Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 -...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208

1 October 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208

1 October 2015

Ray Tonkin, Chair Peter McEwan, Member

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Panel Report 1 October 2015

Contents Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Panel process ........................................................................................................... 3 1.2 The proposal ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 4 1.4 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 5

2 Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................... 7 2.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 7

3 Submissions considered at the Hearing ....................................................................... 8 3.1 46 Rowland Street, Kew (submission 11) ................................................................ 8 3.2 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell ...................................................... 15

4 Written submissions ................................................................................................. 24 4.1 29 and 31 Parkhill Road, Kew ................................................................................ 24 4.2 300 Balwyn Road (formerly 203 Doncaster Road), North Balwyn ........................ 25

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment


List of Abbreviations

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

GRZ General Residential Zone

HO Heritage Overlay

IPO Interim Protection Order

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

PPN01 Planning Practice Note 01: Applying the Heritage Overlay, July 2015

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VHR Victorian Heritage Register

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208

Subject Site Seven sites for which it is proposed to apply a Heritage Overlay

The Proponent Boroondara City Council

Planning Authority Boroondara City Council

Authorisation In accordance with Ministerial Direction 15, Section 4 (1) (b) Council exhibited the amendment without the Minister’s authorisation under Section 8A (7) when response to the authorisation request was not received after 10 days. This action was consistent with advice received on 5 September 2014 from the then Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (regarding C178) that an Amendment may be prepared without authorisation

Exhibition 5 February to 13 March, 2015

Submissions 12 submissions (3 opposed and 9 supporting) as listed in Appendix A

Panel Process

The Panel Ray Tonkin (Chair) and Peter McEwan

Directions Hearing Boroondara City offices, 3 June, 2015

Panel Hearing Planning Panels Victoria, 25 and 26 August, 2015

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 10 September, 2015

Date of this Report 1 October 2015


Page 1 of 27

Executive Summary

(i) Summary

Amendment C208 seeks to apply permanent heritage overlays to seven (7) properties in the City of Boroondara.

Background

In August 2012 Council engaged heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd to review a range of places for their heritage significance.

In September 2012 Council engaged heritage consultants Built Heritage to undertake the Balwyn, Balwyn North and Deepdene Heritage Study 2013.

Between August 2012 and February 2014, Context heritage consultants identified the places included in this amendment (except for 15 Deepdene Road, Deepdene which was assessed by Built Heritage Pty Ltd) as being of local heritage significance to the City of Boroondara. Context recommended these places for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

The Council requested that the Minister for Planning approve interim Heritage Overlays and as a consequence Amendment C215 was made in December 2014.

Amendment C208 was exhibited from 5 February to 13 March 2015 and a total of 11 submissions were received, including three (3) objecting submissions and eight (8) supporting submissions. A late supporting submission was received from Mr Gary Vines and this was accepted by the Council and passed to the Panel for consideration.

Key issues raised in submissions

Disagreement about the heritage significance and description of individual properties (all objecting submissions)

Support for the implementation of the Heritage Overlay over several sites (supporting submissions)

Concerns in relation to the future redevelopment potential of the site and/or the ‘burden’ of a Heritage Overlay.

The Panel has considered twelve (12) submissions, including appearances by representatives of five (5) submitters, a further 7 written submissions and the submissions and evidence of Boroondara City Council (the Council).

Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is well founded and should be approved with the exception of the application of HO613 to the property at 46 Rowland Street, Kew.

The association between the birth and approximately the first eighteen months of Mr Whitlam's life does not constitute evidence of a special association between Mr Whitlam and Ngara. The panel concludes that the association is not sufficient to meet the significance threshold for inclusion in a Heritage Overlay in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.


Page 2 of 27

While it provides some information about Mr Whitlam’s family and origins, this information might be adequately represented by a public marker or plaque at the site to note the site as his birthplace.

Of the other properties the panel concludes that the house at 23‐25 and part 27 Canterbury Road, Camberwell is of sufficient significance to warrant the application of HO617 as proposed. It also concludes that the properties at 29 and 31 Parkhill Road, Kew (HO619) and 300 Balwyn Road, North Balwyn are of sufficient significance to warrant the application of the respective heritage overlays.

(ii) Recommendation

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications:

1. Delete the Heritage Overlay to be applied to 46 Rowland Street, Kew

2. The Statement of Significance for 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell be re‐drafted to delete reference to the importance of the subdivision of the earlier larger estate related to this property.


Page 3 of 27

1 Introduction

1.1 Panel process

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Boroondara City Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to apply a Heritage Overlay to seven (7) sites within the municipality.

The Amendment was prepared by Boroondara City Council (the Council) and exhibited without the Minister’s authorisation pursuant to Section 8A(7) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 when response to the authorisation request was not received after ten days.

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition from 5 February to 13 March 2015, with 3 opposing and 9 supporting submissions received.

At its meeting of 4 May 2015, the Council’s Urban Planning Special Committee Urban (UPSC) resolved to refer the submissions to a panel. As a result, a panel to consider the amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 15 May 2015 and comprised Ray Tonkin (Chair). The Panel was reconstituted on 16 June and comprised Ray Tonkin (Chair) and Peter McEwan.

A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 3 June, 2015.

The Panel then met in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria on 25 and 26 August to hear submissions about the Amendment. Parties to the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

On day 1 of the Hearing (25 August) it became apparent at an early stage that the pre‐circulated timetable would not be met. All parties agreed that the Council should defer its submissions with respect to 46 Rowland Street, Kew until day 2 (26 August). This left the remainder of day 1 for presentation and consideration of submissions with respect to 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell and 300 Balwyn Road, North Balwyn.

Towards the end of day 1 it became apparent that planned submissions with respect to 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road would not be completed on that day and discussion about a further hearing day was held with the Panel. Mr Canavan (for submitter 7), offered to not call Mr Briggs (a proposed expert witness) and instead provide other parties with an opportunity to put submissions to the Panel on his pre‐circulated evidence. This was agreed by the other parties and Mr O’Farrell (for submitter 4) and Council made submissions on this evidence.

After some subsequent disagreement between parties about the way in which the Panel should consider this material the Panel directed that the evidence of Mr Briggs would be treated as a written submission. Following the making of this direction, submissions with respect to 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road were completed.

Day 2 (26 August) was devoted to submissions and evidence with respect to 46 Rowland Street and Council’s right‐of‐reply.

The Hon Dr Barry Jones was not called to give expert evidence; however, the Panel has noted his submission on the importance and legacy of Mr Gough Whitlam.


Page 4 of 27

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Boroondara City Council Ms Eva Klaic, Senior Strategic Planner who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Ms Natica Schmeder of Context Pty Ltd, heritage expert.

‐ Ms Louise Honman of Context Pty Ltd, heritage expert

Tao‐Ying Hsuing Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Andrew Walker instructed by Ms Romy Davidov of the firm Best Hooper Lawyers who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Mr Bryce Raworth (heritage consultant)

Ms Liang Mr Stuart Morris QC instructed by Ms Teresa Bisucci of the firm Best Hooper Lawyers who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Ms Kate Gray of Lovell Chen Pty Ltd, heritage expert

‐ Professor Graeme Davison, historian

Chris and Sandra Alexander

Mr Peter O’Farrell, barrister who called the following expert witness

‐ Ms Robyn Riddett of Anthemion Consultancies, heritage expert

Mr Gary Vines

National Trust of Australia (Vic)

Mr Rupert Watters of Harwood Andrews Lawyers

1.2 The proposal

The Amendment seeks to amend Planning Scheme Map Nos 4HO, 8HO, 12HO and 13HO to apply Heritage Overlays to the properties, as detailed below:

HO616 ‐ 203 Doncaster Road, North Balwyn

HO619 ‐ 29 & 31 Parkhill Road, Kew

HO620 ‐ 7 Leura Grove, Hawthorn East

HO614 ‐ 16 Victoria Avenue, Canterbury

HO605 ‐ 15 Deepdene Road, Deepdene

HO617 ‐ 23‐25 and part of 27 (TP129339) Canterbury Road, Camberwell

HO613 ‐ 46 Rowland Street, Kew

and amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include the above properties in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis.

1.3 Background to the proposal

In August 2012 Council engaged heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd in accordance with its Heritage Action Plan to provide assessments of potential heritage places to minimise the risk of individually significant heritage places being demolished or substantially modified; provide assessments in response to community queries / concerns when a place is under threat, including places under threat of demolition; and provide updated citations for existing heritage places to assist the evaluation of planning permit applications.


Page 5 of 27

In September 2012 Council engaged heritage consultants Built Heritage to undertake the Balwyn, Balwyn North and Deepdene Heritage Study 2013. The study identified places of heritage significance in Balwyn, Balwyn North and Deepdene through desktop research, field work and consultation with local historical societies. The study also reviewed places identified in previous heritage studies including the Camberwell Urban Conservation Study 1991.

Between August 2012 and February 2014, Context identified the places included in this amendment (except for 15 Deepdene Road, Deepdene which was assessed by Built Heritage) as being of local heritage significance to the City of Boroondara. Context recommended these places for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

Preliminary consultation on the heritage citations was carried out in stages. The affected and adjoining property owners and occupiers were invited to provide feedback on the heritage citations.

At the Urban Planning Special Committee (UPSC) meeting on 18 August 2014, Council resolved to initiate Amendment C178 to introduce permanent heritage controls for properties included in the preliminary consultation undertaken between 9 May and 13 June 2014. At this meeting, Council determined not to adopt the heritage citation prepared for 7 Leura Grove, Hawthorn East or include the property in Amendment C178 due to administrative reasons.

Council considered feedback received during preliminary consultation for the remaining six (6) properties at the UPSC meeting on 24 November 2014. The UPSC resolved to adopt all heritage citations subject of Amendment C208 (including 7 Leura Grove) and to seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C208 to introduce Heritage Overlays to these properties on a permanent basis.

The Council requested that the Minister for Planning approve interim Heritage Overlays and as a consequence Amendment C215 was made in December 2014. Council received notice of its approval on 15 May 2015 and the amendment came into effect when it was published in the Victorian Government Gazette on 21 May 2015.

Amendment C208 was exhibited from 5 February to 13 March 2015 and a total of 11 submissions were received, including three (3) objecting submissions and eight (8) supporting submissions. A late supporting submission was received from Mr Gary Vines and this was accepted by the Council and passed to the Panel for consideration.

1.4 Issues dealt with in this report

The following issues are dealt with in this report:

Disagreement about the heritage significance and description of individual properties (all objecting submissions)

Support for the implementation of the Heritage Overlay over several sites (supporting submissions)

Concerns in relation to the future redevelopment potential of the site and/or the ‘burden’ of a Heritage Overlay.


Page 6 of 27

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues of heritage significance and potential for application of the Heritage Overlay in the context of discussion on individual properties.


Page 7 of 27

2 Planning Context

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

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

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework, in particular Clause 15.03 (Heritage) and implements the policy by including places which have been identified and assessed as having local cultural heritage significance in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework, particularly Clauses 21.05 (Heritage, Landscapes and Urban Character) and 22.05 (Heritage Policy), which relate specifically to the cultural heritage significance of places within the City of Boroondara. These policies seek to identify, protect and enhance the cultural heritage significance of places within the municipality.

2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

(i) Ministerial Directions

Council submitted that the amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Direction:

The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5))

The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act.

(ii) Planning Practice Notes

Council submitted that the amendment meets the relevant provisions of Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay.

The heritage citations prepared for the seven places affected by the amendment comply with the Practice Notes requirements for writing statements of significance.

2.3 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is well founded and is strategically justified subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in the following chapters.


Page 8 of 27

3 Submissions considered at the Hearing

3.1 46 Rowland Street, Kew (submission 11)

3.1.1 Background

This property, known as ‘Ngara’, is associated with the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Gough Whitlam. The owners seek to demolish the existing house and build a new dwelling on the property.

Both the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council Victoria recently determined that Ngara did not satisfy the threshold of significance at the State level.

Planning Practice Note 01: Applying the Heritage Overlay (revised July 2015) (PPN01) outlines the model criteria which are to be used for the assessment of heritage values of a heritage place (Criterion A – H) and notes that:

The thresholds to be applied in the assessment of significance shall be 'State Significance' and 'Local Significance'. 'Local Significance' includes those places that are important to a particular community or locality.

The question for the Panel is whether Ngara warrants inclusion in an individual Heritage Overlay (HO) on the basis of the assessment of ‘Local Significance’ in the citation prepared by the Council with respect to Criterion H, which forms part of the Amendment.

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

The Council provided the Panel with the background to the proposal to introduce a HO over this property.

The Council issued consent to an application for demolition report and consent under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 on 11 April 2014.

(i) Victorian Heritage Register nomination

The Council received notification of the nomination of 46 Rowland Street Kew for inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) on 30 April 2014. The Council submitted that it had not been aware of the property’s association with former Australian Prime Minster Gough Whitlam prior to notice of the VHR nomination.

The Council’s heritage consultant was asked to investigate whether Ngara was of local heritage significance.

The heritage consultant found that the place was of individual heritage significance on the basis of confirmation the information submitted with the VHR nomination and an assessment against Criteria in Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay.

The Council sought advice about whether Council could suspend the Section 29A application despite already having issued consent. A request for an interim HO (Amendment C202) was submitted on 7 May 2014. The Council then notified the Building Surveyor of the request and issued a suspension on 7 May 2014.


Page 9 of 27

On 22 September 2014 Council received a letter giving notice that Amendment C202 had been refused by the officers of DTPLI under delegation from the Minister for Planning. The letter noted the fact that a request for Interim Protection Order (IPO) had been refused by Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council of Victoria. The letter also noted that Council had initially consented to the proposed demolition in the first response to the Section 29A application.

The Council commenced preliminary consultation on Amendment C208, including consultation on the proposed HO over 46 Rowland Street between 5 September and 6 October 2014.

On 3 October 2014 Council sent a letter via email to the building surveyor acting on behalf of the owner to notify them that Amendment C202 had been refused.

On 23 October 2014 an Interim Protection Order (IPO) was issued by the Heritage Council Victoria following a request from the Minister for Planning, days after Mr Whitlam’s passing.

On 19 December 2014 the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria recommended to the Heritage Council that Ngara not be included in the VHR.

On 26 June 2015 the Heritage Council determined that Ngara is not of state significance and did not warrant inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register.

(ii) Question of fairness

Stuart Morris QC raised the issue of fairness in relation to the owners of 46 Rowland Street, who had bought the property in November 2013. At the time planning permission was not required for demolition. He submitted that the Council had twice consented to the demolition of the property under s29A of the Building Act 1993, in May and October 2014.

Mr Morris took the panel through the complex chronology of events since the property was purchased, concluding that:

But for the unfair decision to place an IPO (Interim Protection Order) over the property, the building would now be demolished.

... the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council have now confirmed there is no basis for the place to be included in the Heritage Register.

3.1.2 Evidence and submissions

(i) Nature of the place

The Why is it significant? Section of the Council’s statement of significance says:

It is of historical significance for its special association with Gough Whitlam and his family, particularly his father, Fred Whitlam. The house provides tangible evidence of the modest middle‐class circumstances to Fred and Mattie Whitlam just following their wedding in 1914, as well as an indication of their taste as the house was purpose built for them. In particular, it is recorded as the location of Gough Whitlam’s birth, marking the starting point of the long and illustrious life of a man who was one of the major players in Australia’s post‐war history (Criterion H).


Page 10 of 27

(ii) Intactness of Ngara

Ms Klaic submitted that Council’s heritage consultant had considered the impact of alterations to the building when preparing the citation:

The alterations are noted in the citation but these works are not considered to detract from the understanding of the house as a typical middle‐class home in Kew of the time which was built for Gough Whitlam’s parents shortly before he was born. Council’s heritage consultant also considered the impact of demolition which took place (lawfully) in 2014 to determine whether this had undermined its significance. Council’s heritage consultant noted that internal controls were not proposed so internal demolition was not of concern and the external demolition which had taken place, which was primarily to remove cladding which had enclosed the original veranda, had helped to restore the original appearance of the building and was therefore a positive change.

Ms Schmeder in evidence (for Council) confirmed that there have been external changes to the house over the years, particularly the replacement of the front bay window and enclosure of the entrance porch:

Even with these changes, the house is still clearly recognisable as Federation villa and can demonstrate the association with Gough Whitlam and his family both through its fabric and the documentary evidence.

Ms Gray in evidence (for submitter 11 – the owner) provided a comprehensive physical description of Ngara detailing external alterations over time. She also provided evidence on various internal refurbishments works and recent partial demolition works, but noted that the Amendment does not propose internal controls.

3.1.3 Assessment of local significance

(i) Submissions 11, 10 and 12

Mr Watters, for the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) (National Trust) – submission 10, submitted that the fundamental issue for the Panel was about thresholds to be applied in the assessment of local significance:

There is no obvious reason why birth cannot provide a sufficiently ‘special’ association to justify listing at a local level.

Ms Klaic, for the Council, submitted that the Ngara is of significance at a local level and meets the threshold for inclusion in a Heritage Overlay under Criterion H for its association with Mr Whitlam as the place of his birth.

Ms Klaic noted that the relevant objective in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 Section 4(1)(d) does not suggest that there is an upper limit in the application of the Heritage Overlay:

In particular it does not specify that a place need be of local interest to be of local significance:

(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;

There are no threshold qualifications set out in Section 4(1)(d) of the Act except that the place must be of "...scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value ...".


Page 11 of 27

Ms Schmeder, submitted that: Ngara, at 46 Rowland Street, Kew, provides valuable evidence of Gough Whitlam’s

familial and life origins, and illustrates the important phase of his life (his birth).

The house is sufficiently intact to be recognisable as a modest middle‐class Federation Queen Anne villa, and thus demonstrates its association with the Whitlams (and Edward Maddock) who had it built.

Ngara satisfies the ‘First Test’ set out in The Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines (rev. 2014) for heritage significance under Criterion H (association), including for the ‘close interaction’ between the place and Gough Whitlam and his family, comprising their design and building of the house for his newlywed parents by his maternal grandfather and being the place of his birth on 11 July 1916.

She further submitted that: Ngara demonstrates a middle class background which is relevant because of his

subsequent championing of the workers and the disadvantaged.

Its location in a middle‐class street provides valuable context for the information provided by the place (house and land) itself.

Submitter 12 noted other places that have been recognised for short‐lived and early associations with a person of importance. His submission included a table of birthplaces of former Prime Ministers and their fates.

He submitted that it is important to understand the middle class status of the Whitlam family to understand the significance of Mr Whitlam’s politics in support of the working‐class and the socially disadvantaged. He asserted that a birthplace can tell us much about the background of a person:

Whitlam’s birthplace conveys Whitlam’s origin story.

He also submitted that assessments of the property’s significance and Heritage Victoria have been too focussed on Criterion H of Planning Practice Note 01. He included an assessment against other criteria and argued that the property is significant under several including Criterion A (course or pattern in history), B (rare and endangered) and G (association with a cultural group).

Ms Gray submitted that:

The question (whether at a state or local level), is whether the association between Whitlam and the place is a special one to warrant recognition for heritage reasons.

She also contended that the association between Ngara and Mr Whitlam was insufficient to conclude that the property warrants heritage protection at any level (i.e. national, state or local protection). The following reasons were provided to support this assertion:

• The association between Mr Whitlam and the place is not from a formative (e.g. education) or from a significant (e.g. career) phase of his life, instead the association was brief and short‐lived. Other places such as The Lodge and Kirribilli House would demonstrate an association with a more significant phase of his life.

• The ability of the property to shed light on the circumstances and taste of the Whitlam family is of little interest.

• There is insufficient strength in the association between Gough Whitlam’s achievements and the place to warrant heritage protection.


Page 12 of 27

Ms Gray’s evidence included a table of houses associated with Australian Prime Ministers and included a statement that the “houses which are subject to heritage controls, in many cases the association with the individual is related to their period of influence”.

Ms Klaic responded that there was precedent for the protection of places which do not relate to a ‘period of influence’. She cited those associated with Joseph Lyon, John Curtin and Bob Hawke:

It should be noted that the duration and life‐phase of association between Lyons (cottage) and Hawke (house), is similar to the duration of association between Mr Whitlam and the property at 46 Rowland Street, Kew.

Ms Gray further submitted that:

...recognition of any ‘birthplace’ relies on a groundswell of support and active ‘ownership’ of the event and association, as for the Mary McKillop birthplace in Fitzroy which is part of a spiritual pilgrimage.

The fact of Gough Whitlam’s birth at this place does not confer historical significance at a local or any level. It is of interest to note but no more than that.

Ms Gray concluded that:

The birth of Gough Whitlam at the house and his occupation for the first 18 months of his life does not generate a special association as related to his life and the place. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the place does not meet Criterion H, is not of significance at a local level and does not warrant the application of the HO control.

Further to this, Fred and Mattie Whitlam’s association with a Federation villa which they built and lived in for two years is of no local interest based on the association, any more than any other such place in Boroondara.

Professor Davison asserted that for a place to be of significance under Criterion H at the local level (without protection at a State or National level) it must be associated with a person of local rather than general significance:

The mere association between a person and a place is not sufficient to make it worthy of protection; in the words of the planning ordinance it must be ‘special’.

Professor Davison (for submitter 11 – the owner) provided a comparison with other residences of Prime Ministers in Boroondara. He submitted that:

... the house in Howard Street Kew belonging to R.G. Menzies, who married in Kew, became member for East Yarra in the Victorian Legislative Council before serving for 35 years as member for Kooyong in the House of Representatives, regularly giving his policy speech as leader of the Liberal Party in the Canterbury RSL Hall, might exemplify such an ‘enduring and close interaction’ between the person and the locality. The Menzies house may be architecturally undistinguished but its style and location project the taste and aspirations of a politician who would become, as historian Judith Brett notes, the quintessential voice of those he called ‘the forgotten people’, the decent middle class folk he represented as a local member.

In relation to the former home of Prime Minister Billy Hughes, in Cotham Road, Kew, Professor Davison submitted:

He moved from Sydney to the provincial Victorian seat of Bendigo but, because of his prime‐ministerial duties, lived in Melbourne, then the national capital.


Page 13 of 27

Hughes lived in Kew for only about six years and returned to Sydney after he lost the prime‐ministership, but the Kew house is a significant reminder of his social and political metamorphosis.

Professor Davison submitted that for a birthplace to be significant is should tell a compelling narrative about the person’s origins and their relationship to their achievements:

In the case of both Menzies and Hughes, the connection between the political person and the house in Boroondara was direct, enduring and significant. It is hard, however, to perceive such a connection between the life and achievement of Gough Whitlam and the house in Rowland Street. Whatever characteristics it may have, by way of its location, form and style, relate to Whitlam’s parents rather than to Whitlam himself. There was no ‘close’ or ‘enduring’ ‘interaction’ between the person and the house.

Professor Davison went on to provide opinions on the significance of birthplaces and childhood homes across Australia and the world.

He described Ngara as: ... a middle‐class house of an aspiring public servant.

The claim that Ngara illustrates the modest middle class status of Whitlam’s parents tells us nothing we do not already know about him.

...to mark Whitlam’s birthplace geographically is not reliant on the protection of the physical structure of the house in which he was born.

In response to Professor Davison, Ms Klaic submitted that here is no reason why the house of “a middle‐class house of an aspiring public servant” cannot tell a compelling narrative, simply because it does not represent extreme wealth or poverty:

The ability of the place to shed light on the Whitlam family’s tastes and circumstances is of interest because it explains Mr. Whitlam’s background, which is important for interpreting his life and politics. The house which was built for his parents by his maternal grandfather demonstrates the Whitlam family’s middle‐class status and taste at the time that Mr. Whitlam was born.

3.1.4 Discussion

The Heritage Council determination made no findings as to ‘local significance’ and noted that the place was currently being assessed as part of an Amendment to the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

The Panel therefore considers that the proposal to include Ngara in an individual Heritage Overlay in the Boroondara Planning Scheme must be assessed on its merits.

The Panel notes that lawful demolition took place in October 2014 which involved substantial removal of internal features such as floorboards and architraves. However, internal controls are not proposed by the Amendment. External demolition was largely limited to removal of later additions to the verandah and does not appear to have resulted in significant removal of original building fabric.

The fundamental issue for the Panel is whether the association between Ngara and Mr Whitlam is sufficiently ‘special’ to warrant inclusion in an individual HO in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

There was no disagreement as to the significance of Mr Whitlam, his legacy and the significance of changes he made to Australia while Prime Minister. This was detailed in the


Page 14 of 27

submission in support of the National Trust position by the Hon Dr Barry Jones. The panel agrees that Mr Whitlam was a person of national significance.

In particular, the Panel has considered Ngara against Criterion H (associative significance) as the assessment against this criterion forms the basis of the citation which justifies the inclusion of this place in a HO.

The heritage assessment undertaken for the Council by Context found that criteria A, B, C, D ,E, F and G were not applicable. All parties, with the exception of Submitter 12 who addressed all criteria in the Practice Note, generally limited their evidence and submissions to assessment against Criterion H (associative significance).

The citation for the property includes a comparison with other places which are subject to heritage controls because of their association with a famous person. Two types of places were identified:

Those that served as a residence of a Prime Minister.

Those that were the birthplace of a Prime Minister or famous person of any type.

The Panel also noted the comparative analysis of Prime Minister’s residences submitted in evidence by Ms Gray.

There are six private residences having an association with Australian Prime Ministers which are subject of local heritage overlays in Victoria, but are not included in the VHR.

The Practice Note requires the geographical scope of comparative analysis to match the geographical scope of the claimed significance:

The thresholds to be applied in the assessment of significance shall be ‘State Significance’ and ‘Local Significance’. ‘Local Significance’ includes those places that are important to a particular community or locality.

In order to apply a threshold, some comparative analysis will be required to substantiate the significance of each place. The comparative analysis should draw on other similar places within the study area, including those that have previously been included in a heritage register or overlay.

This raises the question of what the relevant local area is. The National Trust submitted that the answer is ‘Kew’. The Panel concurs with this view.

In relation to what the relevant local area is, Mr Watters further submitted:

More than that though, the National Trust submits that the proper comparator, for the purposes of comparative analysis, is places associated with Gough Whitlam in Kew.

The Panel does not accept this proposition. Kew existed as a separate municipality from 1860 to 1994. All places that might be considered for heritage protection were constructed during this period. The Panel does not consider that the proper comparator is only those places associated with Mr Whitlam. Mr Whitlam moved interstate permanently before he was two years old.

There are two other properties associated with prime ministers in Kew. The residence at 167 Cotham Road, Kew (Boroondara HO285) was occupied by William Morris Hughes for several years in the late 1910s and early 20s, including during the period when he was Prime Minister (1915‐22). The residence at 10 Howard Street, Kew was occupied by Robert


Page 15 of 27

Gordon Menzies for a substantial period of his life from 1928 until 1950. The Menzies family owned the house from 1925‐26 to 1966. Mr Menzies occupied the house during his first term of office from 1939 to 1941.

In comparison, Ngara was built by Mr Whitlam’s grandfather in 1915 for his parents. He was born in the house on 11 July 1916. The family sold the house in October 1917. The fact that Mr Whitlam’s birth and early months of life occurred at Ngara is not sufficient to demonstrate an enduring or close interaction to an extent that would satisfy Criterion H at the local level. Ngara was not related to and did not play a part in Mr Whitlam’s notable contributions to public life and legacy as Prime Minister.

No enduring association was presented by the evidence. It cannot compare with the two other residences also in Kew, which were closely associated over much longer periods of time with prime ministers who occupied them at the time of their incumbency. Nor can it compare with other residences interstate occupied by Gough Whitlam and closely associated with significant events and periods of his public life. Evidence was presented of the strong public interest in Ngara at the time of with his death, but no evidence demonstrated the likelihood of an enduring association of the site with the life and legacy of Mr Whitlam.

3.1.5 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the submissions and evidence do not demonstrate that the association between Gough Whitlam and Ngara is a special one sufficient to warrant recognition in an individual HO.

The Panel notes that the property has been altered and partially demolished. However, Ngara remains as a modest middle‐class Federation Queen Anne villa. While it provides some information about Mr Whitlam’s family and origins, this information might be adequately represented by a public marker or plaque at the location to note the site as his birthplace.

3.1.6 Recommendations

The Panel recommends: Delete the Heritage Overlay to be applied to 46 Rowland Street, Kew

3.2 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell


(i) Nature of heritage place

The citation includes the following under the heading “Why is it significant?”

Historically, the house illustrates the subdivision in the early 20th‐century of the large 19th‐century estates in this area of Camberwell for the substantial dwellings erected as homes for well‐to‐do businessmen (Criterion A).

Architecturally and historically, the house is significant for its associations with prominent Melbourne architect Christopher Cowper, and his practice Cowper, Murphy & Appleford formed in 1921. Christopher Cowper was a significant architect in early 20th century Boroondara, best known for his extensive Queen Anne residential development in Grace


Page 16 of 27

Park, Hawthorn, as well as many other mid to large‐sized houses for the well‐to‐do residents of Kew and Camberwell, and other suburbs of Melbourne (Criterion H).

Architecturally, the house is an elegant and well‐preserved example of a substantial Interwar Mediterranean villa. The style was most often seen in the domestic architecture in upper and upper‐middle class suburbs from the 1920s, becoming widespread in the following decade for small bungalows. At the time it was seen as a potential basis for a future national design, due to the similarity in climate and the quality of light in Australia and the Mediterranean. This was symbolically expressed by the use of the style for the Prime Minister’s Residence and housing for public servants in Canberra in the mid‐1920s (Criterion D).

Aesthetically, the house exhibits a graceful combination of features that would come to define the Interwar Mediterranean style, including a symmetrical composition, the use of a loggia as a main design feature, planar surfaces stripped of ornament relying on voids and textured solids for visual interest, a dominant hip roof providing a horizontal emphasis punctuated by tall chimneys, and multi‐light sash windows set beneath decorative tympani. It is enhanced by the retention of its setting, including a large front garden, curved concrete entrance drive and original or early garage (Criterion E).

(ii) Submission 7

Submission 7 was made by the owner of the property, who was represented at the Hearing by Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Andrew Walker, instructed by Best Hooper Lawyers.

The submission questioned the rigour applied in the determination of significance by the Council and its consultants. It pointed out that despite the property being recognised as part of a potential heritage precinct in the Camberwell Conservation Study of 1991 no action had been taken to identify its heritage significance until 2014 when the current amendment process commenced. It argued that this recognition was nothing more than a reaction to an application to subdivide the property.

The submission went on to point out that the 1991 study did not include this as one of its 284 sites recommended as of individual significance. It argued that given that other nearby properties were subsequently individually listed that this lack of a recommendation at this stage was unlikely to be an oversight.

It also submitted that the recognition of this place as having heritage significance lowered the standard of heritage recognition in Boroondara and that the place should not be subject to a Heritage Overlay unless the significance is clear. The submission argued that, as it stands this significance is not clear.

It also submitted that the purported historic significance as an illustration of an early 20th century subdivision of a larger estate is not proven and the subdivision that resulted in this property is no different from the subdivision pattern across Camberwell.

The suggestion that the house was designed by architect, Christopher Cowper was also questioned. It is argued that because Cowper had taken on other partners by 1921 and that he was subsequently more interested in his business interests in real estate and finance that it is unlikely that he was personally involved in the design of this 1923 house. It also argues that the style of this house is not one that Cowper was known for.


Page 17 of 27

The submission claimed that there was a lack of a rigorous comparative analysis underpinning this proposed Heritage Overlay. As pointed out there are many examples of “Inter‐War Mediterranean” houses in Boroondara, many with heritage protection and some without. It argued that the Council has not sought to assess the quantity and quality of these buildings nor assess the relative significance of this property in this large cohort of buildings. Rather the Council’s comparative analysis has been limited to an assessment against four other buildings.

It submitted that the house is not a good example of the Mediterranean style and has been subject to unsympathetic alterations, including:

The construction of a small flat roofed porch

The conversion of the east wing porch to a sunroom

The replacement roof tiles.

The submission also made comment of the relationship of the property to the Vial family and any significance that could be associated with their ownership. It was built for Lena and George Vial in 1923 and they lived there for 14 years until 1937. There is no evidence that they were a particularly important family in Camberwell and like many other successful businessmen in the general area. The Vials commissioned an architectural firm to design his house. It is also argued that there is nothing left in the fabric of the building which reflects the Vial’s occupation of the house. Related to this ownership is the question of the significance of the tennis court. The submission argues that the tennis court does not contribute to the architectural or aesthetic significance of the property.

Mr Raworth’s evidence

Mr Raworth was called to provide evidence supporting the submission. In summary he argued:

The house is not of any intrinsic historical significance

It is unlikely that Christopher Cowper was the designer and by the stage this commission was in the office of Cowper, Murphy and Appleford the lead in design matters was being taken by Murphy and Appleford

The house is a typical example of the Mediterranean architectural idioms seen in Boroondara and is no more significant than as a contributory building to a heritage precinct

It is not particularly intact

The land that supports the tennis court is of no intrinsic interest.

Under cross examination Mr Raworth agreed that this is a substantial building in a substantial garden, but that it wasn’t an “accomplished building”, but rather a “competent building”.

Under questioning from the Panel he conceded that even if the primary designer wasn’t Christopher Cowper it was likely that Cowper had a role in the design.

Mr Brigg’s evidence

Mr Briggs was not called to give oral evidence, even though his written evidence had been circulated. As indicated at 1.1 above, the Panel directed that his evidence would be treated as a written submission.


Page 18 of 27

In summary his submission stated:

This house does not demonstrate aspects of heritage value, or qualities beyond those exhibited by many contributory buildings located within heritage precincts and therefore does not meet the threshold for individual significance

There is nothing special about the subdivision that resulted in this property

This is not a rare example of a Mediterranean style house in Boroondara

This is not a particularly representative example of this style of building. Using photographic evidence pointed to at least 15 houses that are equal or better examples of the style

The suggestion that this house exhibits particular aesthetic characteristics of the architectural style is a misrepresentation of the style and its usual components

That it was unlikely that Chris Cowper was involved in the design.

(iii) Submission 4

Submission 4 was made by the owner of the adjoining property at 27 Canterbury Road, who was represented at the Hearing by Mr Peter O’Farrell.

The submission made the following points:

The property is a relatively early example of the Inter‐War Mediterranean style.

It has a broad and prominent location in Canterbury Road

It has a high level of intactness

That the role of the architectural firm Cowper, Murphy and Appleford should not be downplayed, nor the role of Cowper himself

The analysis carried out by Context Pty Ltd on behalf of Council has responded appropriately to the local significance.

It also goes on to discuss the concern proposed in Mr Brigg’s evidence statement that ‘the application of the heritage overlay confers no benefit to the property owner’. Quoting from Planning Panel reports for Boroondara C99 and the March 2007 report of the Advisory Committee review of Heritage provisions in Planning Schemes, arguing that any consideration of social and economic values must be undertaken with reference to the net community benefit. It goes on to argue that this is the way in which the Council has considered these matters and that this is consistent with the Strategic Assessment Guidelines.

Ms Riddett’s evidence

Ms Riddett was called to provide evidence supporting the submission. In summary she argued:

The identification of this place has been appropriately undertaken as part of the ongoing strategic work of the Council

Christopher Cowper and his subsequent firm Cowper, Murphy and Appleford were prominent architects in Melbourne from the 1880s to the 1940s

Oral history from Brian Vial, the grandson of the Lena and George Vial testifies that this house is the work of Christopher Cowper

The house is a competent example of an Inter‐War Mediterranean styled house


Page 19 of 27

The house is representative of the upper middle class dwellings constructed in Camberwell and hence is a valuable document of Camberwell’s history and social history

That the comparative analysis undertaken by the Council’s consultants appears sound and appropriate

That the criteria relied upon in the statement of significance are appropriate, but that criterion B “Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity)” should also be used

Whilst there have been some alterations they are insufficient to diminish the aesthetic significance of the place.

Under cross examination Ms Riddett indicated that she believed that the Vial ownership in itself probably provided sufficient reason for the application of the HO and whilst she hadn’t researched the relative importance of the Vial family she was aware that George Vial was a prominent manufacturer.

She also suggested that whilst this house may have some similarity to other houses in Camberwell it has revealed a different aspect of Christopher Cowper’s architectural work than the Federation houses he is normally associated with.

(iv) Written Submissions

Written submissions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all supportive of the application of the HO to this property. None of these submitters took the opportunity to be heard.

In summary these submissions made the following points:

The property is significant because of its design by Christopher Cowper

This is one of the last of its kind of building in Boroondara

Similar properties in Boroondara already have heritage protection

Many significant properties in Boroondara have been demolished

The Vial family was well connected

The house is a well maintained, structurally sound and significant example of Inter‐War Mediterranean style architecture

Loss of this house would have a deleterious impact on neighbourhood character

The house is a splendid early example of the Mediterranean style that was to become popular in the following years. The driveway and garden, with garage and tennis court, was typical of the large houses being built for the successful families of the day

This house should be preserved as there is an immediate precinct of heritage listed houses of heritage significance in the immediate surrounding area.

(v) Council Response

In responding to submissions the Council made the following submissions: Council is of the view that this and other citations prepared according to Council’s

current practice are rigorous and well researched. Council’s citations provide a comparative analysis and an assessment against the criteria as required in the practice note. They are considered by Council to be appropriate for the purpose of assessing local heritage significance. Previous Panels have not questioned Council’s


Page 20 of 27

current practice in the preparation of heritage citations including the rigor when evaluating properties against the criteria or undertaking comparative analysis

In this case, the subject property is a substantial and early example of the Interwar Mediterranean style in Boroondara. The fact that this style was uncommon at the time and has scarcely been seen at this scale makes it difficult to find close comparators

The citation has detailed external alterations and taken these into account when determining its heritage significance

This property is considered an important example of the architect’s (Christopher Cowper) work in the Interwar period. Council’s heritage consultant has noted that there is less research into Cowper’s work at this time but that is not an indication that his work from this later period is less interesting or of lesser heritage significance

There is an important distinction between the subject house and examples used in the comparative analysis in the expert evidence circulated on behalf of the owner. The subject house is an early example of the Mediterranean Style. As expressed in the place citation and the expert evidence (of Ms Schmeder) circulated on behalf of Council this house belongs to a small group of identified, early architect designed homes in the Mediterranean Style. The difference between the Mediterranean Style and the Spanish Mission Style as defined in Identifying Australian Architecture (Apperly, et al, 1989) is explained in detail in Ms Schmeder’s evidence. There are also several other important differences between the subject place and ‘contributory’ graded comparators given in the evidence of Mr Briggs and Mr Raworth. These differences are that the subject place has an earlier built date, was designed by an architect specifically for the owners (rather than being a builder home) and is a large and elegant example of its style. It is worth noting here that the lack of embellishment in Cowper’s design is part of what makes this place significant as is distinguishes it from the later Spanish Mission and builder designed comparators used by Mr Briggs and Mr Raworth.

Ms Schmeder’s evidence

Ms Schmeder responded to other submissions with respect to this property in the following manner:

The historical aspects of its significance were based on the contextual history of this area of Camberwell and an overview of the work of its architect, Christopher Cowper (then of Cowper, Murphy & Appleford). All aspects of its significance were then articulated in regard to the Hercon criteria, which have been adapted for the City of Boroondara. Again, this is in accordance with the Practice Note No 1

The comparative analysis contained within the citation notes that this is an early example of a style that became very popular in Melbourne in the years that followed its construction. A comparison is made with a property on Mont Albert Road which was constructed approximately one (1) year prior to the subject property and has a similar style and setting. The second comparison is with the house at 1 Bradford Avenue, Kew which has a similar materiality and detailing to the subject place. Both are graded as Individually Significant in the Heritage Overlay. The subject place compared well to these and other later comparators being evidently an architect designed home and one which expresses the status of its owners

None of the changes (apart from the reversible overpainting) is considered to detract notably from the architectural presentation of the house. While the glazed tiles on the roof were not noted upon my original inspection from the public domain, I accept Mr Raworth’s statement that they are recent. They do not, however, detract enough from its presentation to be considered ‘unsympathetic’


Page 21 of 27

While architect Christopher Cowper is best known for his Federation‐era designs, his interwar‐era work is lesser known today and the characteristics and defining works from this period have not been examined in depth but merit further study. Cowper was a major architect in the area that is now Boroondara, including in the 1920s, and it is this that creates an association that is significant at a local level

While it this iteration of Cowper’s architectural career remains less studied and understood than his earlier Queen Anne house designs, and thus less valued today, the association with Cowper himself is certainly of significance. This is both due to his long career of designing fine houses and commercial buildings in the Boroondara area, as well as his ongoing relationship with the Vial family, having designed their 1909 house on The Broadway. As recorded in Submission 5, the Vials were proud of their relationship with the architect and with his direct involvement in the design of their two houses

It is agreed that there are other examples of the Interwar Mediterranean style in Boroondara’s precincts, particularly in the Golf Links Estate (HO1). The majority of these houses are of a smaller scale and lesser architectural design than the Vial House. Certainly the two‐storey Contributory house at 3 Finsbury Way is an exception, as it compares well with 1291 Burke Road (HO282). If assessing it today, I would likely grade this house as Locally Significant for its architectural design.

Under cross examination Ms Schmeder was asked whether she felt that the identification of this property as important was somehow outside the regime of studies already undertaken in Boroondara. She acknowledged that it hadn’t been specifically identified in the 1991 Camberwell study, nor the later work by Lovell Chen, but that it wasn’t unusual for reviews to generate additional places of importance.

She was also questioned about the importance of Christopher Cowper and his role in the design of this house. She agreed that she wasn’t aware of any other Mediterranean styled houses designed by Cowper Murphy and Appleford. She also agreed with Mr Raworth that this wasn’t a pioneering example of this style, but was an early example and whilst this didn’t automatically qualify it as significant it must lend some weight to its significance. She also indicated that she felt that its design was sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection by means of the HO.

3.2.2 Discussion

The Panel undertook an unaccompanied inspection of the site.

Having considered all the evidence put to it, the Panel is charged with determining whether this property is of sufficient local significance to warrant the application of the Heritage Overlay. In doing so it has been asked to consider:

Whether the place achieves significance as an example of the subdivision of an early larger estate

The role of architect Christopher Cowper in its design and whether that is a matter of importance

Whether the house is a sufficiently important example of an Inter‐War Mediterranean villa to warrant the application of the individual Heritage Overlay.

The first point does not seem to be a critical consideration. There are many properties throughout the suburbs of Melbourne that are the products of the subdivision (and in some


Page 22 of 27

cases the re‐subdivision) of large nineteenth century estates. This property does not seem to be anymore significant in this regard than many other properties in Boroondara.

The architectural authorship of the building was the subject of some import to all submitters and experts. The unassailable facts are that the house was designed for Lena and George Vial by the firm Cowper Murphy and Appleford and built in 1923. Christopher Cowper as a sole practitioner was well known for his federation era Queen Anne villas, including the one that he designed for the Vials in 1909 at 71 The Broadway. He is certainly less well known for houses using this later Mediterranean style, but then it seems that little is known about the practice and output of Cowper Murphy and Appleford and the role of Christopher Cowper in that partnership. Perhaps a few too many assumptions were made with respect to this in submissions and evidence to this Hearing.

It seems clear that Cowper was the partner who was approached to complete this commission. The written submission by Brian Vial and his reminiscences as reported by Ms Riddett would confirm that. His personal role in the design remains uncertain and therefore it is pointless making any assumptions about that. However, it is certain that the design of this house can be attributed to the prominent architectural firm of Cowper, Murphy and Appleford and that alone contributes to its significance.

There were extensive submissions and evidence presented about how significant this place is as an example of a Mediterranean Inter‐War house. There was also considerable discussion about the architectural derivation of this building and its relationship to houses of a Spanish Mission style. Whilst the Panel was faced with numerous comparative examples it seems that the Council’s consultants in completing the identification and citation for this property have done as much as is expected in the Practice Note.

It is also clear to the Panel that this building is a substantial, if not atypical example of a Mediterranean styled Inter‐War house. It is certainly not a Spanish Mission styled house and the Panel believes that such a distinction needs to be made. The Statement of Significance states:

Architecturally, the house is an elegant and well‐preserved example of a substantial Interwar Mediterranean villa.

The Panel accepts that this is the case and that this is sufficient to warrant the application of the Heritage Overlay.

This leaves the question of the significance of the tennis court as part of the property. Evidence was provided that the Vial family (and undoubtedly subsequent owners) used the tennis court as an important part of their social life. It really doesn’t matter who played tennis on this court. What is important is that it, along with the substantial garden are an important part of the overall design of the place and provide a setting fitting for a villa of this style and substance. Hence, the Panel believes that the curtilage proposed for the Heritage Overlay is appropriate.

Finally, the Panel was directed to the issue of this property as part of the precinct identified in the 1991 Camberwell Conservation Study, but not pursued for heritage protection. The Panel was not required to complete any sort of comprehensive review of that precinct, but it couldn’t help but notice that to the east of the subject property there are no less than 3


Page 23 of 27

individual HOs. It was also obvious that the heritage precinct included in the planning scheme on the southern side of Canterbury Road (HO159) seems to share a great deal of architectural similarity to the properties covered by these individual HOs. As a consequence the Panel would like to suggest that the Council consider a review of the heritage overlays in this area with a view to incorporating those individual HOs into HO159.

3.2.3 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the property at 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell has been appropriately identified as being of local heritage significance and that the proposal to apply a permanent Heritage Overlay is appropriate.

It also believes that the citation could be reviewed to delete reference to the historic significance of the relationship to the subdivision of the site from a larger nineteenth century estate.

As indicated above the Panel also believes that there is room for a review of the heritage overlays in this area with a view to rationalising them as part of a larger precinct.

3.2.4 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

In relation to 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell

The Heritage Overlay be applied to 23‐25 and 27A Canterbury Road, Camberwell as exhibited.

The Statement of Significance be re‐drafted to delete reference to the importance of the subdivision of the earlier larger estate related to this property.


Page 24 of 27

4 Written submissions

4.1 29 and 31 Parkhill Road, Kew

This is a pair of Victorian duplex dwellings on two titles. One supportive submission was received during exhibition of the amendment. The Council noted that one objecting submission had been received during the preliminary consultation and elected to address matters raised in this earlier process at the Panel Hearing and in expert evidence.


The owner of 31 Parkhill Road, Kew made a submission in support of the introduction of a Heritage Overlay over the two properties. The submitter also provided additional historical information on the property.

Ms Klaic, for the Council, noted that this additional historical information had been verified and the citation for the property had been updated accordingly.

In relation to 29 Parkhill Road, Ms Klaic submitted that the two townhouses recently constructed to the rear of the original house had been considered by the council’s heritage consultant who found that the townhouses did not detract from the significance of the place because they are sufficiently setback from the original dwelling.

In evidence, Ms Schmeder, submitted that:

The duplex at 29‐31 Parkhill Road has been rigorously assessed in the place citation and it is clearly of local historical and architectural significance to the City of Boroondara.

The construction of two units behind No 29 has not had an appreciable impact in this significance.

4.1.2 Discussion and conclusions

The Panel notes that the owner of the property at 29 Parkhill Road did not proceed with a submission to the amendment. The duplex dwellings are considered to be of local historical and architectural significance to the City of Boroondara.

The Panel concurs with the position put by the Council that the matters in relation to this property are resolved.


The Panel recommends that: The Heritage Overlay be applied to 29 and 31 Parkhill Road, Kew as exhibited


Page 25 of 27

4.2 300 Balwyn Road (formerly 203 Doncaster Road), North Balwyn


(i) Nature of Heritage Place

Following is the Why is it significant? portion of the revised Statement of Significance as proposed for the property:

The Bunbury House at 300 Balwyn Road is an excellent example of modern architecture in the post war period when areas of Balwyn and Balwyn North were developing. The Bunbury house represents early work of notable 20th century Australian architect, theorist, author and critic Robin Boyd

Boyd was a Director of the influential Royal Victorian Institute of Architects (RVIA) and The Age Small Homes Service (SHS) from 1947‐1953; as well as undertaking private architectural commissions. The SHS was an initiative that sought to provide cost effective, architecturally designed homes to a wide audience, including those who would not otherwise have been able to afford an architect designed home

The Bunbury house represents an early and intact example of modernist architecture by Robin Boyd. The Bunbury house displays an association in its design and detailing with another design developed as part of Boyd’s work with the SHS. The Bunbury house incorporates design elements that are recognisable from Boyd’s popular designs, including efficient floor plans, floor to ceiling glazing, projecting eaves and suspended sun shading devices constructed from timber slats. The Bunbury house contributes to the understanding and legacy of Boyd’s work as preserved by the Boyd Foundation.

(ii) Submission 9

The submitter is the owner of the property.

They pointed out that the citation was wrong with the pictures wrongly labelled.

The submission also challenged the notion that any house derived from the Age Small Homes Service should be considered for a Heritage Overlay given that, as they point out that at one point it was estimated that 40% of new homes in Melbourne were products of the Small Homes Service.

It suggested that since it has never been previously acknowledged as a Robin Boyd design that it isn’t really an important work. If Boyd was the designer as claimed he couldn’t have supervised its construction as he was overseas at that time. Also that there hasn’t been any local support for the house’s retention.

The house is not suitable for modern living and the owner may be prevented from undertaking further development of the site.

(iii) Council response

Council indicated that it had corrected the citation by renaming one of the photographs.

Council believes that is a particularly early and intact example of Robin Boyd’s work and hence warrants protection.


Page 26 of 27

Council became aware of the authorship of the building when relatives of the original owner approached it with the original building plans and sketches.

The private financial circumstances of the owner are not a matter for consideration at this stage. Also that under the provisions of the planning scheme the owner can seek permits to further develop the property.

Evidence of Ms Honman

Louise Honman was called by Council to provide expert evidence with respect to this property.

She provided her views on the relationship of the design of this house to the principles espoused by the Small Homes Service. The fact that Robin Boyd was the Director of the Small Homes Service makes this connection even more important. Whilst it is accepted that Boyd did not supervise the construction of the house this is not critical because the completed house still reflects the drawings documented and signed by Boyd.

Her evidence also provided further information on the operation of the Small Homes Service as well as other examples of Boyd’s domestic work in Boroondara.

4.2.2 Discussion

The Panel made an unaccompanied external inspection of the property. It appeared to be remarkably intact and reflecting the design as shown in copies of drawings submitted to the Panel.

The Panel is of the view that the work of Robin Boyd is very important, particularly examples of his early domestic designs. The establishment and operation of the Age Small Homes Service had a profound impact on the design of houses in suburbs such as Balwyn and North Balwyn and its long running success is an item of importance to Melbourne’s urban history in its own right.

Boyd was the service’s original Director and as such was highly influential in the nature of the designs produced and published by the service.

4.2.3 Conclusion

The Panel believes that the application of a permanent Heritage Overlay over this property is appropriate.


The Panel recommends:

The Heritage Overlay be applied to 300 Balwyn Road, North Balwyn as exhibited.


Page 27 of 27

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

No. Submitter

1 Mr Robert Bailey

2 R C & C L Downes

3 Drs Sylvia & Craig Harrison

4 C & S Alexander

5 Brian Vial

6 Narelle & Craig Smith

7 Mrs T Hsiung

8 Alisa Bunbury

9 Asdan Liem

10 National Trust of Australia (Vic)

11 Ms Liang

12 Gary Vines

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 -...

Documents

Transcript of Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C208 -...