelyardisborderedbyremnantsofabluestonerubblewalltothewest.Theyard
was originally accessed via a carriageway which passed beneath the southern end of the
threestoreybuilding.
Page41of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 193 of 273
Theissue
ThewrittensubmissionlodgedbyHansenPartnershipPtyLtdfortheownerofthisproperty
inresponsetotheexhibitedAmendmentraisedthefollowingissues:
x The‘B’gradingproposedforthisbuildingoverstatesitsheritageimportanceanditwas
removedfromtheinterimlistoftheRegisteroftheNationalEstate.
x TheassociationofthebuildingwiththefoundingofthenearbyQueenVictoriaMarket
isofmarginalcultural,historicalorsocialvalue.
x Itisofasimple,commonmidͲ1800’sarchitecturalstyleͲusedbyanumberofhotels
fromthesameperiodͲandhencenotexemplaryorakeyexampleofitsstyle.
x Significantalterationshavebeenmadetothefaçade.
x Theuseisnolongerasahotel.
Insummary,thesubmissionwasthatthevaluesofthebuildingwereslightandoutweighed
bytheneedtoallowreasonabledevelopmentofthesite.
MsSharp,barrister,appearedfortheowner,GoodyearPtyLtd.Shesubmitted:
x AmendmentC186ismisconceived.
x TheAmendmenthasnotbeenpreparedwiththenecessaryrigour.
x The ability of the building to meet one of the National Estate criteria completely is
disputed,claimingthat:earlyhotelsinMelbournearecommonplaceandwereoften
usedasmeetingplaces;whilstithasacontinueduseforaccommodation(itisnowa
seriesofapartments)thisisoflimitedimportance;thattheaestheticsignificanceisat
best limited to the three storey façade and the incorporated carriageway; and the
buildingmaybeofinteresttothecommunity,butisnothighlyregarded.
x Thebuildingshouldbegradedatnomorethana‘C’.
x ShouldtheAmendmentbeapprovedtheextentoftheHOoverthispropertyshouldbe
limitedtothethreestoreyfaçade.
Theexpertwitnesscalledbyher,MrTaylor,madethefollowingpoints:
x Thatthebuildinghassomearchitectural,aestheticorculturalsignificanceatthelocal
level.
x However,thebalanceofthesite(includingtherearannexeandtheyard)haslittleor
nosignificance.
x The front section with its Regency style façade and covered carriageway has some
capacitytodemonstratethearea’searlydevelopmentandlanduse.Whilsttheform
ofthebuildingwasoncecommonitisnowrare–includingthecoveredcarriageway.
Page42of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 194 of 273
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthesiteanditsbuildingsare:
x Historically and socially significant as one of Melbourne’s earliest surviving and
continuously occupied hotels Ͳ constructed in 1858 on the then main approach to
MelbourneviaElizabethStreet.
x Important for the rare and distinctive carriageway from Elizabeth Street (now
accommodatingashop).
x Historically important as the venue for the meeting that established the Queen
VictoriaMarket.
x Aestheticallysignificantforitselegantlysimpleandsymmetricalfaçadecomposition.
AnannotatedstatementofsignificantforthisbuildingpreparedbyMrButler,afterhislast
inspection,wasprovidedtothePanel.
Othersupportingsubmissions
The National Trust supported the application of the overlay, but felt that the claim for
significance around the hosting of a meeting related to the establishment of the Queen
Victoria Market was not strongly justified. The Trust specifically noted the rarity of
carriagewaysassociatedwithhotels.
Paneldiscussionandviews
The Panel agrees with the submitter and the National Trust that it is not appropriate to
ascribehistoricalsignificancetothebuildingbasedonitshostingameetingconcerningthe
establishmentoftheQueenVictoriaMarket.Themarketitselfisbyfarthemoresignificant
siteonthiscriterion.
The Panel undertook a detailed inspection of the site on 12 April 2012 and we have
concludedthatthestoryofthedevelopmentofthissiteisnotyetfullyunderstood(andwas
not presented as part of the evidence). It is possible that the three storey section was a
redevelopmentofanearliertwostoreycomplex,ofwhichthetwostoreybasaltbuildingat
447ElizabethStreetwaspart.
Regardlessofthis,itisclearthatthebuildingat441Ͳ447ElizabethStreetasweseeittoday
wasinplaceby1860. Weagreewiththeexpertsthatitshouldbeascribedhistoricaland
social significance on the basis that it is one of Melbourne’s earliest hotels on what was
originallythemainentryroadtothecity.
ThePanelacceptsthattheannexeattherearisalateraddition,butitwasdevelopedfor
hoteluse.Therewasalsosomediscussionabouttheoriginsofthebasaltwallattherear
which may have been part of another property (part only of which survives). It appears
likely,however,thatthiswasusedtosupport astructurewhichfacedontothehotelyard
andshouldalsobeincluded.
Weareoftheviewthatthewholeofthesiteshouldbeincludedintheoverlay.
Page43of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 195 of 273
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerRoyalSaxonHotelat441Ͳ447Elizabeth
Streetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) ArevisedthestatementofsignificancetoreflecttheevidenceofMrButler;and
b) AreͲinspectionbyrepresentativesofthePlanningAuthorityandthestatement
of significance for the place adjusted to accommodate information that is
revealedasaconsequence.
6.3 Writtensubmissiononly
(i)
JamesWhiteHayandCornStore–261WilliamStreet
Theplace
This is a two storey parapeted shop and dwelling constructed in 1854Ͳ5. It is finished in
dressedandtuckpointedstonewithaslateroof.Itpresentsarchitecturallyaspartofthe
abuttingMetropolitanHotel(openedonthatsitein1854).Theshopwasfirstdevelopedfor
JamesWhite,ahayandcorndealer.
Theissue
AnobjectingwrittensubmissionwasforwardedtotheCouncilonbehalfoftheowner,Chris
Karagounis, by Alex Kaar Pty Ltd. The submission included that aesthetically the building
doesnotdisplayanyheritagefeaturesanddoesnothavesuchheritagesignificancethatit
warrantscontrols.Thesitehaspotentialforredevelopment.
TheCouncilposition
Inthe2011Review,thebuildingisfoundtobeofhistoricalsignificanceasoneoftheoldest
group of shops and dwellings within the Capital City Zone. Mr Butler’s evidence was that
while the ground floor has been rendered, the upper level painted and the upper level
windowssheetedover,thesearereversibleandotheroriginalelementssuchasthedressed
stonewindowsillsandcarvedstonecorniceandparapetareintact.
Othersupportingsubmissions
The National Trust supported the inclusion of this building and submitted that it was an
unusual example of a shop constructed and faced with basalt, the more common facing
materialforthesebuildingsbeingcementrender.
Paneldiscussionandviews
The submission by the owner does not provide any information upon which his assertions
are based. We accept the expert evidence provided by the Council, supported by the
NationalTrust,aboutthesignificanceofthisveryearlyshopanddwellingwhichhashadonly
minimalalteration.
Page44of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 196 of 273
Theobjectionsconcerningrestrictionuponredevelopmentofthesitearenotconsideredto
be relevant to the Amendment but are to be taken into account in relation to any permit
whichmightbesoughtfortheland.SeeSection4.2foradiscussionofthisissue.
HavingconsideredthisissuethePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheJamesWhiteHayandCornStoreat
261WilliamStreet.
6.4 Nosubmissions
Thesixplaceslistedin thetableinSection6.1werenotthesubjectofsubmissions. They
were not inspected by the Panel and we see no reason why the Amendment should not
proceedinrelationtotheseplaces.
Page45of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 197 of 273
7 Placesfrom1860Ͳ1899:‘BoomandBust’
7.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
HO
Australia Felix Hotel, later Alhambra, Stutt's, HO998
Morells', and Richardson's Hotel, and
NationalAustraliaBank
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
C
C
HO1014
C
Y
Y
HO1015
B
Knight's shops anddwellings, later Hood and HO1016
CoandEdinburghChambers
B
HO1017
C
HO1021
B
HO1034
B
Schuhkraft&Cowarehouse,laterYMCA,and HO1036
AHAHouse
C
C
HO1039
C
HO1044
B
HO1045
C
HO1047
B
HO1051
B
168Ͳ174BourkeStreet
Gothic Chambers (City Proprietary Company HO1005
building)
418Ͳ420BourkeStreet
Sniders&Abrahamstobaccoandcigarfactory
9Ͳ13DreweryLane
ElizabethChambers
21Ͳ23ElizabethStreet
215Ͳ217ElizabethStreet
Wilson'sshop&residence
299ElizabethStreet
BankofAustralasia,former
384ElizabethStreet
GriffithsBrosPtyLtdbuilding
26Ͳ30FlindersStreet
130Ͳ132FlindersStreet
Cobden Buildings, later Mercantile & Mutual HO1037
ChambersandFletcherJonesbuilding
360Ͳ372FlindersStreetOR1Ͳ5QueenStreet
CoffeeTavern(No2)
516Ͳ518FlindersStreet
Penman&Dalziel'swarehousegroup
part4Ͳ6GoldiePlace
Throstle'sstores
106Ͳ112HardwareStreet
UnionBondMelbourneStorageCompanyLtd
115Ͳ129KingStreet
Marks'warehouse
362Ͳ364LittleBourkeStreet
Page46of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 198 of 273
Place
HO
Warburton'sshops&warehouses
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO1052
C
Briscoe & Co warehouse, later EL Yencken & HO1056
CoP/L
B
B
Y
HO1058
C
HO1065
C
HO1070
B
HO985
B
Y
Y
HO1073
C
McCaughan's Coffee Palace, later Great HO1075
SouthernPrivateHotel
C
C
B
Y
Y
B
365Ͳ367LittleBourkeStreet
392Ͳ396LittleCollinsStreet
McCracken City Brewery malt store, later HO1057
EbsworthHouse
538Ͳ542LittleCollinsStreet
PortaandSons,SteamBellowsWorks
25LittleLonsdaleStreet
Watson'swarehouse,laterKelvinClub
14Ͳ30MelbournePlace
Clarke'sShops&Dwellings
203Ͳ205QueenStreet
CelticClub
316Ͳ322QueenStreet
UnionHotel,laterTattersallsHotel
288Ͳ294RussellStreet
10Ͳ22SpencerStreet
Melbourne Democratic Club and shops and HO1082
residences
401Ͳ403SwanstonStreet
County Court Hotel, later Oxford Scholar HO1085
Hotel
427Ͳ433SwanstonStreet
SpierandCrawford,warehouse
HO1087
259WilliamStreet
Page47of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 199 of 273
7.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
(i)
SnidersandAbrahamsTobaccoFactory–9Ͳ13DreweryLaneand2Ͳ90Drewery
Place
Theplace
This complex of two linked buildings was constructed as a cigar and tobacco factory and
warehouse. They are claimed to have been built in 1890 to a design by prominent
Melbournearchitect,NahumBarnet.ThebuildingfacingDreweryLane(onthesouthͲwest
corner of the intersection with Drewery Place) is a more decorated design, described as
Queen Anne Revival style, than the attached building to the west at 2Ͳ20 Drewery Place
whichdemonstratesamorerestrainedandmodestversionoftheRenaissanceRevivalstyle.
Theissue
ThewrittensubmissionmadetotheCouncilinrelationtothispropertywasintheformofan
expertreportbyMrBarrettdatedOctober2011.ItsaysthatitwaspreparedforGorman
KellyPtyLtd,managingagentsoftheproperty,onbehalfoftheowner,ShiffNomineesPty
Ltd. The views Mr Barrett expressed in that report were consistent with his evidence as
discussedbelow.
MrBarrettalsonotedthattherewasconfusionaroundthefullextentofthesiteproposedto
beincludedintheHeritageOverlay.ThereferenceinthescheduletoClause43.01refersto
9Ͳ13DreweryLaneonly,butthemappedHeritageOverlay14ismoreextensive.MrBarrett
comments that it appears to include the adjoining buildings at 2Ͳ20 and 22 Drewery Place
andhenotesthatithadbeensuggestedtohimthatthereisinternalconnectivitybetween
the three buildings. The material in the 2011 Review itself refers only to 9Ͳ13 Drewery
Lane22,andMrBarrett’swrittensubmissiondiscussesthesignificanceofthepropertyat9Ͳ
13DreweryLaneonly.
At the hearing, however, this issue of the proposed extent of the Heritage Overlay was
clarifiedandthevaluesofthetwoabuttingbuildings(9Ͳ13DreweryLaneand2Ͳ20Drewery
Place)wereaddressed.
The owner was represented at the hearing by Ms Sharp, barrister. Having noted the
confusionoverwhether2Ͳ20DreweryPlacewasproposedforheritagecontrols,shemade
thefollowingsubmissions:
x Theoriginsofthebuildingat2Ͳ20DreweryPlaceareunknown.
x Thebuildingshavesomecontributoryvalueaspartofanhistoricalprecinct.
x Neither building provides any visual evidence of the association with Sniders and
Abrahams,thetobaccoindustrygenerally,orwitharchitect,NahumBarnet.
22
Mr Butler later indicated that it was intended that the Heritage Overlay extend to the immediately
adjoiningpropertytothewest.
Page48of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 200 of 273
x It is an exaggeration to state that Barnet specialised in the tobacco and cigar
warehouseandfactoryarchitecture.
WhencalledtogiveexpertevidencebyMsSharp,MrBarrettmadethefollowingpoints:
x ChangeshavebeenmadetotheexterioroftheSnidersandAbrahamsbuildingat9–
13 Drewery Lane and as a result it is not a particularly intact example of a late
Victorian/Edwardianwarehouse.
x The association of the building with Sniders and Abrahams ceased in the 1920s and
todaythatassociationisnotevidentinthefabric.
x ThatthisisnotagoodexampleoftheEnglishQueenAnneRevivalstyleaspopularised
byEnglisharchitect,NormanShaw.
x The site is not important as an individual building or buildings, but may warrant
identificationaspartofaprecinct.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthecombinedbuildingis:
x Aesthetically significant for its early and successful use of the English Queen Anne
Revivalstyleofarchitecture.
x Historically significant for its role in the development of a cigar and tobacco
manufacturingandwarehousingprecinctinthispartofthecityandforitsassociation
witharchitect,NahumBarnet.
x The building had been consistently afforded a ‘C’ grading throughout the heritage
studiesandreviews.
x Initsreplysubmission,theCouncilsoughttoclarifyanyconfusionovertheextentof
the proposed overlay and reinforce that what is proposed is an individual building
overlaycoveringthetwobuildingaddresses,notaprecinctoverlay.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentandtheexpert
evidencefromMrStoreymadethefollowingcomments:
x WhilstthisisanexampleoftheQueenAnneRevivalstyle(9Ͳ13DreweryLaneonly)itis
notasdramaticorovertasotherexamplesinthecitysuchastheWinfieldBuildingat
495CollinsStreet.
x There was a concentration of buildings associated with the tobacco industry in this
partofthecity.
x NahumBarnetwasaprolificcommercialarchitect.
AwrittensubmissionbyMrDuff,theoccupantofanearbybuildinginLittleLonsdaleStreet,
addressedthescientificvaluebasedonconstructionmethodologyofthenearbybuildingat
7DreweryLaneandhisownbuilding(alsoknownas1DreweryLane).HecommentsthatNo
1is‘notasarchitecturallyattractiveasnumbers7and9Ͳ13’.
Page49of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 201 of 273
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedthebuildingsfromtheexterior.
WebelievethatdespiteMrButler’sevidencethatboth9Ͳ13DreweryLaneand2Ͳ20Drewery
Place were built at the same time, they present as two different buildings of different
architectural styles. However, it is clear that both buildings were used by Sniders and
Abrahamsforsometimeandthattheywereinternallylinked.
The Panel considered whether this linked pair of buildings would be more appropriately
identifiedaspartofanindustrial/warehouseprecinct,orasoneofagroupofseriallylisted
buildingassociatedwithSnidersandAbrahams(seediscussionatSection4.2(iii)).Wethink
thereisclearlyacasefordefininganindustrial/warehouseprecinctinthispartofthecentral
city,assuggestedbyMsSharp,oratleastseriallylistingSnidersandAbrahams’buildings.
Despitethis,thePanelisobligedtoconsidertheAmendmentaspresentedtoitandinthe
absence of any precinct for this area the Panel believes that these linked buildings are
sufficientlyimportantintheirownrighttowarranttheapplicationofaHeritageOverlay.
Wefindthatthelinkedbuildingisbothhistoricallyandaestheticallysignificantatthelocal
level for its association with the tobacco industry and as a remnant of the
industrial/warehouseprecinctinthispartofthecity.Wefindthatthechangeswhichhave
been made to the buildings do not detract from an appreciation of their original
industrial/warehouserole.Wealsodonotthinkitisafaircriticismthatthefabricdoesnot
revealanassociationwithSniderandAbrahams:warehousebuildingsofthiskindfrequently
werenot‘labelled’astothefirmoccupyingthemnordidthematerialsproducedorstored
insidegenerallydictatetheformofthebuildingͲtheyareagenerictypeofbuilding.
RegardlessofwhetherthecornerbuildingisasgoodanexampleoftheQueenAnneRevival
styleasotherbuildingsinthecity,suchastheformerWinfieldbuilding,thePanelbelieves
thatitsarchitecturaldesignisimportantandparticularlysoforanindustrialbuildingsitedin
a back lane. The Panel accepts that Barnet designed other buildings for tobacco
manufacturers and merchants, but is aware that he was a prolific and highly regarded
architect in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and his reputation is not
dependentonhisroleasthedesigneroftobaccowarehouses.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheSnidersandAbrahamswarehousebuildingsat9Ͳ
13DreweryLaneand2Ͳ20DreweryPlaceasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Areviewoftheoverlayboundary,andifnecessaryamendittoensurethatboth
buildingsarecoveredbytheoverlay.
ThePlanningAuthorityconsiderfurtheramendingthePlanningSchemetoincorporate
a Heritage Overlay over an industrial precinct which incorporates the Sniders and
Abrahamswarehousebuildingsorincludingthemaspartofaseriallistingofbuildings
associatedwiththefirmSnidersandAbrahams.
Page50of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 202 of 273
(ii)
CelticClub(formerWestBourkeHotel)–316Ͳ322QueenStreet
Theplace
TheformerWestBourkeHotelisatwostoreyhotelbuildinglocatedonthecornerofQueen
andLatrobeStreetsdesignedinanItalianRenaissanceRevivalstyle.Itwasconstructedin
1876 as a two storey structure to a design by prominent Melbourne architect George
Johnson and in 1924 extensive renovations and additions (including a third storey) were
madetothedesignofthebuildingbyarchitect,ArthurBarnes.Ithasbeenoccupiedasthe
CelticClubsince1957.
Theissue
The written submission lodged by MacroPlan on behalf of the building owner, Celtic Club
Inc.,includedthefollowingpoints:
x Thebuildinghasbeenassessedinearlierstudies(1976,the1985Studyandthe2002
Review)butitssignificancehasnotpreviouslybeenrecognisedassufficienttowarrant
inclusionintheHeritageOverlay.
x Aspecificheritageassessmentwasdoneforthebuildingonlyafteraplanningpermit
hadbeenlodgedforitsredevelopmentinSeptember2010.Theredevelopmentthen
proposedwouldhaveretainedthefaçade.
x The‘B’gradingisthebuildingischallenged.Onlya‘C’gradingissupportedbyLovell
ChenArchitectswhowereengagedasexpertsbytheowner.
x There is a second planning permit currently under consideration by the Minister for
theredevelopmentofthesite–thisagainretainsthefaçade.LovellChenhasadvised
onitsretention.
x Current Planning Scheme policies provide a sound basis for assessment and heritage
controlsarenotwarranted.
x Thepropertyat316Ͳ322QueenStreetcomprisestwolots:Lot1onTP874263BandLot
2onTP644R.TheHeritageOverlayshouldnotapplytobothlotsaswasexhibitedbut
onlytoLot1uponwhichtheformerWestBourkeHotelissited.
x The letter to the Minister for Planning appended to the written submission (dated 9
September2011)includesthattheCelticClubhaslongstandingculturalandhistorical
significanceintheCityofMelbourne.
Atthehearing,theownerwasrepresentedbyMrBissetofMinterEllison.
HesubmittedthattheownerwasnotopposedtotheapplicationoftheHeritageOverlayto
thesiteasproposedbytheAmendment,butrequestedthatthePanelshouldhaveregard
to:
x The adequacy of the heritage assessment undertaken by Mr Butler and previous
assessments.
x Theappropriateheritagegradingforthebuilding(itisproposedasa‘B’grading).
Page51of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 203 of 273
x The appropriateness of having two separate policy reference documents for the
Amendment.
x Theneedtoclarifytheextentoftheoverlayforthissite(HO985).
x Theappropriatenessofincludinganincorporatedplanintheschedulewhichreflects
thecurrentpermitapplicationforthesite.
Mr Bisset called expert evidence from Mr Lovell of Lovell Chen. He made the following
points:
x This is a building of local significance and warrants inclusion in the schedule to the
HeritageOverlay.
x Despite the evidence that the building was designed by prominent architect, George
Johnson,theclaimthatthisisa‘milestone’placehasnotbeenestablishedsufficiently
forthebuildingtobegraded‘B’.
x The extent of importance can only be attributed to the original building and not the
adjacentMilburnHouse.
x He requested that the statement of significance for the Celtic Club be amalgamated
withthoseinthe2011Review23.
Mr Lovell later provided a revised statement of significance for the building based on the
additionalknowledgewhichhadcometolightafterexhibitionoftheAmendment.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Historically important as a ‘characteristic form of mid VictorianͲera commercial
MelbournederivedfromthegrowingeffectofItalianRenaissanceRevivalarchitecture
asappliedatfirsttotwoͲstoreybuildingsatthebeginningoftwodecadesofmassive
growth in Melbourne City. The relative integrity of the façade ground level is high
addinghistoricalvaluetotheplace.’
x HistoricallyimportantforitslinkswithPortPhillippioneer,GeorgeEvans.
x Aestheticallyimportantforitsornateclassicalfaçade.
Inhissubmissionsinreply,MrO’FarrellclarifiedthattheCouncilonlywishedtoapplythe
HeritageOverlaytotheCelticClubbuildingandnottheadjoiningsite.Healsoindicatedthat
theCouncilwasopposedtotheproposalputbytheownerthatanincorporateddocument
beincludedinthePlanningSchemewhichreflectedthecurrentplanningpermitapplication.
Mr O’Farrell supported the owner’s submission that the Statement of Significance for the
property should be included as part of the main 2011 Review reference document, hence
enablingthedeletionofthesecondreferencedocument.HeindicatedalsothattheCouncil
agreedthatitwasappropriatethattherebechangestothestatementofsignificanceforthe
23
Mr Butler advised that the Celtic Club statement of significance had preceded the 2011 Review and
supportedtheamalgamation.
Page52of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 204 of 273
building reflecting new information. Mr O’Farrell further pointed out that Mr Lovell had
conceded that the grading was a ‘line ball’ matter and that in the Council’s opinion the
buildingshouldremaingradedas‘B’.
Othersupportingsubmissions
The National Trust supported the inclusion of this building in the overlay and made the
followingpoints:
x Thefaçadeisimpressive.
x Thearchitectureismoretypicalofdesignsthatwereproducedsometenyearslater.
Inotherwords,itissomethingofanarchitecturaltrailblazer.
x The association with George Evans has more to do with his estate than himself
personally.
x Thefaçadeislargelyintactfromitsmajorperiodsofconstruction.
x ItisararesurvivingexampleofacornerhotelintheCBD.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedthisbuildingexternally.
Itisclearfromtheevidencepresentedatthehearingthattheoriginaltwostoreybuilding
was constructed in 1876 to a design by prominent Melbourne architect, George Johnson,
andextendedin1924todesignsbyarchitect,ArthurBarnes.
The Panel believes that the original Celtic Club building is of architectural and historic
importance and warrants inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. It also believes that this is an
important early work by George Johnson and has a long association with the Irish
communityastheCelticClubandassuchshouldbegraded‘B’.
The Panel does not believe that the association with George Evans adds to the historic
significanceoftheplaceinanysignificantway.
WeagreewithMrLovellthatarevisedstatementofsignificanceforthisbuildingisrequired
andsuggestthattheCouncilwhenreviewingthestatementsofsignificanceforallbuildings
shouldhaveregardtohissuggestedalternative(seethediscussionatSection4.1(ii).
The Panel notes that the Council agrees with the submissions that the overlay should be
restricted to the original Celtic Club building and the planning scheme map should be
amendedaccordingly.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheCelticClubat316Ͳ322QueenStreetasexhibited
subjecttothefollowing:
a) Areviewoftheoverlayboundary,andifnecessaryamendittoensurethatthe
originalbuildingonlyiscoveredbytheoverlay;and
b) The statement of significance be amalgamated with the 2011 Review and a
singlereferencedocumentonlybeincludedinClause22.04.
Page53of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 205 of 273
7.3 Writtensubmissionsonly
(i)
McCrackenCityBrewery–538Ͳ542LittleCollinsStreet
Theplace
536Ͳ542LittleCollinsStreetisdevelopedwithafourstoreywarehousebuildingconstructed
intwostages,thefirstdatingfrombetween1878and1879.ItpresentsafaçadetoLittle
Collins Street which relies on a Renaissance Revival design. The top floor was added
sometimeinthetwentiethcentury.
Theissue
Theownerofthebuilding,HousingChoicesAustralia,submitted:
x Thebuildinghasbeensignificantlymodified.
x Anupgradefroma‘C’to‘B’gradingisunjustified.
x The proposed Heritage Overlay would unnecessarily encumber the site for future
developmentofaffordablehousing.
x Modifications to the building reduce its contribution to the fabric of the immediate
streetscape.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Of aesthetic significance as a good freeͲstanding example of a Victorian era
RenaissanceRevivalpalazzostylebuilding.
x Ofhistoricsignificanceasoneofonlytwobrewerybuildingsremaininginthecentral
cityandtheonlysurvivingremnantofthelargeMcCrackenBrewingcomplex.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendment.
Paneldiscussionandviews
Onthebasisofthesubmissionsandevidencepresentedatthehearing,thePanelbelieves
thatthebuildingisofbotharchitectural(aesthetic)andhistoricsignificanceinthecity.The
McCracken Brewery was a large and significant operation of historic importance and this
remaining remnant, albeit a warehouse and not a brewing building, retains its distinctive
RenaissanceRevivalform.
TheotherissuesraisedinthesubmissionareaddressedinthegeneralissuesinSection4.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied as exhibited to the former McCracken City Brewery
warehouseat538Ͳ542LittleCollinsStreet.
Page54of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 206 of 273
7.4 Agreementathearing
(i)
CountyCourtHotel(nowOxfordScholarHotel)Ͳ427Ͳ433SwanstonStreet
Initswrittensubmission,RMITasownerofthisbuilding(knownasRMITBuilding81)didnot
objecttotheinclusionofthisbuildingintheHeritageOverlaybaseduponadvicefromLovell
ChenArchitects,providedtheextentoftheoverlaywasreduced.Thiswasonthebasisthat
the western portion of the exhibited HeritageOverlay area is subject to a substantial new
development and contains no original building fabric. It was submitted that the
developmentretainstheoriginalhotelandonlythispartofthesiteshouldbeincludedinthe
overlay.
TheCouncilacceptedthatposition.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the County Court Hotel building (now Oxford
ScholarHotel)at427Ͳ433SwanstonStreetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Theoverlayboundaryapplyonlytotheextentoftheoriginalhotelbuilding.
7.5 Nosubmissions
The remaining 23 places for which no submissions were received are listed in the table in
Section 7.1. The Panel did not inspect any of these buildings (nor those above where
submissionsinsupport werereceivedorwrittenobjectionswerelaterwithdrawn)andwe
seenoreasonwhytheAmendmentshouldnotproceedinrelationtotheseplaceswiththe
exceptionofanyinteriors.
Page55of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 207 of 273
8 Placesfrom1900Ͳ1929:‘TheCityBeautiful’
8.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
ExhibitionBootCompany
HO
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO996
C
Y
Y
HO999
C
Y
HO1004
C
Y
Y
Y
HO1090
B
HO1012
C
State Savings Bank of Victoria, Western HO1013
Branch
B
HO1019
C
Y
Y
Y
HO1025
C
Y
Y
HO1026
C
Y
HO1027
B
HO1029
C
HO1030
B
Denniston & Co P/L clothing factory, later HO1031
Rosati(1986Ͳ2012)
C
Y
Y
Y
HO1032
A
HO1035
C
160Ͳ162BourkeStreet
BourkeHouse
179Ͳ183BourkeStreet
OR145RussellStreet
EvansHouse,laterRochelleHouse
415Ͳ419BourkeStreet
Burke,laterBurns,House
340Ͳ342CollinsStreet
HuddartParkerLtdBuilding
464Ͳ466CollinsStreet
615Ͳ623CollinsStreet
UnionBankChambers,laterA.N.Z.Bank
351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet
Currie&Richardsshowrooms&warehouses
473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet
AlleyBuilding
30Ͳ40ExhibitionStreet
KelvinHall&Club,former
53Ͳ55ExhibitionStreet
Fancygoodsshop&residence
309ExhibitionStreet
SargoodGardinerLtdwarehouse
61Ͳ73FlindersLane
95Ͳ101FlindersLane
HigsonBuilding
125Ͳ127FlindersLane
VictorianCricketAssociationBuilding(VCA)
76Ͳ80FlindersStreet
OR1Ͳ9ExhibitionStreet
Page56of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 208 of 273
Place
WatersideHotel
HO
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO1038
C
HO1041
B
HO1042
C
Y
Y
KeepBros&Woodworkshopandshowroom, HO1043
laterStramitBuilding
B
HO1046
C
HO1048
B
HO1049
C
HO1059
C
HO1060
A
HO1061
C
Y
Y
HO1064
B
Y
HO1066
C
HO1071
B
Y
Y
Royal Bank of Australia Ltd, later English HO1072
Scottish&AustralianBankLtd
C
HO1074
B
Y
HO1076
C
HO1077
B
HO1078
C
Y
Y
508Ͳ510FlindersStreet
PrinceofWalesHotel,laterMarkilliesHotel
562Ͳ564FlindersStreet
CycloneWovenWireFenceCo
63Ͳ67FranklinStreet
96Ͳ102FranklinStreet
BarrowBrotherswarehouse
12Ͳ20KingStreet
PeoplesPalace
131Ͳ135KingStreet
ArgusBuilding,former
284Ͳ294LaTrobeStreet
Collie,R&Cowarehouse
194Ͳ196LittleLonsdaleStreet
Cavanagh'sorTucker&Co'swarehouse
198Ͳ200LittleLonsdaleStreet
Women'sVenerealDiseaseClinic
372Ͳ378LittleLonsdaleStreet
MichaelisHallenstein&Cobuilding
439Ͳ445LonsdaleStreet
YorkshireHouse
20Ͳ26QueenStreet
Grant'swarehouse
217Ͳ219QueenStreet
42Ͳ44RussellStreet
SirCharlesHothamHotel
2Ͳ8SpencerStreet
OR566Ͳ580FlindersStreet
Batman'sHillHotel
66Ͳ70SpencerStreet
HotelAlexander,laterSavoyPlazaHotel
122Ͳ132SpencerStreet
ElmsFamilyHotel
267Ͳ271SpringStreet
Page57of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 209 of 273
Place
Cann'sPtyLtdbuilding
HO
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO1079
C
Swanston House, Ezywalkin Boot Shoe and HO1080
SlipperStore
C
HO1083
B
Y
HO1084
C
Y
Y
State Electricity Commission of Victoria HO1086
building,laterLyleHouse
C
135Ͳ137SwanstonStreet
163Ͳ165SwanstonStreet
DruidsHouse
407Ͳ409SwanstonStreet
WD&HOWills(Aust)Ltdtobacco
Warehouse
411Ͳ423SwanstonStreet
22Ͳ32WilliamStreet
8.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
(i)
EvansHouse–415Ͳ419BourkeStreet
Theplace
This six level reinforced concrete factory and office building was originally constructed for
ThomasEvansPtyLtd,tentandflagmakers,in1929Ͳ1930.Thebuildinghasacementand
terraͲcottafaiencecladfaçadetoBourkeStreet.
Theissue
AnobjectingwrittensubmissionwaslodgedbyCARE,townplanning,onbehalfofVictoria
BodyCorporateServicesPtyLtdactingonbehalfoftheowners.Noreasonsweregivenin
theletterforopposingtheinclusionintheoverlay.
AtthePanelhearing,MrRose,apartowneroftheproperty,madesubmissionsonbehalfof
theBodyCorporateforthisbuilding.HeagreedwiththePlanningAuthority’sviewthatthe
exteriorofthebuildinghadsignificance,buthewasopposedtotheproposaltoincludeparts
oftheinteriorintheOverlay,arguingthatmuchofithadbeenalteredandthatiftheliftand
itsentrydoorswerelistedthismightprecludefutureupgradingtomeetaccessstandards.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilconsidersthatthebuildingis:
x Historicallysignificantasawellpreservedcityretailerandmanufacturer.
x Aesthetically significant as a well preserved façade and with a well preserved and
significantinterior.
Page58of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 210 of 273
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert
evidencefromMrStoreymadethefollowingpoints:
x Whilenotstrictlya‘Moderne’stylebuildingitisoneofthefirsttodisplaytheinfluence
ofthisstyle.
x TherearemanybuildingsbuiltbycityretailersandsurvivingfromtheinterͲwaryears,
butthisonedoesretainelementsofitsoriginalgroundfloorshopfront.
x Thegroundfloorstairlobbyandstairwayareintact.
MelbourneHeritage Action fully supported the inclusion of the interiors of this building in
theAmendment.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedthebuildingexternallyandinternally(inthecompanyofMrRose)and
believesthatthebuildingdoeshavesignificancetothecity.Itisalsoconfidentthat,whilea
considerable amount of the lobby and staircase interior is original, there have been
significant alterations in recent times. Without a proper comparative survey of interiors
throughouttheCBDitisimpossibletoascribevaluetothisparticularinterior(seediscussion
atSection4.1(ii)).
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, as exhibited to
EvansHouseat415Ͳ419BourkeStreet.
(ii)
UnionBankChambers–351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet
Theplace
Thebuildingisafivestoreyofficebuildingwithbankingchamberonthegroundfloor.Itwas
builtfortheUnionBankin1926Ͳ27.
Theissue
A late written submission was received from TGM Group Pty Ltd acting on behalf of the
ownerofthisproperty,TCorporationPtyLtd.
Mr Iles made submissions at the hearing on behalf of the owner. He indicated that the
proposedoverlaywasopposedbecause:
x Thebuildingdoesnotwarranta‘C’grading.
x Thebuildinghasbeenalteredsinceitwascompletedin1927.
x Theproposedinternalcontrolsarenotadequatelyspecified.
MrIlesreliedonextensivedocumentationwhichclarifiedchangestotheoriginaldesignand
alterationsmadetothebuildingovertime.
Page59of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 211 of 273
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilconsidersthebuilding:
x Of aesthetic significance as a handsome and substantially intact example of a
CommercialPalazzostyledbuildingwithanimportantgroundfloorinterior.
x Ofhistoricsignificanceforitslongassociationwithbankinginthenorthernpartofthe
city.
x VisuallyrelatedtotheformerArgusBuildingontheoppositecorner.
Othersupportingsubmissions
Mr Storey as a late addendum to his witness report, provided supporting comments
concerningtheproposedinclusionofthisbuildingintheHeritageOverlay.Theyincluded:
Architectural:
...Itiscertainlyhandsomeandsubstantiallyintact.Notablefeaturesincludegood
proportioning and balance of solid and void,recessed vertical windowsforming
piers, and the large cornice (which continues around each major corner),
supported by large abstracted brackets. The Commercial Palazzo or Stripped
Classicalstylewasbyfarthedominantstyleinthemidtolate1920sformultiͲ
storey commercial buildings, not just banks. There are therefore many
comparativeexamples,andthisbuildingcompareswellwithothersthatalready
haveindividualHOs,andothersincludedwithinC186.
The building is also substantially intact, including the gridded multiͲpane
windows;theonlychangesappeartobetheremovalorcoveringoverofthefirst
floor cornice and its iron balconettes and lamps, and the loss of the banking
chamberdoor.Theofficeentryappearsintact.
Historical:
...Thebuildinghasprovidedbankingfacilitiesinthenorthernendofthecitysince
1927, which is a long association. Perhaps more importantly it represents the
growing requirements of businesses in this end of the CBD (notably the newish
motortrade),aneedlargeenoughthattheUnionBankbelievedabranchonlya
fewblocksfromitheadoffice(351Collins,1878)wasjustified.Likeotherbanks
thatbuiltbracheswithintheCBD,afewfloorsforrentalpurposeswerebuilt,also
representingthedesirabilityofanaddressintheCBDforofficepurposesbeyond
themoreprestigiousaddressesofsayCollinsandQueenStreets.
Furtheraspectsofsignificance:
BuildingtypeonlyormainlyfoundintheCBD:
Like other banks that built braches within the CBD, a few floors for rental
purposes were built, representing the desirability of an address in the CBD for
officepurposesbeyondthemoreprestigiousaddressesofsayCollinsandQueen
Streets.Asanearly20thcenturymultiͲstoreycommercialofficebuilding,thisisa
building type characteristic of the CBD. There are practically no examples in
suburbanMelbourne,andonlyafewexamplesinmajorcountrycentres.
Page60of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 212 of 273
Comparativebuildings:
[PhotosofninecomparativebuildingsareattachedbyMrStorey]
MelbourneHeritageActionnominallysupportedtheinclusionoftheinteriorofthisbuilding
intheAmendment.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelthanksMrIlesforhisforensicanalysisofthechangesmadetothebuildingsince
its design and construction. However, the Panel believes that despite these changes, the
buildingretainsitssignificanceasanimportantpieceofarchitectureinthecentralcity.The
changes do not significantly alter the appearance of the building. Some are not ‘changes’
madetothebuildingsinceitwasfirstconstructed(butwerevariationsfromthearchitect’s
plans put in place when the building was constructed). In other cases, changes are easily
reversible.
We have recommended for the reasons set out in Section 4.1(ii) that no interior controls
shouldproceedatthisstage.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, as exhibited to
theUnionBankChambersat351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet.
(iii)
CurrieandRichards–473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet
Theplace
This is a complex of buildings with two storey shops facing Elizabeth Street, a covered
carriageway, and a large open warehouse at the rear (now used for car parking), a two
storeyformerwarehousebuilding(nowapartments)andarelativelymodernredevelopment
ofapartmentsallfacingtheremnantsoftheserviceyardoriginallyusedbythefirmCurrie
andRichards(asweremanyofthebuildings).
Theissue
An objecting written submission was made by Hansen Pty Ltd on behalf of the Owners’
Corporationforthisproperty(AceBodyCorporateManagement)whichincluded:
x IncludingtheentiretyofthesiteintheHeritageOverlayisinappropriateandgiventhe
variedhistoricalpatternofuseanddevelopmentitshouldnotbeconsideredasingle
heritagesite.
x Muchofthefabricillustratingthehardwareusehasbeenremovedandtheuseisnot
historicallysignificant,inanycase,giventhenumberofhardwarestoresinthecityat
thetime.
x The buildings, including those fronting Elizabeth Street, have undergone extensive
modification.Thewarehouseattherearhasbeenconvertedtoagarageandmuchof
therearyardhasbeenfilledinwithresidentialapartments.
x Whilesomepartsofthesitehaveheritagevalue,thisisnotanimportantheritagesite
anddevelopmentofthenonͲcontributorypartsshouldnotbeprejudiced.
Page61of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 213 of 273
MrWalker,madesubmissionsonbehalfoftheownerofthepropertyatthePanelhearing.
Thosesubmissionsincluded:
x Onacomparativebasisthis‘C’gradedbuildingisatthelowerendofthesignificance
spectrumforthisAmendment.
x TherelationshipwiththefirmCurrieandRichardsisofinterest,butnotofsignificance
and there is very little, if anything remaining to indicate that this firm occupied the
site.
x There is no adequate analysis as to why the firm Currie and Richards is of local
significance.
x The courtyard arrangement at the rear has been totally compromised and no longer
representsthearrangementthatexistedinthe1850s,someofwhichwastheyardfor
theadjoininghotel,nottheCurrieandRichardscomplex.
x The carriageway arrangement from Elizabeth Street is not unusual as claimed. The
formerRoyalSaxonHotelisanothernearbyexample.
MrWalkertenderedacopyoftherevisedendorsedplansforplanningpermitTPͲ2011Ͳ785
applyingtothesitewhichpermitsthepartialdemolitionofbuildingsandconstructionofa
twostoreyaddition.TheplanswereapprovedbytheCouncilinMarch2012.
He also made submissions about the inadequacy of the Amendment generally and the
failureofMrButlertoadequatelyassessthebuildingagainsttherelevantcriteria.Healso
submittedthatthePanelisobligedtoconsiderplanningobjectivesotherthanthoserelated
to heritage protection in determining whether to recommend the approval of the
Amendment.
MrWalkercalledMrBarrettasanexpertwitness.Hemadethefollowingpoints:
x TheformerCurrieandRichardsshowroomsandwarehousehavesomeheritagevalue
for their capacity to interpret aspects of the historic development of this part of the
city.
x Thecoveredcarriagewayandcourtyardisneitherintactnordoesitprovideanyvisual
evidence of the site’s association with Currie and Richards. Carriageways from the
street are not as uncommon in the central city as is supposed – Mr Barrett showed
photographsofanumberofpurportedcomparativeexamples.
x An individual Heritage Overlay applied to this site would unreasonably constrain the
futureuseordevelopmentofthesite.
x ThisisnotaparticularlyprominentworkofthefirmOakdenandBallantyneandmust
beseenasadatedapproachtofaçadedesignonElizabethStreet.
TheCouncilposition
Thiscomplexofbuildingsisconsideredsignificantfor:
x Itshistoryasanextensiveshowroomandwarehousecomplex.
x Theretentionofpartsofthecourtyardwithitscarriagewayaccess.
Page62of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 214 of 273
x ArepresentationoftheextensivehardwarebusinessofCurrieandRichards.
Othersupportingsubmissions
MrKyneandownerofoneoftheunitsinthiscomplexmadeawrittensubmissioninsupport
oftheinclusionofthispropertyintheHeritageOverlay.Healsopresentedhisviewsatthe
Panelhearing.Hesubmitted:
x ThebuildingsdevelopedforusebyCurrieandRichardsaresubstantiallyintact.
x Thecarriagewayandcourtyardarrangement,oncecommoninthecityisnowrare.
x The ‘C’ grading should allow a balance between heritage protection and reasonable
development.
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert
reportpointedout:
ThecombinationofEdwardianͲerashowroomsfacingElizabethStreet,storesat
the rear, a VictorianͲera workshop, the courtyard and the carriageway which
served them is not repeated as a courtyardͲoriented complex in the City of
Melbourne, although once more common in the early VictorianͲera and is now
uncommoninthestate.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelagreeswiththePlanningAuthoritythatthiscomplexisappropriatelygradedasa
‘C’building.
It is agreed by all parties that the buildings facing Elizabeth Street were modified using a
conservative architectural language for use by Currie and Richards, hardware and iron
merchants. While a more striking or contemporary architectural style may have added to
the heritage significance of the site, we do not believe that the conservative architectural
styleadopteddetractsfromthatsignificance.Infact,itreinforcesthearchitecturallanguage
ofotherelementsofthispartofElizabethStreet.
So far as the issue of the building reflecting the Currie and Richards use is concerned, the
covered carriageway was inserted to enable Currie and Richards to access the yard and
warehousebuildingsattherearandremainstoday.
ThePaneldisagreeswithMrBarrett’sviewthatthecarriagewayandrearyardarecommon
inthecity.TheexamplesshownbyhimwerenottrulycomparativeͲinsomeinstancesthey
representednothingmorethansidesetbackareas.
Mr Walker made strong submissions concerning the redevelopment potential of the land
andsoughttohavethePanel‘tradeͲoff’theheritagecontrolsagainsteconomicopportunity.
We do not agree that this is appropriate consideration at this stage. See discussion at
Section4.4(ii).
During the Hearing, it became apparent that the mapping of the property may not be
accurateandmayhaveinadvertentlyincorporatedpartoftheadjacentproperty.Thismust
bereconsidered.
Page63of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 215 of 273
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerCurrieandRichardsbuildingat473Ͳ481
ElizabethStreetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) A review of the overlay boundary in relation to the property boundary, and if
necessaryaligntheoverlayboundarywiththepropertyboundary;
(iv)
Rosati(DennistonandCo)–95Ͳ101FlindersLane
Theplace
The building at 95Ͳ101 Flinders Lane, in the clothing supply area of the central city, was
originallydesignedbyarchitectSydneyWilsonin1907forDennistonandCompanyPtyLtd,
wholesaleclothiers.Itwasthenasinglestoreybrickfactorywithbasement.Itwaslargely
rebuilt in 1938 after a major fire, to a design by architects, AS and RA Eggleston. It was
rebuilttotwolevelswithasawtoothroofbehindtheretainedsinglestoreyfaçade.
In1986thebuildingwasoccupiedasarestaurant/cafeknownasRosati.Itunderwentmajor
internal changes with the construction of a large central timber bar and the laying of a
mosaic floor within the large former factory space. Changes were also made to the front
windowsatthistime.
Since exhibition of Amendment C186, the use of the building has remained as a
cafe/restaurant (of a different name) but the building interior has been undergone a
substantialrefitwithanew24centralbarandthefloormosaicsremovedorcovered25.The
factoryshell,sawtoothroofandthestreetfaçaderemain.
Theissue
ThewrittensubmissionbyTixxisPtyLtdconsultingonbehalfofthecurrentownersincluded
thefollowing:
x Previousreviewshaveconcludedthatheritagelistingisnotwarrantedandtherehave
beennointerveningcircumstanceswhichwouldchangethisgrading.
x Thecitationdoesnotplaceanyhistoricorsocialsignificanceontherestaurantuse.
x Thebuildingisnotarareorunusualexample.
x Thebuildinghasbeensubstantiallyaltered.
x Thealterationstocreateacafeareofnoheritagesignificance.
24
TheMelbourneHeritageActiongroupsuggestedthatitwaspossiblethatthe‘new’barwasperhapsjusta
coveringovertheformerbar.Weconcludedonourinspectionthatthisisunlikely.
25
WhileatthehearinganunknownpersonwhomweunderstandtobeassociatedwithWaynesburyPtyLtd
advisedthatthemosaicfloorhadbeenremoved,itwassuggestedbytheMelbourneHeritageActiongroup
thatthiswasnotthecase.Ourinspection,whilenotconclusive,suggestedthatthenewrubberflooring
hadperhapsbeenputdirectlyoverthemosaics.
Page64of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 216 of 273
x Thecitationonlysupportsfurtherinvestigationoftheinterioratbestandnoneofthe
interiorfittingsrelatetotheperiodofsignificance.
The written submission also raises concern that, in previous negotiations and mediations,
theCouncilhadnotraisedthematterofthesignificanceoftheinterior(apparentlybeyond
the front 10 metres), which is to said to remain unaltered in manner consistent with a
mediatedpermitoutcome.
The owners, Waynesbury Pty Ltd, were represented at the hearing by Mr Scally of Best
Hooper.HecalledMrLovelltogiveexpertevidence.
MrScally’ssubmissionsincluded:
x The building is unremarkable and has been substantially altered. At the least the
interiorshouldnotbemadesubjecttocontrols.
x TheformerassociationswithDennistonCompanyPtyLtdandRosati’srestaurantare
insufficienttogivethebuildingsignificance.
x The 2011 Review graded the building higher (‘C’) than it had been in 1985 without
additionaljustification.Thebuildingisnot,however,‘substantiallyintact’.
MrLovell’sevidencewasdevotedalmostexclusivelytotheextensivealterationswhichhad
beenmadetothestructure.
TheCouncilposition
The2011Reviewidentifiesthebuildingashistoricallyimportantforitslongassociationwith
clothingmanufactureintheheartoftheFlindersLaneclothingprecinct,anditsassociation
withthethennewcafecultureintroducedtothecentralcitybytheRosatirestaurant.Itis
alsoidentifiesthebuildingasaestheticallyimportantasasuccessfulfusionofanEdwardianͲ
erafactorywitha1938sawtoothaddition,andanavantͲgarderestaurantdesignblending
oldandnewfabrictoevokeanItaliantheme.
MrButler’sevidenceincludedthattheoriginalfaçadeofthebuildinghadbeendeliberately
retainedinthe1938renovationsafterthefire.
Othersubmissions
Mr Tobin for the National Trust indicated that, on the basis that the interior tiling is no
longerinplace,theTrustdoesnotpursuetheinteriorlistingofthebuilding.Heindicated
thatsofarastheexteriorisconcerned,thePanelshouldassesstheevidence.
Melbourne Heritage Action’s submission included particular comment on the recent
alterationstotheinteriorofthisbuilding.Theysubmitted:
Thedisgracefulactofvandalismwhichhasseenthedestructionofmuchofthis
building’s interior should not deter the Panel from going ahead with interior
controls.Itisourunderstandingthatthemosaicfloorsareinfactintactbeneath
therubbermatting.TherearemanyphotographsofthesemosaicsandthePanel
shouldconsiderthatthesemosaicsareintactandworthyofprotection.
IurgethePanelnottobedeterredbywhatwasobviouslyaspitefulattemptto
underminethecorrectproceduresofthesehearings.
Page65of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 217 of 273
Paneldiscussionandviews
So far as the claim is made by the submitter that a number of previous reviews have
concluded that heritage protection is not warranted, this is incorrect. The 2005 Study
afforded the building a D(3)26 grading which is afforded to buildings which were ‘either
reasonably intact representatives of particular periods or styles, or they have been
substantially altered but stand in a row or street which retains much of its original
character’27.The1993Reviewgradedthebuildingas‘C’asdoesthe2011Review,andthe
2002reviewdidnotassessit.Asnotedearliernoneoftheearlierstudiesproceededtothe
amendmentstage.
Thewrittensubmissionsinourviewmisunderstandthefactthatthesignificanceoftheplace
is claimed to be associated with not only in its former industrial use but also with the
conversiontoarestaurant.
With respect to the presentations at the hearing, however, we have been persuaded that
this building is both internally and externally substantially modified. Mr Lovell’s evidence
about the extent of changes to the front façade (including window alterations, express
plinths lost, parapet changes, and capping mouldings incomplete) was confirmed on our
inspectionaswasthedearthofRosatiremnantsintheinterior.
LittleremainsofeithertheDennistonerafabricortheRosatifitout.FromtheDenniston
era,theonlyelementsremainingarethesawtoothroofandthemuchalteredremnantsof
the façade. From the Rosati period, almost nothing seems to remain except possibly the
mosaicflooraboutwhichwereceivedconflictingsubmissions.Whileourinspectionleadsus
to suspect that the mosaic tiles may well remain beneath rubber flooring, this remnant in
ourviewwouldnotrecommendthatinteriorcontrolsshouldbeapplied.
As was said in the Advisory Committee Report on the Review of Heritage Provisions in
PlanningSchemes,aninitialthresholdthatanyheritageplacemustpassbeforeitisdeemed
tobeanappropriatecandidateforheritagecontrolsisthattheremustbeelementsofthe
placewhichrequiremanagement(seeforexampleSection2.11.6ofthatreport).Whilethe
reportindicatesthattheelementsmaybeveryephemeralandstillwarrantmanagement,in
the case of building interiors, we suggest that consideration also needs to be given to the
advicegiveninthePracticeNotethatinteriorcontrolsshouldbesparinglyapplied.
ForthereasonsgiveninSection4.1(ii),wedonotsupporttheproposedinternalcontrolsfor
all 12 buildings proceeding without a further more comprehensive review of building
interiors.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay not be applied to Rosati (Denniston and Co) at 95Ͳ101 Flinders
Lane.
26
‘3’referstothestreetscapegrading
27
AsdefinedinthereferencedocumentinClause22.04:UrbanConservationintheCityofMelbourne
Page66of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 218 of 273
(v)
CycloneWovenWireFactory–63Ͳ67FranklinStreetand459Ͳ469Swanston
Street
Theplace
ThisisapairoflinkedredbrickandstuccothreestoreybuildingsfacingFranklinStreetand
onthecornerofSwanstonandFranklinStreetsbuiltfortheCycloneWireFenceCompanyin
twostages.Thefirstwastheoriginaltwostoreybuildingat63Ͳ67FranklinStreet(in1906)
andthesecondwasthe1916additionalstoreytothatbuildingandthenewbuildingonthe
corner(459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet).
Someconfusionaroseabouttheidentityofthelandbecauseoftheinconsistencybetween
themappingoftheproposedHeritageOverlayandtheaddressproposedforthescheduleto
Clause43.01intheexhibitedAmendment(thelatteromittedtheSwanstonStreetbuilding
and referred to 57Ͳ77 Franklin Street). Further confusion apparently arose when the
submitterlaterunderstoodthatonlytheSwanstonStreetbuildingofthisattachedpairwas
proposedtobeincludedintheHeritageOverlay28.Theproposaltoincludebothbuildings
was later clarified and the values of the full site were addressed by the Council and the
submitter(includinginevidence)atthePanelhearing.
The subject buildings at 63Ͳ67 Franklin Street and 459Ͳ469 Swanston Street are known as
RMITBuildings49and39respectively.
Theissue
The owner of the combined site, RMIT University, made two written submissions to the
Council about buildings in its ownership proposed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.
RMITadvisedthatforthebuildingat459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet(Building39)ithadobtained
expert advice from Lovell Chen Architects. This advice was that the building did not have
sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion in an individual Heritage Overlay. The
buildingwassaidtobeofsomehistoricalinterestbutnotofsufficientarchitecturalinterest
ormerit,orsufficienthistoricalsignificance,tojustifyitsinclusionintheoverlay.
RMITwasrepresentedatthehearingbyMrBowdenofSongBowdenPlanning.Onbehalfof
theowner,hesubmitted:
x ThePlanningAuthorityhadbeenconfusedastowhatpartsofthesitearesignificant.
x TheAmendmentasitaffectsthiscomplexshouldbeabandoned,pendingtheCouncil
establishingaclearunderstandingastowhatisimportant.
x Building39(459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet)isakeysiteinRMIT’sdevelopmentplansand
coveragebyaHeritageOverlaywouldunreasonablyconstrainthoseplans.
Mr Bowden called Ms Brady from Lovell Chen to provide expert evidence. She made the
followingpoints:
28
SeesecondsubmissionfromRMITdated6December2011.
Page67of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 219 of 273
x The building at 63Ͳ67 Franklin Street has sufficient significance to be included in the
HeritageOverlay.
x The building at 459Ͳ469 Swanston Street has been modified and the brickwork
painted.
x The building at 459Ͳ469 Swanston Street derives some historical significance for its
associationwiththeCycloneWovenWireFenceCompany,butthisbuildingisoflesser
importancethantheattachedbuildinginFranklinStreetbecauseitisalateraddition
tothecomplex.ItisnotimportantenoughtobeincludedintheHeritageOverlay.
TheCouncilposition
ThePlanningAuthorityhasindicatedthatthiscombinedbuildingshouldbegraded‘C’and
thatitssignificanceliesinitbeing:
x Awellpreservedfactorycomplexwithinthecentralcity.
x Historically important for its association with the well known Cyclone Woven Wire
fencecompany.
Othersupportingsubmissions
MelbourneHeritageActionmadesubmissionstotheeffectthattheinteriorofthisbuilding
pairmaywarrantinvestigation.
The National Trust supported the inclusion of these attached buildings in the Amendment
pointing out that the Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Company introduced the extremely
popularcyclonefencingtoVictoriain1898andwasthemainsupplierinthefirstdecadesof
the twentieth century when this factory was established and expanded. The Trust’s
evidence also noted that architecturally the building on the corner is an early example of
classicalmotifsasopposedtoatall,archedredbrickstyle.
Paneldiscussionandviews
InthePanel’sview,bothbuildings(63Ͳ67FranklinStreetand459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet)form
acohesivecomplexdesignedforandoccupiedbytheCycloneWovenWireFenceCompany.
TheFranklinStreetbuilding,constructedin1906,wasgivenanewupperfloorandsawtooth
roofin1916whenthebuildingat459Ͳ469SwanstonStreetwasalsoconstructedandjoined
toittomakeacomplexforthecompany.ThePanelbelievesthatthetwobuildingsasseen
today form a cohesive reminder of the significance of the company and are aesthetically
important, drawing on the same architectural language to create a prominent pair of
buildingsinthecity.
The Panel acknowledges that the failure of the Council to initially correctly identify the
propertyproposedfor theHeritageOverlaycausedconfusionand someinconveniencefor
thesubmitter.However,thePanelbelievesthatafterhavingbeenprovidedwithadditional
time to address the corrected extent of the overlay and presenting a comprehensive case
thatanyinconveniencewasovercome.
Page68of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 220 of 273
Havingconsideredtheissues,thePanelrecommendthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheformerCycloneWovenWireFence
Companybuildingsat63Ͳ67FranklinStreetand459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet.
(vi)
WDandHOWillsTobaccoWarehouse–411Ͳ423SwanstonStreet
ThisisafivestoreyreinforcedconcretewarehouseconstructedfortobaccomerchantsWD
& HO Wills in 1924Ͳ25. It was designed by architect Francis J Davies and built by Walter
Cooper. It used what was known as the Claude Turner system of reinforcing column and
slabconnection.
Theissue
Theownerofthesite,RMITUniversity,addressedthisbuildinginitswrittensubmissionsto
theCouncil.RMIT’sobjectiontoinclusionofthebuildinginanindividualHeritageOverlay
wasbasedonexpertadvicefromLovellChenArchitects.Itwassaidthatthebuildinghad
some historical interest but had neither sufficient architectural significance or merit, nor
sufficienthistoricalsignificance,tobeincludedintheoverlay.
RMITUniversitywasrepresentedatthehearingbyMrBowden.Onbehalfoftheownerhe
submittedthat:
x The building was of insufficient importance to warrant the application of a Heritage
Overlay.
x TheevidenceofMrStorey(submittedbytheNationalTrust)concurredwiththatofMs
Brady(whowascalledtogiveevidenceonbehalfofthesubmitter).
x The notion of the building being part of a ‘precinct’ had been raised by Mr Butler.
However, the Panel is not considering whether a precinct designation should be
approvedandshouldnotspendtimeconsideringthatmatter.
x There is a disconnect between Mr Butler’s evidence about the Turner ‘flat slab’
constructionandtheconclusionwhichisfocussedonhistoricsignificance.
Mr Bowden called Ms Brady from Lovell Chen to provide expert evidence. She made the
followingpoints:
x The association of this building with WD & HO Wills is of some historical value, but
‘…many buildings within the Capital City Zone have long standing associations with
specific companies; this is not a scenario which particularly distinguishes this
building…..’
x Thereareotherbuildingsinthecitywhichreflectthehistoryoftobaccomanufacturing
in Melbourne. Buildings such as Dover’s warehouse and the former Gill Memorial
Homeareearlier,morearchitecturallydistinguished,andalreadycoveredbyheritage
controls.
x Thestatementofsignificancesuggeststhatthebuildingisofarchitecturalinterest,not
significance.Itdoesnotmeetthethresholdforlocalsignificanceagainstthesecriteria.
Page69of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 221 of 273
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilhasindicatedthatthisbuildingshouldbegraded‘C’andthatitis:
x HistoricallysignificantforitslongassociationwithWD&HOWills.
x Historically significant for its association with the architect Francis J Davies and his
authorshipofabuildingthatcollapsedshortlybeforetheerectionofthisbuilding.
x Ofaestheticinterestasawellpreserved,butconservativedesignforitstime.
Othersupportingsubmissions
The expert evidence by Mr Storey presented by the National Trust made the following
observations:
x Architecturallyitcannotbesaidtobemorethanadecoratedwarehouseandtheleast
architecturallyinterestingoftheplacesrelatedtothetobaccoindustry.
x Theassociationwiththe‘notorious’architectismoreofaninterestingasidethanan
aspectofsignificance.Theassociationwiththetobaccoindustryisthemainareaof
interest, and there is only oneassociated with this company. However therearesix
otherbuildingsbuiltbyandforthetobaccoindustryintheCBD.
Mr Storey supported the listing of this building noting that tobacco warehouses are
particularlyconcentratedinthecentralcity.
Paneldiscussionandviews
The Panel cannot understand whythe association with Davies and his earlier failed design
foranotherbuildingwhichwasreferredtobyMrButlerinanywayattributessignificanceto
thisbuilding.
However,wefindthatitishistoricallysignificantasapurposebuiltwarehouseinanareaof
thecityusedatthetimeforindustrialandwarehousepurposes.Itisalsowellpreserved,a
factthatdoesnotseemtobecontested.Itssurvivalremainsasanacknowledgementthat
thecentralcityhadawiderrangeofusesthanatpresent–thiswasone.
Ms Brady agreed that WD and HO Wills was a major tobacco company and, when
questioned about her concern about the building’s failure to reveal its function,
acknowledged that warehouses for different products are not substantially different in
externalform.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheformerWD&HOWillswarehouse
at411Ͳ423SwanstonStreet.
Page70of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 222 of 273
(vii) VDClinic–372Ͳ378LittleLonsdaleStreet
Theplace
Thisisatwostoreyredbrickandcementrenderedbuildingconstructedin1919toadesign
bythePublicWorksDepartment.AtthattimetheChiefArchitectwasSCBrittingham.The
buildingisdescribedasanearlyGeorgianRevivalbuilding.Itwaspurposebuiltasafacility
forthetreatmentofvenerealdiseasesinwomenandoperatedassuchfortenyears.
Theissue
AnobjectingwrittensubmissionwaslodgedbyHansenPartnershipPtyLtd,onbehalfofthe
owner of the site, Victoria University of Technology. The submission raised the following
matters:
x The subject property is not of historic significance: the use as a VD clinic was shortͲ
lived and only one of a number of uses made of the building and the external
appearanceofthebuildingdoesnotinformthepublicofthispastuse.
x Useasawomen’sVDclinicdoesnotaffordthebuildinghistoricalsignificance.
x Whilethesiteispartofagovernmentbuildingsprecinctthisalonedoesnotaffordit
significance.
x The subject property is not of aesthetic significance as this is merely an early not
especiallygoodexampleofworkbythethenPublicWorksDepartmentChiefArchitect,
EEvanSmith.
x ThisisnotagoodexampleofGeorgianRevivalstyle,havingelementsnottypicalofthe
style,norisitabuildingofarchitecturalmerit.
TheownerwasrepresentedatthehearingbyMsRigooftheHansenPartnership.Onbehalf
oftheowner,shereiteratedandexpandeduponthewrittenarguments:
x The building only operated as a women’s VD clinic for ten of its 92 years. As a
consequenceitsassociationwiththisuseisnothistoricallysignificant.
x This was but one of a number of facilities established for the treatment of venereal
diseasesafterWW1,andisthereforenotsignificantinitsownright.
x The property does not have a strong community attachment and does not meet the
inclusionguidelinesforthiscriterion.
x TheattachmentofaestheticsignificancearoundtheauthorshipofEEvanSmithislost
becausethebuildingwasdesignedwhilstSCBrittinghamwasChiefArchitect.
x ThatasaprecursortotheGeorgianRevivalbuildingsemanatingfromthePublicWorks
Departmentduringthe1920s,thisisnotofgreatsignificance.
MsRigocalledMrTaylortoprovideexpertevidence.Hemadethefollowingpoints:
x The building is not a ‘landmark’, nor is the program that it supported. The program
wasbutanepisodeinthehistoryofwomen’shealthcareinVictoria,athemethatis
betterrepresentedbyothersitesandplacesaroundthecity.
Page71of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 223 of 273
x Thebuilding’saestheticcharacteristicsarenotheldinhighesteembythecommunity.
x The use of the building, to theextent that itmight be of historic interest, cannot be
readfromthefabric.
x Thereisnoknownsignificantcommunityinterestinthebuilding.
Ms Rigo also called MrJackson, architect, to provide expert evidence. He spoke of a new
buildingproposedtobebuiltonthesite.
TheCouncilposition
ThePlanningAuthorityhasindicatedthatthisbuildingshouldbegraded‘C’andthatitis:
x Historically significant for its construction to service a specific health need, a need
whichnowissomethingofacuriosity.
x Aesthetically significant as a modest Georgian Revival design emanating from the
PublicWorksDepartmentatatimethatitwasmovingtoadoptthisdesigngenre.
In his response submissions for the Council, Mr O’Farrell pointed out that under crossͲ
examinationMrJacksondidnotdisputethelocalsignificanceofthesite.
Healsosubmittedthattheunderstandingoftheformeruseofthebuildingcanbeachieved
throughaconsiderationofthebuildingfabricanditsdocumentedhistory.Inotherwords,it
doesnotneedaprominentlabelinorderforittobeunderstood.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert,
MrStoreymadethefollowingpoints:
x WhilstnotapureexampleofthetwentiethcenturyGeorgianRevival,itappearstobe
oneoftheearliestexamplesusingthisstyleinVictoria.
x The place has high historical significance as the only place ever built specifically for
women’svenerealdiseasesinVictoria.
x MrButler’sclaimthatthiswaslocatedinthe‘backslum’brotheldistrictof‘LittleLon’
isincorrect.Thisareawasagovernmentofficeprecinctandbythe1920sMelbourne’s
brothelshadlargelydispersedtotheinnersuburbs.
Someconsiderabletimeafterthehearinghadfinished,alettertotheMinisterforPlanning
from the Lakes Entrance Regional Historical Society Incorporated dated 5 May 2012
concerningthisbuildingwasforwardedtothePanel.Asitscontentsrelatedtothematters
at hand, we required its circulation to relevant parties inviting replies by 22 May 2012.
Replieswerereceived.
Theletter,whileitwasprincipallyanobjectiontotheplanningpermittowhichMsRigoand
MrJacksonreferredatthehearing,makesthefollowingpointsaboutthesignificanceofthe
building:
x The building is of high historic significance – a significance higher than suggested by
thematerialproducedfortheAmendment.Inthepostwaryears,venerealdiseases
increaseddramaticallyinMelbourneandamountedtoapublichealthcrisis.
Page72of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 224 of 273
x Theclinicisthereforealinktothenation’swartimeefforts.
x The next door TB Clinic built in 1927 is not part of the Amendment but has similar
historicalandarchitecturalmerit.Togetherthebuildingsformasignificantpair.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelispersuadedtotheviewthatthebuildingishistoricallyimportantaspartofthe
storyassociatedwiththeprovisionofhealthservices(inthiscase,women’shealthservices)
inthecentralcity.ThePanelnotesthatthisfacilitywasconstructednearbytotheoriginal
Queen Victoria Hospital for Women. It also notes that there are no hospitals left in the
centralcityandverylittleinthewayofhealthcarefacilitiesgenerally.
We note that this building is sited next door to an early clinic for the treatment of
tuberculosis(aboutwhichtherewassomeconfusionintermsofassessmentbyMrRaworth
inthe2002Review).Wecommentthatassessmentoftheheritagevaluesofthisbuilding
mayalsowarrantinvestigation.
TheVDbuildingis,however,oflimitedaestheticsignificance.Duringthehearing,wewere
informedthatEEvanSmithwasnottheChiefArchitectofthePublicWorksDepartmentat
thetimeofthebuildingsdesignandthereforeanysignificancerelatedtohisauthorshipis
lost. It is also clear that it is not a pure Georgian Revival building as designed in the PAD
underSmith.Rather,itisatransitionaldesign,drawingonarchitecturalfeaturesfromthe
immediatepastaswellasincorporatingsome‘Georgian’features.
Havingconsideredtheissue,thePanelrecommendthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former VD Clinic at 372Ͳ378 Little Lonsdale
Streetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Thestatementofsignificancebeamendedtofocusonthehistoric,ratherthan
aesthetic,importanceofthebuilding.
(viii) ElmsFamilyHotel–267Ͳ271SpringStreet
ISPT Pty Ltd is owner of the property at 267Ͳ271 Spring Street (the Elms Family Hotel). It
contains a two storey brick and cement rendered hotelconstructed in 1924Ͳ1925 which is
saidinthe2011Reviewtobeofsocial,historicalandaestheticsignificance.
TheownermadeawrittensubmissiontotheCouncilopposingitsinclusionintheHeritage
Overlaybasedonanumberoffactorsincludinglowarchitecturalsignificance,theissueofa
previous permit and the specific practical circumstances surrounding the development of
the land. The submission appended an expert report by Mr Trethowan, architect, which
expressedtheviewthattheonlystructureofanyheritagenoteonthesubjectsitewasthe
hotelitself.
Atthedirectionshearing,theownerwasrepresentedbyMsBrennan.Sheindicatedthather
clientwishedtohavethemappedextentoftheHeritageOverlayclarified.Asexhibited,the
overlay appeared to apply not only to the historic hotel itself but also to the two flanking
structuresinSpringandLittleLonsdaleStreet.
Page73of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 225 of 273
The Panelwas advised by Ms Hellman fortheCouncilthattherehadbeenanerrorinthe
mapped area and the Council would agree to reduce it to cover the hotel only. This was
directedtobeformallyconfirmedinwritingbynolaterthan2March2012.
ThiswrittenconfirmationwassubsequentlyprovidedbytheCounciltothesolicitorsacting
fortheowneron2March2012,withacopybeingforwardedtothePanelon5March2012
togetherwithacopyoftherevisedmapwhichsatisfiedboththeCouncilandthesubmitter.
The covering letter from the solicitors for the owner, Norton Rose Lawyers, to the Panel,
indicatedthat‘onthebasisthattheattachedrevisedHeritageOverlaymapformsthebasis
ofHO1078(thatis,onlytheElmsHotelitselfisincludedwithintheHeritageOverlayandnot
theflankingstructuresonbothSpringStreetandLittleLonsdaleStreet),ourclientdoesnot
proposetomakeanysubmissionsatthePanelhearingregardingHO1078.’
Strictly speaking the letter from the solicitors leaves it unclear as to whether the owner
continues with its objections based on the other concerns as included in the original
submission.
This matter was not further pursued by the Panel at the hearing, however. The Panel
understood thattheowner’spositionwasthattheobjectingwrittensubmissionnolonger
appliedorwaswithdrawn29giventhe‘agreement’overtherevisedmapping.
ThePanel,havingconsideredthematerialconcerningthemapping,doesnotdisagreewith
thisreͲdelineationoftheboundary.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerElmsFamilyHotel,267Ͳ271SpringStreet
asexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) TheoverlayboundaryberedrawnasagreedbytheCouncil(andshownonthe
mapattachedtoitslettertoNortonRoseof2March2012)toincludeonlythe
ElmsFamilyHotelbuilding.
29
Onceapanelhasbeenappointedtoconsidersubmissions,theabilityofasubmitterto‘withdraw’awritten
submission is unclear under the legislation, as is the status of changes to amendments that a planning
authority ‘makes’ or says will be made atthe time of approval. See the discussion in Cardinia C91(PSA)
[2008]PPV123(18November2008).
Page74of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 226 of 273
8.3 Writtensubmissionsonly
(i)
BourkeHouse–179Ͳ183BourkeStreet
Theplace
This is a six storey reinforced concrete building, constructed for Posner Bros. Jewellers in
1922Ͳ23.ItwasdesignedbyLeslieMPerrottandbuiltbyThompson&Chalmers.
Theissue
Theownersofthebuilding,DLNPtyLtd,submittedawrittenobjectiontotheinclusionof
the building on the basis that it does not have heritage significance. This claim was not
supportedbyanyothersubmissionorevidence.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthisbuildingshouldbegraded‘C’andthatitis:
x AestheticallysignificantforitsearlyprogressiontoaModernisticfaçadedesign,bythe
abstractionofaprevailingGreekrevivalstyle.
x Historically significant as a well preserved multiͲstorey example of the work of
reinforcedconcretespecialistLeslieMPerrott.
MrButler’sevidencesupportedthis.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert
evidencepointedout:
x Itisastrikingandunusualdesignfortheperiod.
x That the architect Leslie M Perrott did specialise in reinforced concrete design, that
thiswasoneofhisfirstlargescalecommissionsandthathewentontofoundahighly
significantMelbournearchitecturalfirm.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelfindsnoreasonstodiscounttheevidenceleadbytheCouncilandsupportedby
theNationalTrust.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied as exhibited to Bourke House at 179Ͳ183 Bourke
Street.
Page75of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 227 of 273
(ii)
Grant’sWarehouse–217Ͳ219QueenStreet
Theplace
Thisisathreestoreyredbrickwarehouseconstructedin1904forAlexanderGrant(solicitor)
to the design of architects Gibbs and Finlay. The building has unusual relativelyelaborate
ornamental Art Nouveau detailing. It has a cemented cornice on top of a semiͲcircular
cementedandornamentalfaçade,fourbrickpierswithcementcapitalsandtiling.Fromthe
insideofthebuilding,nowusedasashop,aTraegerwellblechcorrugatedironvaultedceiling
canbeobserved.
Theissue
Thewrittensubmissionbytheowner,LynnleaNomineesPtyLtd,objectedtotheproposed
inclusion of the building in the Heritage Overlay and attached an expert report by Lovell
Chen, December 2011. However, that report supported the findings about the local
significance of the ‘handsome’ building’s external Romanesque Revival Style and Art
Nouveaudetailingandopposedonlythelistingoftheinterior.Thisoppositiontothelisting
oftheceilingwasbasedonacomparativeinvestigationwhichhadindicatedthatsurviving
examples of this form of construction are not especially rare. It was therefore said that,
whiletheceilingwasofinterest,itwasnotofsufficientimportancetosetasidethePractice
Notes30 cautionary advice that only ‘special interiors of high significance’ should be made
subjecttocontrols.
TheCouncilposition
The2011Reviewindicatesthatthebuildingisofaestheticandhistoricalsignificancetothe
City of Melbourne as an unusually ornate wellͲpreserved example of an American
Romanesque revival warehouse and one of relatively few Art Nouveau ornamented
buildingswithinMelbourne’sCapitalCityZone.Itissaidtobeofhistoricalinterestbecause
oftheceiling.Externalcontrolsandinternalcontrolstotheextentoftheceilingtothemain
chamberareproposed.
Othersupportingsubmissions
The National Trust and Melbourne Heritage Action suggested that the ceiling is in fact a
structural feature covered by exterior controls. They also were of the view that
Traegerwellblech was a common form of construction to support upper floors and, whilst
theyarenotusuallyexposedasceilings,areinanycasenotrare.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelisawarethattheTraegerwellblechconstructionsystemwaspromotedinbuilding
journalsduringthelatenineteenthcenturyanditappearsthatitwasapopulartechnique
forsupportingupperfloorsinbuildingsconstructedatthistime.Itwouldalsoappearthatit
30
DPCDPracticeNote:ApplyingtheHeritageOverlay
Page76of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 228 of 273
was unusual for this structural system to be exposed as an interior feature, although the
PaneldidnoticeoneotherexampleonitsinspectionsatCharlesHothamHotelcarriageway.
Forthereasonssetout inSection4.1(ii),wedonotrecommendthatanyoftheproposed
interior controls be applied at present but would point out that since this is part of the
structureofthebuildinganycontrolsimposedoverthebuildingmaycoveritanyway.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, to Grant’s
Warehouseat217Ͳ219QueenStreet.
(iii)
SirCharlesHothamHotel–2Ͳ8SpencerStreet
Theplace
This four level (ground and three upper floors) building was built in 1913 to a design of
architect William Pitt. It is a brick building with cement render detailing and features a
cylindrical domed tower on the corner of Spencer and Flinders Streets. The curve of this
toweriscontinueddowntothefirstfloorandformsalongorielbay.
Theissue
The written submission by the owners of this building, Australian Budget Accommodation
Group Pty Ltd, indicates that the company opposes the inclusion of the building in the
overlaybecause:
x Itdoesnothaveheritagesignificance.Thiswasnotelaboratedon.
x Theoriginalfabrichasbeenmodifiedandpartreplacedonmanyoccasions.
x Theeasternpartofthebuildingwasaddedatalaterdate.
x Thebuildingisoldandalmostdilapidated.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Architecturallysignificantasalarge,wellpreservedandsuccessfulcornerhoteldesign
intheEdwardianFreestyle,bytheimportantarchitectWilliamPitt.
x Historically significant for its location with other Edwardian era and late Victorian
hotels in this part of the city and as the largest Edwardian era hotel built within the
centralcity.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert,
MrStorey,madethefollowingcomments:
x ItisafineexampleofEdwardianFreestyledesign.
x Itisremarkablyintact,includingatgroundlevel.
Page77of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 229 of 273
MelbourneHeritageActionsubmittedthattheremaininginteriorfabricinthisbuildingwas
‘absolutelysignificant’despitetherebeingnoproposedcontrolsovertheinterioraspartof
thisAmendment.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedbuildinganddoesnotbelievethatchangestothefabricaresuchthat
the original architectural design and detailing have been so compromised that the
significancehasbeenlost.
It is a large prominently sited hotel building which addresses the important southͲwest
cornerentrytothecentralcity.
ThePanelnotedMelbourneHeritageAction’ssubmissionwithrespecttotheinteriorofthis
building and believes that it is further evidence of the need for a more comprehensive
survey of interiors in the central city before the Heritage Overlay calls up any interior
controls.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied as exhibited to the Sir Charles Hotham Hotel at 2Ͳ8
SpencerStreet.
8.4 Nosubmissions
The25placesforwhichnosubmissionswerereceivedarelistedinthetableinSection8.1.
The Panel did not inspect any of these buildings (except for four interiors) and sees no
reason why the Amendment should not proceed in relation to these places, with the
exceptionoftheinteriors.
Page78of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 230 of 273
9 Placesfrom1930Ͳ1956:‘TheNewImage’
9.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
HO
CommonwealthMotors,former
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO994
B
GrangeLynnePtyLtd,laterWhite&Gillespie HO995
PtyLtdBuilding
B
HO997
C
HO1000
C
CarltonHotel193Ͳ199BourkeStreet
HO1001
C
CommonwealthBankofAustralia
HO1003
A
HO1007
C
HO1009
B
HO1028
B
Y
Y
Y
HO1033
C
HO1050
C
HO1053
C
HO1054
B
Y
Blessed Sacrament Fathers Monastery, St HO1063
Francis
C
HO1067
B
(ACA) HO1069
A
Y
111Ͳ125A'BeckettStreet
185Ͳ187A'BeckettStreet
BarnettBuilding
164Ͳ166BourkeStreet
Norman'sCornerStores,former
180Ͳ182BourkeStreet
219Ͳ225BourkeStreet
HardyBrothersJewelleryStore
338CollinsStreet
CommercialUnionBuilding,laterAUCOffice
409Ͳ413CollinsStreet
CentenaryHall
104Ͳ110ExhibitionStreet
PawsonHouse
141Ͳ143FlindersLane
Russell'sbuilding
361Ͳ363LittleBourkeStreet
DraytonHouse
373Ͳ375LittleBourkeStreet
CityWestTelephoneExchange
434Ͳ436LittleBourkeStreet
326LonsdaleStreet
ProvidentLifeBuilding
37Ͳ41QueenStreet
Australasian
Building
Catholic
Assurance
118Ͳ126QueenStreet
Page79of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 231 of 273
9.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
(i)
CentenaryHall–104Ͳ110ExhibitionStreet
Theplace
This is a six storey reinforced concrete building built in 1934Ͳ35 to a design of architects,
HughPhilpandGeoffreyBottoms.
Itconsistsofabasement,shopstothegroundfloor,alargeassemblyhallonthefirstfloor
(with staircase access from the ground floor lobby), rehearsal and lodge rooms and
residentialandofficespaceontheupperlevels.
Itisdesignedina‘Moderne’stylewithcementrenderedfaçadesandsteelframedwindows.
Theissue
AwrittensubmissionwasmadebyUrbisconsultantsonbehalfoftheownersofthebuilding,
Vapold Pty Ltd, objecting to the inclusion of the exterior and part of the interior of the
buildinginaHeritageOverlay.Theobjectionincludedthefollowing:
x Theimplicationsforfuturerenovation,developmentandresalevalue.Itwassaidthat:
development opportunities in the Central City ‘should be paramount, and not be
obstructedorrestrictedbyaperceivedheritagevalueorsignificance’.
x The heritage value of the site does not warrant heritage controls, as most existing
centralcitylistedbuildingsare‘A’gradedandthesubjectbuildingisonly‘B’gradedin
the2011Reviewandwasearliergraded‘C’(inthethreestudiesfrom1985onwards).
x It is inappropriate to include the interior or part of it in the heritage controls as the
2011Reviewstatesthatfurtherinvestigationoftheinteriorisrequired.
The owners were represented at the hearing by Ms Brennan. She made the following
submissions:
x MrButler’sapproachtotheapplicationofthecriterialacksrigourandhismethodology
seemstobeaboutaccumulatinginformationofhistoricinterest,ratherthanproperly
addressingthesignificanceofthisbuilding.
x ThesustainabilityofthecityastheState’sprincipalcentreofcommerce,government
and cultural life may be compromised if the strong presumptions in favour of
conservation,asindicatedbythisproposal,prevail.
x The Orange Order has not played an important or influential role in the life of
Melbourne and the building no longer has any connection to the Order and there is
nothingabouttheexteriorofthebuildingthatdemonstratestheformerassociation.
x Thebuildingisnotagoodornotableexampleofthe‘Moderne’style.
x Noproperrationalehasbeenprovidedfortheregradingofthebuildingfrom‘C’to‘B’.
x The approach to listing interiors, such as is proposed here, is entirely unacceptable.
Somerecommendationshavebeenmadewithoutproperinspections,thereisalackof
Page80of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 232 of 273
consistency of approach and there has been no systematic comparative analysis of
interiorsinthecentralcity.
x Thegroundfloorofthisbuildinghasbeenalteredandmodernised.
MsBrennancalledMrBarrettasanexpertwitness.Heindicated:
x Otherandbetterexamplesofthisvertical‘Moderne’styleexistincentralMelbourne.
x It appears that any significance attached to the residential elements of the building
maybeillͲfoundedasplansshowthattheywereneverbuilt.
x The comparison with other halls and theatres shows that this is not comparatively
important.
x Thehallonthefirstfloorismodestincharacter.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Aestheticallysignificantasagoodandwellpreservedexampleofthe‘Moderne’style
whichisuncommoninthecentralcity.
x Historically important as an unusual building type combining residential space,
clubrooms,officesandameetinghall.
x ImportantasadevelopmentonthesiteoftwopreviousProtestanthalls,perpetuating
auseoriginallyestablishedinthe1840s.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentandindoing
sosuggestedthatwhileitisn’tthemoststrikingexampleofartͲdecoarchitectureinthecity,
itsinteriorsarenotableexamplesofthestyle.MrStorey’swrittenevidencealsosuggested
thatthebuildingisrichinrelief,notablyinpanelsatthefirstfloorlevelandskyline.
MrStorey’swrittenevidencesuggestedthatasitwasconstructedinthe1930sitwouldbe
oneofthelastsocialclubbuildingsconstructedinthecentralcity.Healsocommentsthat
the building is remarkably intacteven to the angular brassͲframed shopfronts, front doors
andlobbyarea.
MelbourneHeritageActionfullysupportstheinclusionofinteriorcontrolsforthisbuilding.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedthebuildingexternallyandinternally.
Webelievethatthebuildingdoeshavehistoricalandarchitecturalsignificanceandisawell
preserved example of the ‘Moderne’ style. This, in our view, alone makes it worthy of
inclusionintheoverlay.Thesignificanceofthebuildingisaugmentedbyitsbeingthethird
Protestant hall on this site, built by the Victorian Protestant Hall Company to service the
Loyal Orange Lodge, an organisation established by the protestant Irish, a group of some
historicimportanceinMelbourne.TheHallCompanyhadofficesonthethirdfloor.
Page81of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 233 of 273
AsisdiscussedinSection4.2,wedonotbelievethatitisnecessaryforaparticularelement
ofabuilding,suchasthestarintheterrazzoflooringofthefrontlobbyofthisbuilding,to
announceaconnectionwithitsformerowneroroccupier.Also,forthereasonsweagainset
outinSection4.2,wedonotbelievethattheconsiderationofheritagesignificanceshould
be traded off against other policies of the scheme including those which support the
developmentofthecentralcityarea.
WedonotacceptMrButler‘sassertionsthattheLoyalOrangeLodgeislinkedtotheLiberal
Party (the current occupants of at least part of the building). However, the Liberal Party,
establishedin1949,hasjointlyoccupiedofficesandthehallinsimilarfashionformostofits
periodofexistenceandthatinitselfmaybewellbeassessedofsomehistoricimportance.
The Panel accepts Ms Brennan’s submissions that, at this stage and in the absence of an
appropriate comparative study, the proposed interior controls should not proceed (see
Section4.2(ii)).
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, as exhibited to
CentenaryHallat104Ͳ110ExhibitionStreet.
9.3 Writtensubmissionsonly
Therewerenoplacesinthisgroupwithwrittensubmissionsonly.
9.4 Nosubmissions
The15placesforwhichnosubmissionswerereceivedarelistedinthetableinSection9.1.
The Panel did not inspect any of these buildings (except for three interiors) and sees no
reason why the Amendment should not proceed in relation to these places with the
exceptionoftheinteriors.
Page82of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 234 of 273
10 Placesfrom1956Ͳ1975:’TheUrbanSpurt’
10.1 TableofallplacesfromthisperiodincludedintheAmendment
Place
HoytsMidͲCityCinemas
HO
Grade
Int
Written
Sub
Presented to
Panel
HO1002
B
HO1006
B
Y
Y
Y
Atlas Assurance Co Ltd, later Guardian Royal HO1008
ExchangeAssurancebuilding
C
HO1010
A
Y
Y
HO1011
C
Y
Y
English Scottish & Australian Banking Co., HO1023
former
C
C
C
Y
B
Y
Y
194Ͳ200BourkeStreet
LondonAssuranceHouse,former
468Ͳ470BourkeStreet
404Ͳ406CollinsStreet
RoyalInsuranceGroupBuilding
430Ͳ442CollinsStreet
NationalMutualLifeCentre
435Ͳ455CollinsStreet
453Ͳ457ElizabethStreet
Commonwealth Banking Corporation of HO1024
Australiabranchbank,former
463Ͳ465ElizabethStreet
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) HO1068
Building,former
111Ͳ129QueenStreet
DillinghamEstatesHouse,former
HO1089
114Ͳ128WilliamStreet
10.2 PlacesaddressedatPanelhearing
(i)
LondonAssuranceHouse(LawInstitute)–468Ͳ470BourkeStreet
Theplace
The London Assurance House was constructed in 1957Ͳ59 to the design of Bernard Evans
and Partners, architects. It is a nonͲfreestanding well preserved glass curtain walled
building. The highly transparent ground floor entry foyer includes travertine faced walls
withgreenmarbleinsertsandamarblestairandfloor.Thefrontfaçadeofthebuildingis
framedbystonefacingisastrikingMondrianͲlikepatternofsquarewindows.Thebuilding
has been favourably commented upon in professional journals since the time of its
construction. The building has been consistently graded ‘B’ is all central city heritage
studies.
Page83of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 235 of 273
Theissue
The written submission by the owner and occupier of this property, the Law Institute of
VictoriaLtd,indicatedthattheInstitute:
x ObjectstotheinclusionofthepropertyintheHeritageOverlay.
x If the property is to be included, objects to the extent of the proposed Heritage
Overlay and believes that the extent of the overlay should be confined to the multiͲ
levelbuildingatthesouthernendofthesiteandexcludethecarparkingareaatthe
rear.
x Opposestheapplicationofinteriorcontrolsonthebasisthat:
-
extensiverenovationstookplacein1996and2004,therebyalteringthefabricat
alllevelsexcept,asrelevanthere,totheextentofthewallsintheentrylobby;and
-
theinspection(byMrButler)ofthegroundfloorinteriorwasdonefromthestreet
onlyandthereisnoclearidentificationoftheelementsoftheinteriorwhichare
significant.
x Ifinteriorcontrolsaretobeapplied,believesthosecontrolsshouldbeconfinedtothe
groundfloorareavisiblefromthestreet;thatis,theentryfoyerfromBourkeStreet;
anddefinitelyshouldnotincludethebasementlevel,thegroundlevelbeyondthetop
oftheentrystairsandtoanyofthefirsttoeightfloors.
The submission also pointed to inconsistent and confusing wording as between the
Explanatory Report and the Amendment’s List of Changes document concerning whether
externalpaintcontrolsappliedtothose12buildingswhereinteriorcontrolsareproposed.
Thesubmissionalsoraisedtheissueofhowbesttodesignateinteriorcontrolswherethey
are proposed to be applied to only part of the interior. Further, it was noted that while
Appendix 5 to the 2011 Review suggested an Incorporated Plan would be developed for
eachplaceallowingpermitexemptionsfornonͲsignificantpartsoftheinteriors,thishadnot
beendoneandthecontentofanysuchplanisnotknowntotheowners.
Mr Testro, representing the Institute, elaborated on these concerns at the Panel hearing.
His submissions added that as the focus of the claimed heritage characteristics of the
buildingisonthefrontfaçadetoBourkeStreet,theextentofexternalcontrolsshouldrelate
onlytothatfrontfaçade.Healsosubmittedthattheonusforestablishingthattheproperty
shouldbeincludedintheHeritageOverlaylaywiththeCouncilratherthantheownerhaving
anyobligationtoproveanything.HeencouragedthePaneltocriticallyreviewtherigourof
the professional analysis which had been undertaken. He added that the difficulties of
effectively applying interior controls to only parts of the interior of buildings are a further
reasonnointernalcontrolsshouldbeapplied.
Mr Testro called Ms Lardner to give expert heritage evidence. Ms Lardner’s evidence
included:
x Comparativeanalysisoffiveotherbuildingsofsimilartypeandperiodofconstruction.
x Theviewthatthebuildingdoeshavesignificanceatthelocallevel.
x Heritagecontrolstotheexteriorofthebuildingwouldbeappropriate,butredefined
soastoleaveoutsidetheoverlaytherearcarparkingareaandaccessway.
Page84of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 236 of 273
x Comparativelythefaçadeofthebuildingdisplaysahigherdegreeofarticulationand
visualinterestthansomesimilarbuildingsfromthelate1950s.
x Theextentofalterationtotheinteriorofthebuildingincludingthelobbyindicatethat
interiorcontrolsarenotwarranted.
x The external controls which would apply to the glass windows would enable the
transparencyofthelobbytoberetained.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncil’sviewisthatthisisanimportantbuildingwhichhasbothhistoricandaesthetic
values.TheaestheticvaluesrelatetoitsbeingawellͲpreservedandelegantlytransparent
allͲglass curtain walled office building begun only three years after the first international
Modernist buildings were built in Melbourne. It is said to be historically important as an
exampleof‘InsuranceArchitecture’.
ItwasindicatedtousonbehalfoftheCouncilthatitwouldagreetoareducedareaforthe
mapped Heritage Overlay, that is, to apply it only to the 1950s building and leave out the
rearcarparkingareaandaccessway.MrO’Farrellsuggestedthatifitwasthoughtthatit
wouldnotbepossibletoaccuratelyincludetheareaontheoverlaymaps,anincorporated
planapproachmightbeadopted.
Mr O’Farrell’s concluding submissions included that the Council only proposed interior
controlsforthegroundfloorfoyerandthestairstothemezzaninelevel.
Othersubmissions
Melbourne Heritage Action made a supporting submission addressing the Amendment in
general.Relevantly,itincluded:
We would also like to commend the City of Melbourne for their proposed
protectionofseveralpostWWIIbuildingsforthefirsttime.
At the Panel hearing, Mr Mann and Mr Davies made a more extensive presentation in
supportoftheAmendment.Inrelationtothisbuilding,however,theydescribedtheinterior
asfollows:
One of very few modern interiors with anything left however this is really only
travertinesidewalls(allothermaterialschanged),thecolumns,andtheuseofa
splitstairͲnotenoughtobeaccuratelydescribedasaninterior.
MrStorey’swrittenevidencefortheNationalTrustincludedthefollowinghelpfulreviewof
thepresentsituationwithrespecttoheritagecontrolsandpostͲwarbuildings:
...there are no postͲwar buildings currently with an individual overlay in the
CCZ/CBDexceptforthoseontheVHR(ICIHouse,BHPHouse,EagleHouse).100
CollinsStreet,thefirstpostwarallͲglasscurtainwallbuildingbuiltin1955,is‘A’
graded, and located in the heritage precinct HO504. This amendment C186
includessixofficetowers,beingtheLawInstitute,RACV,NationalMutual,Royal
Insurance, Estates House (which have been objected to in some or all aspects),
andAtlasInsurance(whichhasnotbeenobjectedto).Thereareonlythreeother
postͲwarplacesintheamendment,beingHoytsMidcityCinema,andtwobanks,
Page85of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 237 of 273
the ES&A and the Commonwealth Bank in Elizabeth Street (the latter rather
altered),noneofwhichhavebeenobjectedto.
ByfarthemajorityofpostͲwearofficeblockshavebeenalteredatgroundlevel
withrefurbishmentorinsertionofshops....TherearenoneinC186thatareintact
down to the every detail: the most intact are those that have a façade that
extendstotheground,usuallyinpiers.....
SofarastheLawInstitutebuildingisconcerned,hecommentsonthetransparencyofthe
groundflooranditsretentionofmostexternaldesigndetails.Henotestheunusualuseof
randomlyplacedhopperwindowsatupperlevels.MrStoreydoesnotascribetoMrButler’s
view that an insurance architecture genre can be usefully defined and ascribed to this
building. He nevertheless makes useful comparisons with other office buildings of this
periodnotingthatthisisoneofthefewglasswallofficeblocksnotalreadyontheVHRto
remain substantially intact. He notes that even those on the VHR have generally been
modifiedespeciallyatgroundfloorlevel.
MrStoreyisnotsupportiveofinteriorcontrolsforthisbuilding,giventhelevelofalteration
(with only the side walls and split stair structure reasonably intact). He does support reͲ
delineationoftheHeritageOverlayboundariestocoincidewiththe1950sbuilding.
Paneldiscussionandviews
So far as the exterior of this building is concerned, there really was little debate as to the
significanceofthesouthernfaçade.EvenMsLardneracknowledgeditsparticularaesthetic
significance.Thisisabuildingthathasbeenhighlyregardedbythearchitecturalprofession
fordecades.
WhileMrTestro’ssubmissionopposedthelistingofthetotalityoftheexteriorofthe1950s
building, this was based on no other justification than there was agreement about the
significance of the façade. We would agree that there is unlikely to be any claimed
significanceforthefabricofthesidewallsorrearwallofthisbuildingbutthismatterwas
notdebatedsufficientlyforustoadoptafacadistapproachtothisbuilding.Thecontentof
the statement of significance appropriately indicates the importance of the façade design
andthetransparencyoftheentrylobby.
ThePanelbelievesthatthisbuilding,whichhasconsistentlybeengraded‘B’inthepost1985
heritage assessments (recognising a high level of significance), should be included in the
Heritage Overlay on the basis that it is an early well preserved and striking curtain wall
building.WebelievethatsuchonusasappliestotheCouncilinestablishingtheimportance
ofthebuildinghasbeensuccessfullymet–theexpertevidencebyMsLardnerwithrespect
totheexteriorwasinthemaininagreementwiththatgivenbyMrButler.
Weagreewiththesubmitter,CouncilandtheNationalTrustthattheoverlayareashouldbe
confinedtothebuildingitself(inaccordancewiththeCouncilagreedrevisedfootprint).An
incorporatedplanapproachtothedesignatedareamayberequirediftherearelimitations
toaccuratedepictiononthemaps.
Concerning the proposed interior controls; we make the comment that this interior is
significantlyalteredbothintermsoflayoutaswellasfinishes.Thereisnodoubt,however,
that the view from the street to the ground floor interior is an important element of the
Page86of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 238 of 273
buildingdesign.Itisthetransparencyofthespacewhichistheimportantelementinthis
respect,ratherthananyoftheinteriordetail.
WedonotagreewithMsLardner’sviewthatitisadequateinpreservingthattransparency
forthegroundfloorwindowsandglassdoorstobesubjecttocontrolaspartoftheexterior.
Changes might be made behind them (as part of the interior) which could alter the
transparencyofthelobby.
Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in Section 4.2(ii), we do not recommend that any
interiorcontrolsproceedwithoutafurthermorecomprehensiveCBDinteriorsurvey.
SofarasthegeneralproblemsofinteriorlistingsandthepoorwordingoftheAmendment
documentationareconcerned,thesearedealtwithinSection4.2(ii)ofourreport.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, to the London
Assurance House (now Law Institute building) at 468Ͳ470 Bourke Street as exhibited
subjecttothefollowing:
a) Alterationoftheoverlayboundarysoastoincludeonlytheexteriorfabricofthe
1950s building (and exclude the rear parking area and access way) within the
overlay.
(ii)
NationalMutual–435Ͳ455CollinsStreet
Theplace
This large reinforced concrete building was built in 1962Ͳ65 to a design by prominent
architects Godfrey, Spowers, Hughes, Mewton and Lobb in association with Leith and
Bartlett.ConstructedontheoldWesternMarketsite,itwasbuiltbehindalargepublicplaza
whichfacesCollinsStreet.
Oneofitsmaindesignfeaturesisthewhitemarblebalconybalustradingwhichencirclesthe
buildingasastronghorizontalfeature.
Theissue
Thewrittensubmissionlodgedbytheowners,ISPTPtyLtd,raisedthefollowingobjections:
x The building is of insufficient historical or architectural significance to warrant
inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The submission appended an expert report by
ProfessorMilesLewiswhichsupportedthisview.
x Aplanningpermitisinplacefordemolitionandredevelopmentofthesite(planning
permitNo,2006/0419 appendedtothesubmission)allowingcommencementuntil2
December2015).Thepermit,whichhasbeenextendedonceallowsthedemolitionof
the façade of the existing building, demolition of the open plaza forecourt and
redevelopment of that part of the site for an 11 storey office building, a two storey
restaurantbuildingandapedestrianlanewaysupportingretailuses.Thepermitwas
grantedbytheMinisterafterheritagematterswereconsidered.
x The condition of the building will not allow its retention in its current form. The
buildingisinpoorphysicalconditionandattheendofitsdesignlife.
Page87of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 239 of 273
The owners of the building, ISPT Pty Ltd as Trustee for Industry Superannuation Property
Trust No 1, were represented at the hearing by Ms Brennan. She made the following
submissions:
x The ‘C’ grading of the building is not itself sufficient to warrant application of the
overlay and there has been a failure to adequately address accepted approaches to
thresholdanalysis.
x In addition to heritage considerations the planning authority must also consider
matters such as the effect of the overlay on other strategic planning objectives, the
economic effects of the overlay and the effect of the overlay on planning objectives
suchasthefulfilmentofthecapitalcityfunctionsoftheMelbourneCBD.
x Mr Butler, in coming to his recommendations, has made a number of erroneous
assumptions, including assertions that it is a curtain wall building and that the
balconiesareaccessible.
x The reliance on ‘snippets’ of Melbourne’s post war history to establish historic
significanceisnotadequate.
x Itisprematuretoattributeheritagesignificancetorelativelyrecentbuildingssuchas
this.
x WhilsttheNationalMutualbuildingcanbeconsideredtomakeanimportantaesthetic
contributiontoMelbourne,itisnotoutstandingandthereforedoesnotqualifyunder
thetermsoftheNationalEstatecriteria.
x The structural adequacy of the existing façade is seriously compromised and its
preservation in its current form is unachievable. Since the original submission in
October2011concerningthisissue,amarblefacingpanelhasfallenfromthebuilding,
leadingtofencingoffoftheperimeterofthebuildingandtestingandremovalofmost
ofthepanels31.
ShecalledProfessorLewisandMrSheldonasexpertwitnessesonbehalfofherclient.
Professor Lewis made the following points, also expressed in his earlier expert report
appendedtotheISPTPtyLtdsubmission:
x ‘Itisnotpossibletodemonstratethatthebuildingisofnosignificance.Butitcertainly
ratesbehindanumberofotherMelbournebuildingsofthedecadewhichwonawards
orhaveotherwisebeenidentifiedasexamplesofexcellenceorinnovation.’Hesaidin
oralevidencethatthebuildingwasmediocreitself,butconcededthatitwasdramatic
inurbandesign.
x The notion that there is a category of buildings from this period which could be
described as ‘Insurance Architecture’ is rejected. The type of buildings which Mr
Butler refers to, are general commercial buildings, some of which were built for
insurancecompanies.
31
AnEmergencyBuildingOrderwasissueon30January2012.
Page88of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 240 of 273
x Thebuildingisnotaglasscurtainwallbuilding.Indeedtheinternationalcomparative
buildings referred to by Professor Lewis included buildings which similarly have a
secondskinofhorizontalbalconiessuchastheRichardNeutra’sworkinBrazil.
x The fashion for plaza forecourts did not last long and does not afford the building
significance.
x Thebuildingwouldprobablyfitintothe50mostimportantbuildingsoftheperiodof
1955Ͳ65, but that doesn’t warrant a form of protection as proposed by the Heritage
Overlay.
Inrelationtothelatterpoint,ProfessorLewistabledascheduleofbuildingsfromthe1955Ͳ
1965period,nominatingthosethatheconsideredsuperiortoNationalMutual.
Mr Sheldon restricted his evidence to describing the structural design of the marble
balustradepanels,thecurrentconditionofthosepanelsandthereasonsfortheirfailure.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuilding:
x Is historically significant as a landmark privatedevelopment within the City’s history,
distinguishedbyitsscaleandcombinationofofficeandretailuses.
x Is aesthetically a well preserved and large example of curtain wall architecture,
distinguished by its free standing site, the high degree of external finishes and the
encirclingbalconies.
InhisconcludingsubmissionsfortheCouncil,MrO’Farrellmadethefollowingpoints:
x ThePanelshouldrejectthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofISPTPtyLtdinrelationto
buildingmaintenance,economicimpostsandexistingpermits.
x MrButlerhadsuccessfullyaddressedthecriteriafortheinclusionofthisbuildinginthe
Heritage Overlay and referred back to ISPT’s submissions with respect to the
recommendations of Mr Wight’s paper concerning how thresholds of significance
mightbedetermined.
x The Panel does not need to address the question as to whether a permit would be
requiredforrepairsandmaintenanceshouldtheoverlayforthisbuildingbeapproved.
Othersubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendment.
Mr Storey’s written evidence, as noted earlier in Section 10.2(i), described the current
situationwithheritagecontrolsandpostͲwarcentralcitybuildings.Havingnotedthelackof
intactnessofmostofthese,includingthoseontheVHR,hewentontosay:
Interestinglytheonlybuildingthatcanbedescribedastheleastaltered(atleast
until the recent loss/removal of some of the marble) is the National Mutual
building.Thefaçadeisintactdowntotheplacementoftheshopfronts,andall
accessbalconies,blackmarblepiers,andbalustrading....
Page89of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 241 of 273
Hiswrittenevidencegoesontoprovidehisopinionthatthepotentiallossofsomeorallof
themarblecladdingdoesnotdetractfromthesignificanceoftheoveralldesignandthatthe
marblemightbereplacedwithmaterialofsimilarappearance.
HecommentedalsothatratherthanbeingacurtainwallbuildingasclaimedbyMrButler:
This is actually an early example of the move away from glass curtain walls,
adopting instead an unusual balcony arrangement, perhaps a reaction to
climate.’
Mr Storey’s report included that there was only one other balcony/‘second skin’ façade
designinthecentralcitybeingthebuildingat8MarketStreet.
Healsosuggeststhatthebuildingis‘alargescalerealisationof‘luxury’finisheswithmarble
claddingandagoldcolouredmetalgrid’.
Concerningthebuildingssitinginaplaza,itwasMrStorey’scommentthat‘itisthebiggest
and best towerand plaza combination in the CBD...’.He notes that Philip Goad inhis book
MelbourneArchitecture(2009page190)thatthebuildingis:
...oneofMelbourne’sbestexamplesofthepostͲwarurbandesignconceptofa
highͲriseslabwithanopenlandscapedplazaatgroundlevel...itdoesnothavea
conventional glass curtain wall... instead it has deep horizontal spandrels and
thinverticalbrassrodͲlikeelements...glasshasdisappearedinfavouroffloating
horizontalmassandverticaldecorativedelicacy.
LateinthehearingMrTobinfortheNationalTrustprovidedacopyofabrochureproduced
atthetimeofthebuilding’sconstruction32.
As the building owner was no longer represented at the hearing at this time, the Panel
arranged for a copy of the brochure to be forwarded to the owner’s solicitors inviting a
response.NortonRoserespondedbyletterdated20April2012asfollows:
The document produced by the National Trust does not amount to an
independent assessment of the architectural merit of the National Mutual
building. The production of a booklet recording the history of the site is a
marketing tool which might be employed in relation to any new commercial
buildingconstructedintheCBD,includingonthissite.
Thebookletwaspreparedcontemporaneouslytotheopeningofthebuilding,and
atthattimethehistoricalsignificanceofthebuildingitselfcouldnotbeassessed.
The document does not identify or support any new grounds for aesthetic or
historical significance. At best the document can be described as a self
promotionaltool.
AcceptingthatthebrochureisselfͲpromotionalinnature,thePanelhasneverthelessfound
itusefulinsheddingsomefurtherlightonthehistoryofthisbuilding.Itincludes:
32
The booklet (Exhibit NT97) is untitled but indicates that it was ‘issued by the National Mutual Life
Association of Australasia Limited to commemorate the official opening of National Mutual Centre, 447
CollinsStreet,Melbourne,March1965.’
Page90of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 242 of 273
x TheNationalMutualLifeAssociationcommencedbusinessin1869asanoffͲshootof
theNationalFireInsuranceCompanyofAustralasia.Thisfireinsurancecompanyhad
earlierhaditsofficesontheWesternMarketsiteandhencetheNationalMutualLife
Associationhaditsbeginningsonthissite.
x At the time of its completion, the National Mutual building was the largest office
buildinginMelbourneand,includingthecarparkinthe13acresofroofedspace,was,
atthetime,thelargestcommercialbuildinginAustralia.
x The balconies were designed to reduce the heat load on the building and as a
consequencetheairconditioningplantwassmallerthanitwouldhavehadtobeifthe
design had adopted a glass face without the balconies. Also, the underside of the
balconieswereabletobeusedtosupportthemainairconditioningductsratherthan
theirbeingpunchedthroughsupportingbeams;andwindowcleaningwasabletobe
undertakenwithoutusingsuspendedcages.
Paneldiscussionandviews
Integrityandconditionofthebuilding
The matter of the condition of the building’s marble cladding is clearly a major issue of
concernfortheowner.Wewereadvised,andweaccept,thattheexistingcladdingislikely
tobevirtuallyall,ifnotcompletely,removed;anditwillnotbepossibletoreinstateit,asits
removalcausesbreakageofthemarblepanels.
Mr O’Farrell in his closing submissions urged the Panel not to consider the matters of
buildingmaintenance,economicimposts,theexistingpermitandthelike,onthebasisthat
theyareirrelevanttothetaskofthePanel. Wecannotagree.Ifa clearoutcomeforthe
buildingcladdinghadbeendescribedtousandwewerepersuadedthattheoutcomewould
significantlyreducetheintegrityofthebuildingandhenceitsheritagevalues(ratherthanits
conditionassuch),itwouldproperlybeamatterforustoconsider.
NeverthelesstheevidencepresentedbyMrSheldonwastotheeffectthatthefinalsolution
for reͲcladding of the building and any other required structural works has not been
identified.Intheabsenceofaclearunderstandingaboutthesematters,thePanelbelieves
thatitisnotbeyondtherealmsofpossibilitythatacosteffective,sensitivesolutionwhich
wouldmaintaintheappearanceofthebuilding(andhenceitssignificance)couldbefound.
Asaconsequence,theintegrityofthestructurehasnotweighedheavilyinourassessment
ofitssignificance.
Validityofcomparatorgroup
We agree with Ms Brennan that the fact that the 2011 Review afforded this building a ‘C’
gradingdoesnotinitselfdeterminethatitsinclusionintheHeritageOverlayisappropriate.
Thisisinpartbecausewedonotbelievethatthegradingapproachusedinthe2011Review
isuseful(seeSection4.1(ii)).Itisalsobecause,asshesubmitted,thereshouldbeaproper
comparative approach taken to defining thresholds and assessing whether the building
meets the defined threshold. We think this is particularly the case when architectural
significanceisbeingconsidered.
InSection4.1(ii)wediscusstheimportanceoftheproperdefinitionofacomparatorgroupin
providing a base against which relative significance can be assessed. We believe that
Page91of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 243 of 273
comparisons are a necessary tool in determining thresholds of significance, but the
comparisonsmustbevalidonesandthecomparisonsmustbeexplicitlymade.Comparison
isespeciallyanissueinrelationtothisandotherbuildingsfromthismostrecentperiod.
However, we have found no great assistance in assessing the architectural significance of
this building, by the comparisons with which we were presented by the Council and the
submitter.
On the one hand, Mr Butler simply included the National Mutual building in a list of 16
buildingsconstructedatthesametimeforinsurancecompanyclientsͲwithoutundertaking
anycomparativeanalysis.
TheabsenceofanymeaningfulcomparisonsbyMrButlerisaprobleminitself,butwealso
advisethatwedonotagreewithhimthatacomparatorgroupbasedoninsurancecompany
buildingsaloneisausefulgroupinthecircumstancesthatnosignificanceisbeingascribedto
theuseofthebuildingbutratheritsphysicalform.
Ontheotherhand,ProfessorLewiscomparedtheNationalMutualbuildingtoseveralother
localexamplesfromthesameperiodincludingTheRoyalAssuranceBuilding,GilbertCourt,
AllianceAssurance,ICIHouse,BPHouseandtheHCSleighBuilding,TotalCarParkandAMP
Square. All of these had won contemporary awards, had been recognised for their
excellence or had been seen to be innovative or influential. He also thought that the
comparatorgroupshouldhaveincludedinternationalexamplesandprovidedsomelimited
evidenceofoverseasbuildingsofasimilartypetotheNationalMutualbuilding.
In relation to Professor Lewis’s approach, we would first say that it must be born in mind
thatitislocalsignificancetotheMelbourneCapitalCityZonethatisbeingconsideredhere,
not State or indeed a national/international grading. Therefore, whilst the building’s
relationshiptointernationalcomparatorsisinterestingandindeedmighthaveenhancedits
(local)significance,thefactthatitmaynotbeasgoodastheinternationalcomparatorsdoes
notdetractfromitslocalsignificanceasaprominentcentralcitybuildingofitstime.
Second, so far as Professor Lewis’ local comparators are concerned, we find that they are
nothelpfulaswhiletheyareallsimilarlytallbuildings,theyarenotdirectlycomparablein
otherrespects:
x They adopt mixed approaches to cladding, for example the Royal Assurance Building
has an innovative prefabricated concrete cladding system; a number of others are
clear glass curtain wall clad structures quite unlike the cladding used on National
Mutual;andtheAMPbuildingusesverticalribscladinstone.
x All of the comparators have different approaches to themanner in which they meet
the ground and provide an entrance to the building. In this case the original
arrangementatgroundlevelisintact.
x The comparators are also mixed in the manner in which they sit on their sites and
includebuildingswhichvariouslyareinplazasoronpodiumsorarebuilttothestreet.
x ProfessorLewisunfairlycomparestheNationalMutualonlywithlocalbuildingswhich
havebeenrecognisedelsewhereasofarchitecturalexcellence,includingbylistingon
the VHR. Clearly this is not the worst building in Melbourne, and Professor Lewis
acknowledges that. The only comparator to which Professor Lewis said the subject
Page92of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 244 of 273
buildingissuperioristheformerRACVbuildinginQueenStreet,whichhedescribedas
‘awful’.SofarastheRACVisconcerneditisourviewthatitisnotausefulcomparator
withtheNationalMutualastheapproachtocladdingisentirelydifferenttothatused
ontheNationalMutualbuildinganditisnotsitedwithinaplaza.
In identifying a number of characteristics which distinguish the National Mutual building
from others in the comparative group used by Professor Lewis, we are conscious that it
mightbesaidthatwearetakinganoverlyrestrictiveapproachtodefiningthegroup;thatis,
one which would see the National Mutual being identified as the only (and hence best)
exampleofaparticularbuildingtype.Itisnotourintentiontodefinethegroupinthisway,
however,butrathertoshowthatthereisaneedtobemorerigorousandmoreanalyticalin
dealingwithcomparisons.ThisisalsodiscussedinSection4.1(ii).
Sofarascomparisonsareconcerned,wewereassistedsomewhatbyMrStorey’sevidence
that there is really only one other balcony/’second skin’ building in the CBD (at 8 Market
Street).Thishighlightstherarityofthedesignapproach.
Thelackofusefullocalcomparatorsandtheuniquenessofthebuildinginthecitycontext,is
afactor,webelieve,relevanttothecriteriaforinclusionintheHeritageOverlay.
We also believe that the unusual prominence and scale of the building lends to its
architecturalsignificance.
Theenvironmentalhistorydiscussestheprominenceofthisbuildinginthesectiondealing
witharchitectureandstreetscapeinthe‘UrbanSpurt’period(page136):
...in1962Ͳ5therearoseonthesitetheNationalMutualCentreat435Ͳ455Collins
Street. The construction cost £4 million and was 22 storeys high. The building
itself was a much more stylish one than the Southern Cross, designed by the
architects Godfrey Spowers Hughes Mewton & Lobb, and lavishly finished. But
the dramatic aspect was the creation of a large forecourt to Collins Street,
unparalleledinanyothercommercialdevelopmentinthecity.Thedevelopment
wasopenonthreesides,withafreestandingtowerslabsetbackonthesouthern
mostpartoftheplaza.Theimplicationsforthecitywerepotentiallydramatic.
Themodernistvisionofacityofhighrisetowerssetamidstlandscapedgreenery
atgroundlevelseemedimminent,providedthatmajorcorporationswereableto
purchaselargecitysitesorconsolidateanumberofsites.
WeagreethatthisbuildingwasadramaticadditiontoMelbourne’sarchitectureatthetime
ofitsconstructionand,asoutlinedinthebrochureproducedatthetimeofitsopening,it
wasthelargestofficebuildinginMelbourneandthelargestcommercialbuildinginAustralia.
Itremainsaparticularlyprominentbuildingtoday,some45yearslater.
Thebalconies
Sometimewasspentindiscussingthiselementofthebuildingand,inparticular,whether
thebalconiesserveanyusefulpurpose.Itisclearthat,despiteMtButler’ssuggestiontothe
contrary, the balconies were not designed to be accessible balconies for the outdoor
amenityofoccupantsofthebuilding,buttheywereimportantasaformofsolarprotection,
Page93of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 245 of 273
providingsupportforairconditioningductsandenablingwindowcleaningwithouttheuse
ofsuspendedcages33.ThePanelthereforeacceptsthattheywereanimportantfunctional
featureofthebuildingandthattheassociatedbalustradesprovideadistinctivearchitectural
feature.
Historicalsignificanceoftheplaza
Atthehearingtherewasdiscussionaroundtheissueofwhetherthebuilding’ssettingwithin
aplazawasanhistoricallyimportantfactorinthehistoryofarchitectureorurbandesignin
the central city. It was noted that this siting arrangement preceded or was perhaps a
precursortotheintroductionofplazasandsetbacksascomponentsofthePlanningScheme
requirementsforthecentralcityarea.
Ms Brennan was critical of Mr Butler’s analysis of this issue saying that ‘a comprehensive
documentationoftheintent,contentandconsequencesofthekeycontrolsandpoliciesand
thenajudgementaboutwhethertheyareimportantinahistoricalsenseintheshapeand
formoftheCity’isrequiredbuthadnotbeensupplied.Shesuggestedthatsuchahistory
hasnotbeenwritten.
In his evidence, Professor Lewis again addressed this matter of the development of a plot
ratio approach to building siting and its inclusion in the Planning Scheme. He was again
damningoftheapproachandtheutilityandamenityofthepublicspacescreated.MrButler
defendedtheamenityofthespaces.
We note that the environmental history for the central city includes comments on this
matteratpage136asfollows:
In 1957 Victoria’s State Building Regulations Committee decided in favour of
modifying height limit laws for city buildings. The 132 foot (40 m) height limit
introducedin1916hadbeenexceededbyICIHouseinthepreviousyear,andit
was now replaced by a system allowing greater heights in individual cases,
dependentuponfloorspaceandlightangles...Theincreaseinheightofbuildings
inthecentralcitysoonsuggestedotherimplicationsfortheformofthecity.The
fadforopenspaceatgroundlevelwastosweepawaytheproprietyofthe1930’s
streetarchitectureandusherinaneweraofplazasandlandscapedpublicspace.
Attheirbest,thesespacesbecamepublicspaces,blessedwithsunandlunching
workers and perhaps a fountain, but more commonly they became windswept
andbarren,alienatingspaceswhichsowedtheseedsoffutureplanningcontrols
ofthe1980sand1990swhentheplazawasvirtuallyoutlawedandnewbuildings
weremadetofaceharduponthefrontboundary.
It is the Panel’s view that this plot ratio approach to building development encouraging
plazas,asisreferredtointheenvironmentalhistoryofthecentralcity(andintheevidence
byMrButler),wasanimportantphaseincentralMelbourne’sdevelopmentalbeitonethat
lastedforarelativelyshortperiod.Weacceptthatthereisnocomprehensivetomesetting
outthehistoryofplanningcontrolsinthecity,butwefindtherecognitionofthisissueinthe
environmentalhistorytelling.Thisbuildingmorethananyinthecentralcityareaillustrates
33
Fromthebookletproducedatthetimeofconstruction.
Page94of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 246 of 273
the outcomes of this development approach. The other examples referred to by Ms
Brennanareatalesserscaleand/orareinternalisedwithinthesite.ThePanelbelievesthe
plazasettingisanelementofsignificancewhetherornottheamenityoutcomeintheplaza
wasagoodone.
HistoricalassociationwithNationalMutualLifeAssociation
WhilstthisbuildingisnolongertheheadquartersoftheNationalMutualLifeAssociation,it
is of some interest that the company appears to have enthusiastically embraced the
opportunity to construct this large headquarters building on the site from whence it
originated.Itistruethatthecompanyhaditsownstandaloneoriginalheadquartersatthe
cornerofQueenandCollinsStreets(itremainsasaplaceontheVictorianHeritageRegister
(VHR)),buttheWesternMarketsitewasthehomeoftheNationalFireAssuranceCompany,
the creators of the National Mutual Life Association and early managers of the company
(from this site). It is also of some note that this was an important insurance company
originatinginMelbourne.
Othereconomicconsiderations
For the reasons that are set out in Section 4.2 of this report, we do not believe that in
consideringtheproposedinclusionofabuildinginaHeritageOverlayofaplanningscheme,
itisappropriatetomakeatradeͲoffbetweentheheritageobjectivesoftheschemeandthe
otherobjectives.Wealsodealwiththeissueofexistingpermits(whichapplyinthecaseof
thisbuildingaswellasothers)inthatsectionofthereport.
Tooearlytojudgesignificance
Thisbuildingisnow47yearsold.ThePanelbelievesthatsufficienttimehaspassedtoallow
a reasonable judgement to be made of its heritage importance. We would also comment
that it is also important that the time between construction and such judgements being
madeshouldnotbesolongthatimportantexamplesofbuildingsfromaparticularperiod
arelost.
ErrorsbyButler
While we agree with Ms Brennan that Mr Butler’s description of this building as a curtain
wall structure is not apposite – certainly most would not apply that description to the
building’scladding–wedonotfindittobeafactorfataltohisevidence.
Similarly,whiletherewasanissuearoundthefunctionandfunctionalityofthebalconies(as
discussedabove),whetherornottheyhaveprovedtobefunctionalforbuildingoccupants
(especiallygivenmorestringenthealthandsafetyregulationsaroundpotentialcurrentday
access to them) does not detract from the integrity of the architectural design of the
building.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheNationalMutualbuildingat435Ͳ455
CollinsStreet.
Page95of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 247 of 273
(iii)
DillinghamEstatesHouseͲ114Ͳ128WilliamStreet
Theplace
This24storeyreinforcedconcreteofficebuildingwasbuiltbetween1973and1976forthe
DillinghamCorporation. It was designed by Yuncken Freeman Architects under the design
leadershipofBarryPatten.
Thebuildingisfreestanding,risingoutofapavedplazawhichopensdirectlyintotheWilliam
Street foyer. The curtain wall cladding of aluminium and glass presents as an austere
reflectionoftheinternationalmodernistarchitectureofthetime.
Theissue
UrbisPtyLtd,consultants,lodgedanobjectingwrittensubmissiononbehalfofthebuilding
owner,TackellyNo6PtyLtdwhichmadethefollowingpoints:
x The site is of relatively low heritage significance and does not warrant heritage
controls.
x Othercomparablebuildings(byYunckenFreemanfromthesameperiod)arealready
included in the heritage overlay and the VHR, notably the Eagle Star building at 473
BourkeStreetandformerBHPHouseat130Ͳ149WilliamStreet,negatingtheneedfor
thisonetobeincludedintheHeritageOverlay.
x The site includes a relatively modern office building and development opportunities
shouldbeparamount.
Ms Brennan, represented the owners at the Panel hearing and made the following more
extensivesubmissions:
x This building does not meet the high level of aesthetic significance that should be
applied before a Heritage Overlay is deemed appropriate. The application of the
NationalEstatecriteriashouldrequireabuildingtomakeanoutstandingcontribution
totheaestheticsofthecity,notsimplymakeanimportantaestheticcontribution–the
definitionappliedfor‘C’gradedbuildingsasthisis.
Thesebuildingsdemonstratethehistoricalorsocialdevelopmentofthelocalarea
and/or make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution. These buildings
comprise a variety of styles and buildings types. Architecturally they are
substantially intact, but where altered, it is reversible. In some instances,
buildings of high individual historic, scientific or social significance may have a
greaterdegreeofalteration.
x Theargumentfortheapplicationoftheoverlayplacesconsiderableimportanceonthis
building’srelationshipwithotherYunckenFreemanbuildingsinthevicinity.However,
this Amendment does not propose that a precinct be identified, just this, as a stand
alonebuilding.
x Thebuildingisnotsatisfactorilycomparedwithotherbuildingsofitsdesignandtype.
MsBrennancalledMrPeterBarretttoprovideexpertevidence.Hestated:
Page96of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 248 of 273
x ThisbuildinglacksthelevelofinnovationandsophisticationfoundintheformerShell
Headquarters building (now demolished), the AMP Building (to the northͲwest) and
theformerBHPbuilding(tothenorth).
x This was a dated attempt to sustain a modernist aesthetic promoted by Yuncken
Freemanandisnotasimportantastheirearlierworksinthisstyle.
x It has little historical value as it never had a long association or identified with a
particularlysignificantownerortenant.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Significant aesthetically as one of the three superb Yuncken Freeman International
ModerniststyledmultiͲstoreyedofficebuildingswithintheCapitalCityZone.
x It’sdistinguishedbyitsfaçadetreatmentusingaluminiumandglasswhichisdisplayed
toitsfulleffectinthisfreestandingstructure.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendmentanditsexpert
evidencesuggestedthatwhilstitreliedonfaçadedetailingfromtheearlierEagleHouse,it
wasbuiltasa‘silveryfoil’totheadjacentBHPHouse.
Paneldiscussionandviews
ThePanelinspectedthebuildingexternallyandfromwithinthefoyerarea.
ItisclearthatitcomparesmoststronglywithEagleHouse,whichisincludedontheVHRand
designedbythesamefirm.Theyarebothbuildingscladinaluminiumandglasswithvery
similar detailing and presentation. Unlike Eagle House, however, this building is
freestandingwithalargefloorplate.Itthereforedoesnotgaintheeleganceattributedto
Eagle House which is a direct consequence of its site. Whilst the buildings have similar
facadeappearances,theyareotherwisequitedifferentgivenDillinghamEstatesHouseisa
freestandingdesignandhasadifferentrelationshipwiththesurroundingpavedplaza.
It must also be pointed out that to compare it unfavourably with Eagle House is unfair as
that building is one included on the Victorian Heritage Register. This building is being
promotedasasiteoflocalimportancetothecitynotoneofStateimportance.Wehavethe
same concerns about the slanted comparator group used by Mr Barrett as we have in
relationtothatusedbyProfessorLewisinrelationtotheNationalMutualbuilding.
In his evidence in support of the Amendment, Mr Butler implied that this building gains
significancebecauseofitsassociationwiththearchitects,YunckenFreeman.However,he
did not make a great deal of their role in designing central city buildings. We would
comment here that the application of an overlay over a precinct of Yuncken Freeman
buildings(oraseriallistingofsuchbuildings)mightwellhavebeenconsidered.
However, the critical point about this building in our view is Ͳ as was put by the National
Trust Ͳ that it is a ‘silvery foil’ to the adjacent BHP building (also designed by Yuncken
Freeman).Theuseofanarchitecturalstylewhichsomehavedescribedasoutdatedatthis
Page97of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 249 of 273
timeappearstohavebeenpurposefullychosentoprovidecompositionalharmonywiththe
adjoining buildings. It is clearly a building of some prominence which makes a positive
contributiontothearchitecturalpresentationofthispartofthecity.
ThePaneldisagreeswiththeargumentsputforwardonbehalfoftheownerthatitdoesnot
meet a sufficiently high level of significance for inclusion in the overlay. To dismiss it
becauseitdoesnotmatchthelevelofaestheticimportanceofotherbuildingswhichareof
Statesignificanceisnotrelevant.ThePanelbelievesthatthisbuildingmeetsthenecessary
thresholdforaplaceoflocalaestheticsignificance.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheformerDillinghamEstatesHouseat
114Ͳ128WilliamStreet.
(iv)
RoyalInsuranceBuilding–430Ͳ442CollinsStreet
Theplace
This 18 storey reinforced concrete building was designed by architects, Yuncken Freeman
and built between 1962 and 1965 (at the same time as the National Mutual Building
opposite).UnlikeotherYunckenFreemanbuildingsinthecity,thisoneiscladwithpreͲcast
concreteelementswhichincorporatethestructuralexpressionofthebuilding.
ThebuildingwontheRAIA’sGeneralBuildingcategoryawardin1967.
Theissue
UrbisPtyLtd,consultants,madeanobjectingwrittensubmissionon behalfoftheowners,
Enwerd Pty Ltd and SHL Nominees (1965) Pty Ltd. The written submission made the
followingpoints:
x The building does not have sufficient aesthetic, architectural or social significance to
warrantinclusionintheHeritageOverlay.
x Thesiteincludesarelativelymodernbuildingoflowheritagesignificanceintheheart
ofthecommercialdistrict,thusdevelopmentopportunitiesshouldbeparamount.
x Therearenumeroussimilarbuildingsinthecentralcity,soinclusionofthisbuildingin
theHeritageOverlayisunnecessary.
TheownerswererepresentedatthehearingbyMrGottschalkofUrbis.Hesubmittedthat
thebuilding:
x IsofinsufficientsignificancetowarrantinclusionintheHeritageOverlayandthatitis
significantly altered at ground level – thereby compromising the Yuncken Freeman
designintent.
x Theopportunityforredevelopmentshouldberetained–asreferredtoinMelbourne
Planning Scheme policies. Since the building is of relatively low significance,
developmentpoliciesshouldholdsway.
x There are numerous similar buildings in CBD being proposed in this Amendment,
thereforetherearesufficientbuildingsofthistypeintheHeritageOverlayandthereis
Page98of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 250 of 273
no need for this one. 15 other Capital City Zone office towers from 1960s are
proposedforprotectioninthisAmendment.
x Alsotwobetterbuildingsbysamearchitect–EagleStarbuildingat473BourkeStreet
and the former BHP House at 130 Ͳ149 William Street are included on the VHR and
underheritageoverlays.
x Thebuildingcouldretainits‘B’gradingbutnotbeincludedintheoverlay.
TheCouncilposition
TheCouncilsubmittedthatthebuildingis:
x Aestheticallysignificantasthemostelegant,earlypreͲcastconcretecladInternational
Modernofficedesigninthecity.
x Important for having been recognised by the RAIA with an award in its 1967 awards
program.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrustsupportedtheinclusionofthisbuildingintheAmendment.Indoingsoit
madethepointthatitislessalteredatgroundlevelthanmostotherpostwartowers.
Paneldiscussionandviews
The Panel was presented with a considerable amount of material about the comparative
value of buildings from this period and in most instances this building was lauded as a
superiorexampleofthearchitectureoftheperiodandoftheworkofYunckenFreeman.
The Panel also rejects the idea that ground floor alterations have changed the building to
suchanextentthatitssignificancehasbeensubstantiallycompromised.
ThePaneldoesnotbelievethatthereshouldbeatradeoffagainstdevelopmentpoliciesat
thisidentificationstageͲseethegeneraldiscussionofthisissueinSection4.4.
Havingconsideredtheissues,thePanelrecommendthat:
TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedasexhibitedtotheRoyalAssuranceBuildingat430Ͳ442
CollinsStreet.
10.3 Writtensubmissionsonly
(i)
FormerRACVClub–111Ͳ129QueenStreet
Theplace
Thisbuildingwasconstructedin1959Ͳ61forusebymembersoftheRoyalAutomobileClub
of Victoria to the design of Bates Smart and McCutcheon, architects. It incorporates two
street entries to Queen Street – one for the club and one for the office. The building
comprises a three storey transparent cantilevering podium in aluminium framed glass and
polishedblackgranite,withafifteenstoreymanganesebrickcladtowerabovesurmounted
byabutterflyformroof.
Page99of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 251 of 273
Theissue
ThewrittensubmissionbyEighthGrangePtyLtd,theownerofthisproperty,opposedthe
inclusionoftheformerRACVbuildinginthescheduletotheHeritageOverlay(exterioronly
proposed)onthebasisthatthebuildingisanonͲdescript,commonandunremarkable1960s
building.Itissaidtobeplainlookingifnotunattractive(aviewsharedbyProfessorMiles
Lewis–theexpertcalledbyISPTPtyLtdinrelationtotheNationalMutualbuilding).
It was also asserted that much of the building’s exterior (with the exception of the
brickwork)hasbeensubstantiallyaltered.
Itwasnotedthatthe2002Reviewdowngradedthebuildingfrom‘C’to‘D’.
TheCouncilposition
The Council submissions were to the effect that the building is both historically important
(duetoitsassociationwiththeRACVwhichwasfoundedin1903)andaestheticallyͲaswellͲ
preserved example of post war modern architecture and an early example of fast track
designandconstruction.
MrButlergaveevidencesupportingthe‘C’gradingofthebuilding.
Othersupportingsubmissions
TheNationalTrust’swrittenevidencebyMrStoreyincluded:
x ‘While the main building is somewhat slab like, there is a lightness to the strongly
horizontal glass podium level, juxtaposed by the vertical solid block of the tower
portion.Thishasbeensomewhatunderminedbythealterationstothepodiumlevel
butisstillpresent.Themainblockappearsmassiveinelevation,butissliminprofile’.
x TheassociationwiththeRACVisselfevidentlyofhighimportance.
x Itsfasttrackdesignandconstructionisalsoofhistoricalimportance.
x Theunusualgroupingoffacilitiesandthepodiumterraceareofimportance.
x Theuseofpunchedmasonrywasamoveawayfromglasscurtainwallsofthe1950s.
x Commentontheinnovativeandrareuseofthehorizontalpodiumbase.
x The butterfly roof form is only one of two in the central city. This form was
infrequentlyusedoncommercialbuildings.
Paneldiscussionandviews
Theexterior
So far as the exterior is concerned, the submitter did not elaborate on the extent of
alterationandthebuilding’scurrentappearanceseemstocloselyresemblewhatwasbuilt
as shown in contemporary photographs. Both the National Trust and the Council experts
agreeonthesignificanceofthebuilding.
Concerningtheallegationsbythesubmitterthatthebuildingisplainifnotunattractive,we
acceptthatthisisabuildingcharacteristicoftheofficegenreofthetime.
Page100of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 252 of 273
ThePanelalsobelievesthatthehistoricalassociationwiththeRACVissignificant.Thiswas
notcommentedonbythesubmitter.
Theinterior
ThePanelnotesthattheinteriorofthebuildingisnotproposedtobesubjecttocontrols,
but,likemanybuildingsoftheperiodandlater,thetransparencyofgroundandlowerlevels
isanelementofthebuilding’spresentationtothestreet.Theimportantroleoftransparent
lowerlevelstobuildingsofthisgenreandwhetherinteriorcontrolsoughttobeappliedto
protect this aspect of the external appearance is something which the Panel’s believes
warrantsfurtherconsiderationbytheCouncil(seeSection4.1(ii)).
Further, the Panel incidentally observed that many of the original interior fittings of the
lower levels of the club entrance to the building appear to be largely intact. This is an
example,therefore,of buildinginteriorsapparentlyworthyofconsiderationforprotection
not being subject to recommended interior controls Ͳ for no apparent reason34. This
supportsourviewasdiscussedinSection4.1(ii)thatthereisneedforamorecomprehensive
surveyofinteriorsbeforeanyinteriorcontrolsareincludedforthecentralcity.
Havingconsideredthisissue,thePanelrecommendsthat:
The Heritage Overlay be applied as exhibited to the former RACV building at 111Ͳ129
QueenStreet.
10.4 Nosubmissions
The four places for which no submissions were received are listed in the table in Section
10.1. The Panel did not inspect any of these buildings and sees no reason why the
Amendment should not proceed in relation to these places with the exception of the
interiors.
34
MrButlerofferedtheviewthathedidn’tthinkheshouldgointothebuilding.
Page101of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 253 of 273
11 Generalconclusionsandrecommendations
11.1 Conclusions
MelbourneHeritageActionaspartoftheirwrittensubmissionatthehearingnotedthatthe
Council had not updated its (local) central city heritage listings for 30 years and
congratulatedtheCityintakingthisfirststeptowardsthatupdate.Theyalsocongratulated
theCouncilon‘thebraveandcommendablestep’ofmovingtolistpostWorldWarIIplaces
forthefirsttime.TheyurgedtheCounciltotakeheritagelistinginthecentralcityfurther:
Itmustberememberedthatthisamendmentisastopgapmeasure.TheCityof
Melbournemustbesupportedandencouragedtocontinuetheprocessbylisting
newprecincts,interiors,manymorebuildings,signage,streetartandfurniture,
aswellastoreviewthewaytheymanageMelbourne’siconiclaneways.Twelve
interiorsand99buildingsisthetipoftheiceberg...
ThePanelsimilarlycommendstheCityofMelbourneformovingforwardwithlocallistings,
includingthoseofrelativelymodernbuildings,afteraverylongdelaysincethenewformat
planning scheme was introduced. We agree with Melbourne Heritage Action that there
needs to be a thorough investigation of building interiors (and we suggest that interior
listingsbedelayeduntilthisworkiscompleted),ofstreetfurnitureandstreetart,aswellas
consideration of the introduction of other precincts. With respect to the latter we
particularly suggest that consideration needs to be given to the delineation of precincts
whichsupportthecentralcity’sindustrialandwarehousingheritage.
While many submitters objecting to this Amendment went to considerable lengths in
engagingrepresentationandcallingwitnesses,wehavewithoneexceptionrecommended
thattheplacesallshouldproceedtoinclusionintheHeritageOverlay–thoughwithsome
changes.Thisisinpartaresultoftheveryhelpfulmaterialinsupportwithwhichwewere
supplied by the National Trust and others, and in part due to the underlying worth of the
nominated buildings which have, almost without exception, been consistently identified
since1985asofatleastlocalheritagesignificancebydifferentreviewers.
While the Panel has supported the implementation of this Amendment, it is not without
somereservation.Weindicateearlierinourreportthatwefindthatboththe2011Review
and the Amendment have been prepared with less drafting precision and organisational
structure than is desirable. We have commented on the nonͲstandard approach to
statementsofsignificance,therelianceontheoldNationalEstatecriteriaandtheoutmoded
approach taken to gradings. We have also commented that there is a need for a more
generalreviewofthestructureoftheheritageprovisionsinthecentralcity.
Nevertheless we support the Amendment proceeding subject to the recommendations
specific to the Amendment as specified below. We have also made recommendations in
relation to further work that is required, though these need not delay the Amendment
proceeding.
Page102of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 254 of 273
11.2 Recommendations
Forthereasonssetoutinthisreport,thePanelrecommendsthatAmendmentC186tothe
Melbourne Planning Scheme should be adopted generally as exhibited subject to the
followingrecommendations:
General
1. The statements of significance be included in an incorporated document of the
PlanningScheme.
2. Thestatementsofsignificanceforallbuildingsberewrittento:
a) beconsistentwiththeHeritageVictoriaguidancenotes;
b) clarify the building elements of importance so as to assist statutory decision
making;and
c) incorporate any new information coming to light after the Amendment was
exhibited.
3. ThePlanningAuthorityconsiderwhetherthe1985booklet:UrbanConservationinthe
CityofMelbourne(datedNovember2005)shouldbeareferencedocumentforClause
22.04.
4. TheHeritageOverlaybeapplied, withoutinternalalterationcontrols,asexhibitedto
thefollowingproperties:
a) JamesWhiteHayandCornStoreat261WilliamStreet;
b) FormerMcCrackenBrewerywarehouseat538Ͳ542LittleCollinsStreet;
c) FormerWD&HOWillswarehouseat411Ͳ423SwanstonStreet;
d) BourkeHouseat179Ͳ183BourkeStreet;
e) SirCharlesHothamHotelat2Ͳ8SpencerStreet;
f) NationalMutualbuildingat435Ͳ455CollinsStreet;
g) FormerDillinghamEstatesHouseat114Ͳ128WilliamStreet;
h) RoyalAssuranceBuildingat430Ͳ442CollinsStreet;
i) FormerRACVbuildingat111Ͳ129QueenStreet;
j) FormerCycloneWovenWireFenceCompanybuildingsat 63Ͳ67FranklinStreet
and459Ͳ469SwanstonStreet;
k) EvansHouseat415Ͳ419BourkeStreet;
l) UnionBankChambersat351Ͳ357ElizabethStreet;
m) Grant’sWarehouseat217Ͳ219QueenStreet;and
n) CentenaryHallat104Ͳ110ExhibitionStreet.
5. TheHeritageOverlaybeapplied, withoutinternalalterationcontrols,asexhibitedto
those properties where no submission was received and there was no Panel
assessment.
6. TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerRoyalSaxonHotelat441Ͳ447Elizabeth
Streetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
Page103of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 255 of 273
a) ArevisedthestatementofsignificancetoreflecttheevidenceofMrButler;and
b) AreͲinspectionbyrepresentativesofthePlanningAuthorityandthestatement
of significance for the place adjusted to accommodate information that is
revealedasaconsequence.
7. TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheSnidersandAbrahamswarehousebuildingsat
9Ͳ13DreweryLaneand2Ͳ20DreweryPlaceasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Areviewoftheoverlayboundary,andifnecessaryamendittoensurethatboth
buildingsarecoveredbytheoverlay.
8. The Heritage Overlay be applied to the Celtic Club at 316Ͳ322 Queen Street as
exhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Areviewoftheoverlayboundary,andifnecessaryamendittoensurethatthe
originalbuildingonlyiscoveredbytheoverlay;and
b) The statement of significance be amalgamated with the 2011 Review and a
singlereferencedocumentonlybeincludedinClause22.04.
9. The Heritage Overlay be applied to the County Court Hotel building (now Oxford
ScholarHotel)at427Ͳ433SwanstonStreetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Theoverlayboundaryapplyonlytotheextentoftheoriginalhotelbuilding.
10. TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerCurrieandRichardsbuildingat473Ͳ481
ElizabethStreetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) A review of the overlay boundary in relation to the property boundary, and if
necessaryaligntheoverlayboundarywiththepropertyboundary;
11. The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former VD Clinic at 372Ͳ378 Little Lonsdale
Streetasexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) Thestatementofsignificancebeamendedtofocusonthehistoric,ratherthan
aesthetic,importanceofthebuilding.
12. TheHeritageOverlaybeappliedtotheformerElmsFamilyHotel,267Ͳ271SpringStreet
asexhibitedsubjecttothefollowing:
a) TheoverlayboundaryberedrawnasagreedbytheCouncil(andshownonthe
mapattachedtoitslettertoNortonRoseof2March2012)toincludeonlythe
ElmsFamilyHotelbuilding.
13. The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration controls, to the London
Assurance House (now Law Institute building) at 468Ͳ470 Bourke Street as exhibited
subjecttothefollowing:
a) Alternationoftheoverlayboundarysoastoincludeonlytheexteriorfabricof
the1950sbuilding(andexcludetherearparkingareaandaccessway)withinthe
overlay.
DonotapplytheHeritageOverlay
14. The Heritage Overlay not be applied to Rosati (Denniston and Co) at 95Ͳ101 Flinders
Lane.
15. Noneoftheproposedinternalalterationcontrolsbeapplied.
Page104of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 256 of 273
FurtherWork
In addition to the recommendations specific to Amendment C186, the Panel recommends
thatthePlanningAuthority:
16. Undertakes a general review of the grading system as part of developing a
standardisedapproachtobuildinglistingsinthecentralcityarea.
17. Undertakes a review of the structure of the heritage sections of the Local Planning
PolicyFramework(andrelatedincorporatedandreferencedocuments)ofthePlanning
Scheme.
18. Consider further amending the Planning Scheme to incorporate a Heritage Overlay
over an industrial precinct which incorporates the Sniders and Abrahams warehouse
buildings or including them as part of a serial listing of buildings associated with the
firmSnidersandAbrahams.
Page105of105_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 257 of 273
AppendixA Listofbuildingsproposedforinclusion
AppendicesPage1of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 258 of 273
ListofallbuildingsproposedforinclusioninHeritageOverlayunder
AmendmentC186(fromexhibitedExplanatoryReport,Attachment
1).
HONumber
PropertyNumber
Street
HO993
104
A’Beckett
HO994
111Ͳ125
A’Beckett
HO995
185Ͳ187
A’Beckett
HO996
160Ͳ162
Bourke
HO997
164Ͳ166
Bourke
HO998
168Ͳ174
Bourke
HO999
79Ͳ183
Bourke
HO1000
180Ͳ182
Bourke
HO1001
193Ͳ199
Bourke
HO1002
194Ͳ200
Bourke
HO1003
219Ͳ225
Bourke
HO1004
415Ͳ419
Bourke
HO1005
418Ͳ420
Bourke
HO1006
468Ͳ470
Bourke
HO1007
336Ͳ338
Collins
HO1090
340Ͳ342
Collins
HO1008
404Ͳ406
Collins
HO1009
409Ͳ413
Collins
HO1010
430Ͳ442
Collins
HO1011
433Ͳ455
Collins
HO1012
464Ͳ466
Collins
HO1013
615Ͳ623
Collins
HO1014
9Ͳ13
DreweryLane
HO1015
21Ͳ23
Elizabeth
HO1016
215Ͳ217
Elizabeth
HO1017
299
Elizabeth
HO1018
303Ͳ305
Elizabeth
HO1019
351Ͳ357
Elizabeth
HO1020
380
Elizabeth
HO1021
384
Elizabeth
HO1022
441Ͳ447
Elizabeth
AppendicesPage2of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 259 of 273
HONumber
PropertyNumber
Street
HO1023
453Ͳ457
Elizabeth
HO1024
463Ͳ465
Elizabeth
HO1025
473Ͳ481
Elizabeth
HO1026
30Ͳ40
Exhibition
HO1027
53Ͳ55
Exhibition
HO1028
309
Exhibition
HO1029
104Ͳ110
Exhibition
HO1030
61Ͳ73
FlindersLane
HO1031
95Ͳ101
FlindersLane
HO1032
125Ͳ127
FlindersLane
HO1033
141Ͳ143
FlindersLane
HO1034
26Ͳ30
FlindersStreet
HO1035
76Ͳ80
FlindersStreet
HO1036
130Ͳ132
FlindersStreet
HO1037
360Ͳ372
FlindersStreet
HO1038
508Ͳ510
FlindersStreet
HO1039
516Ͳ518
FlindersStreet
HO1040
520Ͳ522
FlindersStreet
HO1041
562Ͳ564
FlindersStreet
HO1042
63Ͳ67
FranklinStreet
HO1043
96Ͳ102
FranklinStreet
HO1044
4Ͳ6
GoldiePlace
HO1045
106Ͳ112
HardwareStreet
HO1046
12Ͳ20
KingStreet
HO1047
115Ͳ129
KingStreet
HO1048
131Ͳ135
KingStreet
HO1049
284Ͳ294
LaTrobe
HO1050
361Ͳ363
LittleBourke
HO1051
362Ͳ364
LittleBourke
HO1052
365Ͳ367
LittleBourke
HO1053
373Ͳ375
LittleBourke
HO1054
434Ͳ436
LittleBourke
HO1055
68Ͳ70
LittleCollins
HO1056
392Ͳ396
LittleCollins
AppendicesPage3of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 260 of 273
HONumber
PropertyNumber
Street
HO1057
538Ͳ542
LittleCollins
HO1058
25
LittleLonsdale
HO1059
194Ͳ196
LittleLonsdale
HO1060
198Ͳ200
LittleLonsdale
HO1061
372Ͳ378
LittleLonsdale
HO1062
523Ͳ525
LittleLonsdale
HO1063
326
Lonsdale
HO1064
439Ͳ445
Lonsdale
HO1065
14Ͳ30
MelbournePlace
HO1066
20Ͳ26
Queen
HO1067
37Ͳ41
Queen
HO1068
111Ͳ129
Queen
HO1069
118Ͳ126
Queen
HO1070
203Ͳ205
Queen
HO1071
217Ͳ219
Queen
HO985
316Ͳ322
Queen
HO1072
42Ͳ44
Russell
HO1073
288Ͳ294
Russell
HO1074
2Ͳ8
Spencer
HO1075
10Ͳ22
Spencer
HO1076
66Ͳ70
Spencer
HO1077
122Ͳ132
Spencer
HO1078
267Ͳ271
Spring
HO1079
135Ͳ137
Swanston
HO1080
163Ͳ165
Swanston
HO1081
309Ͳ325
Swanston
HO1082
401Ͳ403
Swanston
HO1083
407Ͳ409
Swanston
HO1084
411Ͳ423
Swanston
HO1085
427Ͳ433
Swanston
HO1086
22Ͳ32
William
HO1089
114Ͳ128
William
HO1087
259
William
HO1088
261
William
AppendicesPage4of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 261 of 273
AppendixB DocumentList
AppendicesPage5of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 262 of 273
DocumentList:MelbournePlanningSchemeAmendmentC186
Document Description
No
Presentedby
PA1
MelbourneCityCouncilsubmission
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA2
ExpertevidencebyMrGraemeButlerofGraeme Mr Peter O’Farrell
ButlerandAssociates
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA3
2002 Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Study draft list of Mr Peter O’Farrell
buildings proposed for Heritage Overlay MelbourneCityCouncil
coveragewithexplanatorytext
for
PA4
Extractsfrom2002RaworthStudy(citationsfor Mr Peter O’Farrell
Currie and Richards, former Royal Saxon Hotel MelbourneCityCouncil
andcentenaryHall)
for
PA5
GradingofInteriorstablebyMrButler
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA6
Supplementary evidence for Celtic Club by Mr Mr Peter O’Farrell
GraemeButler
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
NT7
Extract from Melbourne Planning Scheme, Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
Clause22.05
NationalTrust
NT8
Extract from Melbourne Planning Scheme, Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
Clause22.04
NationalTrust
SB9
ExtractfromIanWrightpaper,ReviewofCriteria MsSusanBrennan
and Thresholds for Inclusion of Places on the
HeritageOverlay
SB10
RAIA 20th century building register (from RAIA MsSusanBrennan
website)
SB11
HeraldͲSun article regarding National Mutual Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
building,433CollinsStreet
Ltd
SB12
PhotoofelevationsofNationalMutualbuilding, Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
433CollinsStreet
Ltd
SB13
Photo of South façade of National Mutual Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
building,433CollinsStreet
Ltd
SB14
Photo of Flinders Lane Street side of National Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Mutualbuilding,433CollinsStreet
Ltd
AW15(1)
Planning Permit Application: TPͲ2011Ͳ785, 473Ͳ Mr Andrew Walker for the
481ElizabethStreet
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW15(2)
Planning Permit Application: TPͲ2011Ͳ785, 473Ͳ Mr Andrew Walker for the
481ElizabethStreet
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
PA16
Notional date range percentages of places in Mr Peter O’Farrell
HeritageOverlayaspreparedbyGraemeButler
MelbourneCityCouncil
AppendicesPage6of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
for
Page 263 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
LI17
DDOSchedule1
JS18
Extract from Heritage Register for Royal Saxon Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
Hotel(former)
Hansen
Partnership
for
GoodyearPtyLtd
PA19
Diagramfor473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA20
BundleofstatutorydocumentsregardingInterior Mr Peter O’Farrell
listingoptions
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
SR21
Submissionfor372Ͳ378LittleLonsdaleStreet
SR22
EvidencebyMrMichaelTaylorfor372Ͳ378Little HansenPartnershiponbehalfof
LonsdaleStreet
VictoriaUniversity
U23
Submissioninrelationto430Ͳ442CollinsStreet
R24
EvidencebyMrDarrylJacksonfor372Ͳ378Little HansenPartnershiponbehalfof
LonsdaleStreet
VictoriaUniversity
SB25
Submissionfor114WilliamStreet
SB26
Evidence by Mr Peter Barrett for 114Ͳ128 Ms Susan Brennan for Tackelly
WilliamStreet
PtyLtd
SB27
SubmissiononbehalfofVapoldPtyLtd
Ms Susan Brennan on behalf of
VapoldPtyLtd
SB28
ExtractsfromMelbournePlanningScheme
Ms Susan Brennan on behalf of
VapoldPtyLtd
SB29
EvidenceforCentenaryHallbyMrPeterBarrett
Ms Susan Brennan on behalf of
VapoldPtyLtd
SB30
Collection of email correspondence re the Loyal Ms Susan Brennan on behalf of
OrangeLodge
VapoldPtyLtd
AW31
Evidence by Mr Peter Barrett for 473Ͳ481 Mr Andrew Walker for the
ElizabethStreet
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW32
MMBW1995(?)planwithpresentdayoverlay
Mr Andrew Walker for the
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
PA33
FranklinStreetSignage
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
AW34
PlanningPermitfor473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet
Mr Andrew Walker for the
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
HansenPartnershiponbehalfof
VictoriaUniversity
Urbis
Ms Susan Brennan for Tackelly
PtyLtd
AppendicesPage7of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
for
Page 264 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
AW35
SubmissiononbehalfoftheOwnersCorporation Mr Andrew Walker for the
for473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW36
Photoof‘Courtyard’,473Ͳ481ElizabethStreet
Mr Andrew Walker for the
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW37
ExtractfromBaysideC37andC38PanelReport
Mr Andrew Walker for the
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW38
ExtractsfromCentralCityHeritageStudyReview Mr Andrew Walker for the
1993
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
PA39
Heritage Places Inventory
(IncorporatedDocument)
AW40
ACF, WWF Australia, Environment Victoria and Mr Andrew Walker for the
The Climate Action Network Australia v Latrobe Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
CityCouncil[2004]VCAT2029
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
AW41
ExtractfromBrimbankPSAmendmentC84Panel Mr Andrew Walker for the
Report
Owners Corporation for 473Ͳ
481ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
RS42
Submissionre415Ͳ419BourkeStreet
GT43
EvidencebyMsHelenLardner,HLCDre468Ͳ470 MrGaryTestroforLawInstitute
BourkeStreet
ofVictoriaLtd
GT44
Blowupphotos
GT45
Submissions for Law Institute of Victoria Ltd re MrGaryTestroforLawInstitute
468Ͳ470BourkeStreet
ofVictoriaLtd
PK46
Submission re 473Ͳ481 Elizabeth Street, MrParisKyne
Melbourne
PA47
Folderofdocuments
MelbourneCityCouncil
SB48
PlanningPermitforNationalMutualsite
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
SB49
ExtractsfromBaysideAmendmentsC37andC38 Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
PanelReport
Ltd
SB50
ExtractfromReportofHeritageOverlayAdvisory Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Committee
Ltd
SB51
ExtractfromIanWightpaper
July
2008 Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
Mr Marcus Rose on behalf of
Body Corporate for 415Ͳ419
BourkeStreet
MrGaryTestroforLawInstitute
ofVictoriaLtd
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
AppendicesPage8of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 265 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
SB52
Expert witness report by Mr Mark Sheldon, Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd re 433Ͳ455 Collins Ltd
Street
SB53
PhotosofNationalMutualx2
SB54
Evidence by Professor Miles Lewis re: 433Ͳ455 Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
CollinsStreet
Ltd
SB55
A note on Richard Neutra and surrounding Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
balconiesbyMilesLewis
Ltd
PA56
GraemeButler&Associates2011:2005citation
P57
List of municipalities with interior controls from MrGeoffAustin,HeritageVictoria
JS58
Submission for Royal Saxon Hotel 441Ͳ447 Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
ElizabethStreet,Melbourne
Hansen
Partnership
for
GoodyearPtyLtd
JS59
Mr Michael Taylor’s expert evidence for Royal Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
Saxon Hotel 441Ͳ447 Elizabeth Street, Hansen
Partnership
for
Melbourne
GoodyearPtyLtd
JS60
ExtractsfromMorelandPSandYarraPS
Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
Hansen
Partnership
for
GoodyearPtyLtd
DB61
RMITUniversitysubmission
Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
DB62
Photo of looking west at RMIT University Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
Building37fromSwanstonStreet
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
DB63
Expert witness statement by Ms Anita Brady, Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
LovellChenPtyLtd
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
SB64
Submission for National Mutual building, 433 Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
CollinsStreet
Ltd as Trustee for Industry
Superannuation Property Trust
No1
SB65
ListofpostwarbuildingsinAmendmentC186
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
SB66
433CollinsStreetFurtherReportbyAurecon
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
SB67
Photos of National Mutual building, 433 Collins Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Street
Ltd
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
AppendicesPage9of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
for
Page 266 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
SB68
Building Services Review – 433 Collins Street – Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Condition Assessment by Norman Disney and Ltd
Young
SB69
435Ͳ455 Collins Street Ͳ Part of permit Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
application
Ltd
SB70
Mrocki v Port Phillip City Council (No 1) [2007] Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
VCAT1719
Ltd
SB71
Brimbank CC v LS Planning Pty Ltd [2006] VCAT Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
2218
Ltd
SB71A
Letter from Norton Rose regarding Accrued Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Rights and Amendments to Planning Scheme Ltd
Controlsfor435Ͳ455CollinsStreet
SB72
Asabove
BH73
SubmissionsonformerRosatirestaurant,95Ͳ101 Mr Dominic Scally of Best
FlindersLaneforWaynesburyPtyLtd
Hooper
Solicitors
for
WaynesburyPtyLtd
BH74
EvidencebyMrPeterLovell,LovellChenPtyLtd Mr Dominic Scally of Best
for Tixxis Consulting on behalf of Waynesbury Hooper
Solicitors
for
PtyLtd
WaynesburyPtyLtd
BH75
Supplementary evidence for 95Ͳ101 Flinders Mr Dominic Scally of Best
LanebyPeterLovellofLovellChen
Hooper
Solicitors
for
WaynesburyPtyLtd
BH76
Photosof95Ͳ101FlindersLane
Mr Dominic Scally of Best
Hooper
Solicitors
for
WaynesburyPtyLtd
BH77
Photos–interiors,95Ͳ101FlindersLane
Mr Dominic Scally of Best
Hooper
Solicitors
for
WaynesburyPtyLtd
PA78
Supplementary evidence for Celtic Club by Mr Peter O’Farrell
GraemeButler
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA79
Heritage Assessment of Former West Bourke Mr Peter O’Farrell
Hotel,316Ͳ322QueenStreet
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PB80
TheCelticClubIncsubmission
PB81
EvidenceonCelticClubbyMrPeterLovell,Lovell Minter Ellison Lawyers for The
Chen
CelticClub
PB82
Supplementary evidence on Celtic Club by Mr Minter Ellison Lawyers for The
PeterLovell,LovellChen
CelticClub
PB83
CelticClubredevelopmentplans
Ms Susan Brennan for ISPT Pty
Ltd
Minter Ellison Lawyers for The
CelticClub
Minter Ellison Lawyers for The
CelticClub
AppendicesPage10of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 267 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
JS84
Submission on 9Ͳ13 Drewery Lane by Mr Peter Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
Barrett
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JS85
Supplementary submission on 9Ͳ13 Drewery Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
LanebyMrPeterBarrett
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JI86
Submissionfor351Ͳ57ElizabethStreet
Mr James Iles for TGM Group
PtyLtd
MHA87
MelbourneHeritageActionsubmission
MrRupertMannforMelbourne
HeritageAction
MHA88
Listofallbuildingsandassessmentsinspectedby MrRupertMannforMelbourne
MelbourneHeritageAction
HeritageAction
MHA88A& Central City Heritage Review 2011 Interiors Mr
Tristan
Davies
for
B
PowerPointandnotes
MelbourneHeritageAction
JS89
Titlessearchfor9Ͳ13DreweryLane
Mr Jane Sharp instructed by
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JS90
PlanningPropertyReportfor9Ͳ13DreweryLane
Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JS91
Submissionsfor9Ͳ13DreweryLane
Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JS92
DoversBuildingVictorianHeritageDatabaseInfo
Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
JS93
Part of Greater Geelong Amendment C89 Panel Ms Jane Sharp instructed by
Report
SackvilleWilksLawyersforShiff
NomineesPtyLtd
NT94
NationalTrustsubmission
NT95
Extract from Ballarat Amendment C58 Panel Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
Report
NationalTrust
NT96
ExpertevidencebyMrRohanStorey
NT97
Historical article on the National Mutual Centre Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
(bookletpreparedattimeofopeningofbuilding) NationalTrust
NT98
UnionBankevidencebyMrRohanStorey
Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
NationalTrust
NT99
InteriorevidencebyMrRohanStorey
Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
NationalTrust
Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
NationalTrust
Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
NationalTrust
AppendicesPage11of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 268 of 273
Document Description
No
Presentedby
PA100
Councilclosingsubmission
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
PA101
Extract from Maribyrnong Amendment C31 Mr Peter O’Farrell
Panel
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
NT102
Addendum to expert evidence of Mr Rohan Harwood Andrews Lawyers for
Storey
NationalTrust
PA103
ProposedextentofHeritageOverlayarea
SB104
Information oninternalaspectof104Exhibition Mr Lloyd Elliot of Urbis on
Street
behalfofPeterBarrett
DB105
SubmissionforRMITBuildings39and49
DB106
Supplementary evidence by Ms Anita Brady, Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
LovellChenPtyLtd
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
DB107
Supplementary evidence by Ms Anita Brady, Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
LovellChenPtyLtd
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
Mr Peter O’Farrell
MelbourneCityCouncil
for
Mr Daniel Bowden of Song
Bowden Planning Pty Ltd for
RMITUniversity
AppendicesPage12of12_AmendmentC186totheMelbournePlanningScheme_
ReportofthePanel_11July2012
Page 269 of 273
Attachment 4
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
4 September 2012
Managements Response to the Recommendations of the Panel
Panel Recommendation
Response
Change to Amendment C186
1
The statements of significance be included in an incorporated
document of the Planning Scheme.
Agree. The Statements of Significance (SoS) are
currently included in the City of Melbourne Central
City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review 2011 which is
proposed to be a reference document in Clause
22.04 Heritage in the Capital City Zone Policy. As
an incorporated document carries more statutory
weight than a reference document, it is agreed that
the SoS be extracted from the Review (excluding
the historic commentary that is not needed in a
SoS) and collated to form an incorporated
document.
Combine all SoS to form a new
document that will be incorporated
into the Planning Scheme.
2
The statements of significance for all buildings be rewritten to:
Agree. The SoS will be amended to remove historic
commentary that is not need in a SoS, clarify the
building elements of importance and to incorporate
information that came to light at the panel hearing.
Modify the Statements of
Significance to remove unnecessary
statements related to the history of
places and to insert a section for
each SoS which clarifies the building
elements of importance.
a) be consistent with the Heritage Victoria guidance notes;
b) clarify the building elements of importance so as to assist
statutory decision making; and
The historic commentary will remain in the Review
c) incorporate any new information coming to light after the
Amendment was exhibited.
3
The Planning Authority consider whether the 1985 booklet:
Urban Conservation in the City of Melbourne (dated November
2005) should be a reference document for Clause 22.04.
Agree. The recommendation is beyond the scope of
this Amendment as it affects all properties in the
Heritage Overlay in the Capital City Zone. However
it should be considered in the event that Clause
22.04 is reviewed.
No change
1
Page 270 of 273
4
Panel Recommendation
Response
Change to Amendment C186
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration
controls, as exhibited to the following properties:
Agreed.
Remove internal controls from the
schedule to Clause 43.01 (Heritage
Overlay)
a) James White Hay and Corn Store at 261 William Street;
b) Former McCracken Brewery warehouse at 538‐542 Little
Collins Street;
It was noted during the final drafting
of the amendment documents that
219-225 Bourke Street was recently
already included in the Heritage
Overlay (HO990 – as part of
Amendment C150 in 2011) and is in
the Victorian Heritage Register (Ref
No H2264). This property has
therefore been deleted from the
C186 HO Schedule and Map.
c) Former WD & HO Wills warehouse at 411‐423 Swanston
Street;
d) Bourke House at 179‐183 Bourke Street;
e) Sir Charles Hotham Hotel at 2‐8 Spencer Street;
f) National Mutual building at 435‐455 Collins Street;
g) Former Dillingham Estates House at 114‐128 William Street;
h) Royal Assurance Building at 430‐442 Collins Street;
i) Former RACV building at 111‐129 Queen Street;
j) Former Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Company buildings at
63‐67 Franklin Street and 459‐469 Swanston Street;
k) Evans House at 415‐419 Bourke Street;
l) Union Bank Chambers at 351‐357 Elizabeth Street;
m) Grant’s Warehouse at 217‐219 Queen Street; and
n) Centenary Hall at 104‐110 Exhibition Street.
5
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration
controls, as exhibited to those properties where no submission
was received and there was no Panel assessment.
Agreed.
No change.
2
Page 271 of 273
6
Panel Recommendation
Response
Change to Amendment C186
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former Royal Saxon
Hotel at 441‐447 Elizabeth Street as exhibited subject to the
following:
Agreed. As a result of further evidence provided at
the Panel hearing Mr Butler agreed that the SoS
should be amended.
a) A revised the statement of significance to reflect the evidence
of Mr Butler; and
Mr Butler has incorporated this new information into
the SoS.
Amended Statement of Significance
to incorporate the evidence of Mr
Butler and the information revealed
at the re-inspection of the property.
b) A re-inspection by representatives of the Planning Authority
and the statement of significance for the place adjusted to
accommodate information that is revealed as a consequence.
7
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the Sniders and Abrahams
warehouse buildings at 9-13 Drewery Lane and 2-20 Drewery
Place as exhibited subject to a review of the overlay boundary,
and if necessary amend it to ensure that both buildings are
covered by the overlay.
Agreed. As exhibited both the buildings at 9-13
Drewery Lane and 2-20 Drewery Place are covered
by HO1014. There is therefore no need to amend
the HO.
No change
8
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the Celtic Club at 316‐322
Queen Street (HO985) as exhibited subject to the following:
a) A review of the overlay boundary, and if necessary amend it
to ensure that the original building only is covered by the
overlay; and
Agree. All parties at Panel agreed that the HO
should apply to all floors of the original building to
the north of the site.
001HO2Map08 altered so that
HO985 applies only to the original
building.
b) The statement of significance be amalgamated with the 2011
Review and a single reference document only be included in
Clause 22.04.
Agree
The Statement of Significance for the
Celtic Club at 316-322 Queen Street
has been included in the new
incorporated document comprising
all the SoS.
3
Page 272 of 273
Panel Recommendation
Response
Change to Amendment C186
9
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the County Court Hotel
building (now Oxford Scholar Hotel) at 427‐433 Swanston
Street as exhibited subject to the overlay boundary applying only
to the extent of the original hotel building.
Agreed. The evidence shows that the western
portion of the exhibited HO1085 area is subject to a
substantial new development and contains no
original building fabric. The HO1085 should only
apply to the part of the site containing the original
Hotel.
001HO2Map08 altered so that
HO1085 applies only to the original
hotel building.
10
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former Currie and
Richards building at 473‐481 Elizabeth Street as exhibited
subject to a review of the overlay boundary in relation to the
property boundary, and if necessary realigning the overlay
boundary with the property boundary;
Agreed. The property boundary was reviewed and
HO1025 is correctly applied to the relevant
properties
No change.
11
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former VD Clinic at
372‐378 Little Lonsdale Street as exhibited subject to the
statement of significance being amended to focus on the
historic, rather than aesthetic, importance of the building.
Agreed. There should be more emphasis on the
historic, rather than the aesthetic, significance of the
building.
Amended Statement of Significance
which focuses on the historic
importance of the building.
12
The Heritage Overlay be applied to the former Elms Family
Hotel, 267‐271 Spring Street as exhibited subject to the
overlay boundary being redrawn as agreed by the Council (and
shown on the map attached to its letter to Norton Rose of 2
March 2012) to include only the Elms Family Hotel building.
Agreed. Prior to the Panel hearing officers realised
that the land around the Elms Family Hotel had
been inadvertently included in HO1078 and it was
agreed that the boundary would be redrawn to
include only the Elms Family Hotel building.
The 005HO2Map08 map amended
so that HO1078 map applies only to
the Elms Family Hotel Building.
13
The Heritage Overlay be applied, without internal alteration
controls, to the London Assurance House (now Law Institute
building) at 468‐470 Bourke Street as exhibited subject to the
alternation of the overlay boundary to include only the exterior
fabric of the 1950s building (and exclude the rear parking area
and access way) within the overlay.
Agreed. The removal of the rear parking area and
rear access way from the HO1006 was agreed prior
to the Panel hearing as this area does not
contribute to the heritage significance of the
building.
The 002HO2Map08 map amended
so that HO1006 includes only
the1950s building.
4
Page 273 of 273
Panel Recommendation
Response
Change to Amendment C186
14
The Heritage Overlay not be applied to Rosati (Denniston and
Co) at 95‐101 Flinders Lane.
Agreed. As the building has been substantially
altered the HO should be removed.
The 007HO2Map08 and HO
Schedule (Clause 43.01s) amended
to remove 95-101 Flinders Lane
(HO1031).
15
None of the proposed internal alteration controls be applied.
Agreed. The interiors nominated in Amendment
C186 were based on the study of 100 buildings.
The Panel said that all interiors be investigated
before any are listed in the Planning Scheme.
Should Council wish to consider interiors this can
be included in a heritage work program once the
Heritage Strategy has been adopted by Council.
Alter the HO Schedule to remove
reference to the interiors.
16
Undertake a general review of the grading system as part of
developing a standardised approach to building listings in the
central city area. The Panel said that the Amendment C186
should not be deferred pending this task but that this should be
done before any future heritage amendments.
Agreed. This recommendation for further work
needs to be considered in the context of other
heritage priorities and studies. Once Council has an
adopted Heritage Strategy, a program of heritage
projects can be considered.
No change
17
Undertake a review of the structure of the heritage sections of
the Local Planning Policy Framework (and related incorporated
and reference documents) of the Planning Scheme.
Agreed. This recommendation for further work
needs to be considered in the context of other
heritage priorities and studies. Once Council has an
adopted Heritage Strategy, a program of heritage
projects can be considered.
No change
18
Consider further amending the Planning Scheme to incorporate
a Heritage Overlay over an industrial precinct which
incorporates the Sniders and Abrahams warehouse buildings or
including them as part of a serial listing of buildings associated
with the firm Sniders and Abrahams.
Agreed. This recommendation for further work
needs to be considered in the context of other
heritage priorities and studies. Once Council has an
adopted Heritage Strategy, a program of heritage
projects can be considered.
No change
5

Similar documents

×

Report this document