Download pdf - Expert Witness Statement for Amendment C191 to the Yarra ... · scheme amendments and permit decision making under the Planning and Environment Act ... • Responds to submission

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Expert Witness Statement – Planning Panels Victoria

Yarra Amendment C191 – Swan Street Richmond

Expert Witness Statement for Amendment C191 to the Yarra Planning Scheme

26 November 2019

Prepared for the City of Yarra under the instruction of Maddocks Lawyers by Jim Gard’ner | Director BArch(Hons), BBSc, GradDip(Conservation), GradCert (Visual Arts), RAIA, M.ICOMOS

GJM Heritage t: +61 (0)408 321 023 e: [email protected] w: www.gjmheritage.com a: Level 3, 124 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000 m: GPO Box 2634, Melbourne, VIC 3001

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



2

1. Introduction

1.1 Name and address of expert

[1] James (Jim) Maitland Gard’ner, Director, GJM Heritage, Level 3, 124 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000.

1.2 Expert’s qualifications and experience

[2] I hold a Bachelor of Building Science and an Honours Degree in Architecture from Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand), a post graduate diploma in building conservation from the Architectural Association of London and a graduate certificate in visual arts from Harvard University. I am registered with the Architects’ Registration Board of Victoria (16044) and am a member of the Australian Institute of Architects, the Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association and Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites).

[3] I have practiced as an architect on heritage buildings and new design projects in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and have specialised in heritage conservation since 1997. I have worked as Project Architect on commercial projects in the World Heritage Listed City of Bath and, as a Historic Buildings Architect at English Heritage, I provided technical and regulatory advice on a diverse range of heritage places including Stonehenge, Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire and the Wellington Arch in London. At the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), I led the classification of heritage places on the National Trust Register and the development of responses to heritage and planning permit applications.

[4] In my role as the Director, Strategy and Policy and then Executive Director at Heritage Victoria I developed and implemented heritage policy and guidance to assist in the interpretation of the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 including in relation to: the assessment of ‘reasonable or economic use’ under s73(1)(b) of the Heritage Act; Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes; The Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines; and the Victorian Government Cultural Heritage Asset Management Principles. I previously Chaired the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens World Heritage Steering Committee and have been a member of the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand. From 2012-15 I held the position of Executive Director, Statutory Planning and Heritage in the Victorian State Government where I administered the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) and advised the Minister for Planning on planning scheme amendments and permit decision making under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).

[5] As an independent heritage consultant, I have advised on heritage assessment, management and works to heritage places including private dwellings, places of worship, institutional and commercial buildings, and industrial properties. I continue to advise local and State Governments on statutory planning approvals and strategic planning matters and have undertaken place specific assessments and area heritage studies.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



3

1.3 Statement identifying the expert’s areas of expertise to make this report

[6] I am expert in the assessment of cultural heritage significance of historic heritage places, the administration of legislation to regulate and manage historic heritage places and objects, and in providing advice and preparing documentation to support conservation and redevelopment of heritage places. I have experience and expertise in formulating and implementing policy and controls for heritage places.

[7] As Executive Director under the Heritage Act, I have been the independent statutory decision maker for heritage permits for works to heritage places and objects, and consents for the disturbance or destruction of historical archaeological sites.

[8] As a consultant I have prepared numerous Heritage Impact Statements detailing the impact of proposed works upon places included on both the Victorian Heritage Register and the Heritage Overlay, and have provided independent peer review of development proposals on behalf of local planning authorities.

[9] I have provided expert evidence to VCAT, Planning Panels Victoria and the Heritage Council of Victorian under the instruction of private property owners, developers and local government.

1.4 Statement identifying other significant contributors to the report

[10] This report was prepared with the assistance of Renae Jarman, Director of GJM Heritage. The views expressed in this report are my own.

1.5 The identity and qualifications of the person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert relied in making the report

[11] Three-dimensional (3D) modelling prepared by Tract was relied upon in preparing this evidence.

1.6 Instructions

[12] On 24 October 2019, I was instructed in writing by Ms Kristin Richardson of Maddocks Lawyers (Maddocks) to prepare an expert witness report that:

• Includes my opinion on whether the controls proposed to be introduced though Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 are necessary and sufficient to achieve an acceptable heritage outcome, including whether the changes from the exhibited DDO17 to Council’s preferred version of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 are necessary and sufficient to achieve an acceptable heritage outcome; and

• Responds to submission insofar as they relate to heritage matters.

[13] On 24 November 2019, I received additional instructions to consider late submissions 35 and 36.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



4

[14] I was provided with a copy of Planning Panels Victoria’s guidance for Expert Witnesses (April 2019).

1.7 Relationship between the expert witness and the City of Yarra [15] Outside of providing heritage advice on various matters, there is no private or business

relationship between myself and the City of Yarra or Maddocks Lawyers.

1.8 Reports and documents relied upon

[16] The documents I have relied upon in the preparation of my evidence are:

• Swan Street Structure Plan, David Lock Associates, January 2014 (Structure Plan)

• Swan Street Activity Centre Built Form Framework (Draft Report), Tract, September 2017 (Tract Report)

• Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review, GJM Heritage, 27 September 2017 (Heritage Review)

• Swan Street Built Form Study: Heritage Assessments & Analysis, GJM Heritage, 5 October 2017 (Heritage Assessments Report)

• Memorandum of Advice: Memorandum of Advice: Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 - Swan Street Activity Centre, Response to submissions in relation to gradings, GJM Heritage, GJM Heritage, 21 January 2019

• Memorandum of Advice: Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Response to submissions in relation to gradings, GJM Heritage, 17 July 2019 [Annexure A]

• Preliminary Heritage Advice: Yarra Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Richmond, GJM Heritage, 30 August 2019 [Annexure B]

• Swan Street Activity Centre - 3D Modelling Report, Tract, 18 October 2019 (Tract Modelling)

• Fly-through videos of each precinct from Council’s website

• Exhibited Planning Scheme Amendment documentation for C191 including Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17)

• Post-exhibition changes including:

o Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO25)




• C191 submissions provided to me by Ms Richardson, with particular reference to:

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



5

o Submission 3; o Submission 6; o Submission 7; o Submission 8; o Submission 11; o Submission 13; o Submission 14; o Submission 15; o Submission 16; o Submission 17; o Submission 18; o Submission 21; o Submission 22; o Submission 25; o Submission 27; o Submission 29; and o Submission 30.

• In addition, I have had regard to the following submissions made post exhibition on Council’s preferred version of DDO25, DDO25, DDO27 and DDO28:

o Submission 3b; o Submission 31; o Submission 33; o Submission 35; and o Submission 36.

• Agenda and minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Yarra City Council held on 10 September 2019 and 17 October 2019

• Clauses 15, 15.03-1S, 21.05-1, 21.05-2, 22.02, 22.10, 43.01 and 71.02-3 of the Yarra Planning Scheme

• Incorporated Document City of Yarra Review of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007, Appendix 8, Revised December 2017, updated May 2018 (Appendix 8)

• Landmarks & Views Assessment, Ethos Urban, October 2019.

• Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017)

• A Practitioner’s Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes (Version 1.1, October 2018)

• Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (June 2015) (PPN1, 2015)

• Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (August 2018) (PPN1)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



6

• Planning Practice Note 59: Role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes (June 2015) (PPN59)

• Planning Practice Note 60: Height and setback controls for activity centres (June 2015) (PPN60, June 2015)

• Planning Practice Note 60: Height and setback controls for activity centres (September 2018) (PPN60)

• Planning Panel Report Yarra Amendment C220 – Johnston Street Built Form Controls

• Planning Panel Report Yarra Amendment C231 – Queens Parade Built Form Controls

• Planning Panel Report Melbourne Amendment C240 – Bourke Hill

• Planning Panel Report Melbourne Amendment C258 – Heritage Policies Review

• Planning Panel Report Melbourne Amendment C308 – Central Melbourne Urban Design

• Planning Panel Report Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C134 – Brunswick Activity Centre

• Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013 (The Burra Charter)

• Yarra Housing Strategy, adopted 4 September 2018.

1.10 Statement identifying the role the Expert had in preparing or overseeing the exhibited report(s)

[17] GJM Heritage (GJM) prepared the ‘Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review’ (dated 29 September 2017) (Heritage Review) and the ‘Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis’ (dated 5 October 2017) (Heritage Assessments Report). The GJM advice followed the preparation of the Swan Street Structure Plan by David Lock Associates in 2014, and the preparation of recommended built form controls in the ‘Swan Street Activity Centre Built Form Framework’ (Built Form Framework) by Tract Consultants in September 2017. GJM was commissioned to consider whether the recommendations of the Built Form Framework gave appropriate weight to the heritage fabric and values of the Study Area. This work ultimately informed Council’s proposed Amendment C191 to the Yarra Planning Scheme.

[18] In December 2018, GJM was engaged by the City of Yarra to advise on two heritage issues raised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) in their conditional authorisation to prepare Amendment C191. In response, a memorandum of advice was issued on 21 January 2019 that provided additional advice confirming the heritage significance of 273A and 319-325 Swan Street.

[19] Through the exhibition of Amendment C191 a number of submissions were received. The City of Yarra requested that GJM review and provide a response in relation to submissions 15 (30-40 Swan Street, Richmond), 17 (218 Swan Street, Richmond), 18 (57-61 Swan Street,

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



7

Richmond) and 25 (67 Docker Street, Richmond), and this response was provided in a memorandum of advice dated 17 July 2019 (provided at Annexure A of this evidence).

[20] In July 2019, GJM was engaged to attend a workshop to test and discuss potential responses to public submissions received with regards to heritage. Additionally, GJM was engaged to provide written advice confirming our position on upper-level setbacks and heights to heritage places within Precincts 1 and 2 of DDO17 (note: Precincts 3 and 4 were not reviewed as part of this advice). On 26 July 2019, a workshop was held at the offices of Tract Consultants with GJM and Council in attendance, at which updated three-dimensional modelling of the Swan Street Activity Centre was considered. A report dated 30 August 2019 summarised GJM’s findings in regards to these matters but did not provide a full review of DDO17 and only considered the specific elements requested to be reviewed. This report is provided as Annexure B.

[21] GJM was not involved in the drafting of DDO17 or the post-exhibition DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28.

1.11 Facts, matters and assumptions upon which statement proceeds

[22] In the preparation of this report, it is assumed that all material referred to above, including the exhibited amendment documents and more recent 3D modelling, are current and correct in the information they contain at the time of completion of this report.

[23] Several site visits were made to the Swan Street project area during the preparation of the 2017 GJM reports and further site inspections were undertaken in the preparation of additional memoranda of advice and the preliminary heritage advice dated 30 August 2019. All photos were taken by GJM unless otherwise stated.

1.12 Any questions falling outside the expert’s expertise

[24] No questions have been raised that fall outside my expertise. However, I have not had specific regard to the economic and social impacts of this amendment, as the assessment of these impacts falls outside my area of expertise.

1.13 Summary opinion

[25] In summary, it is my view that:

• Council’s preferred version of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 are generally supported from a heritage perspective, subject to amendments identified in the tables within this statement of evidence. These will achieve an improved heritage outcome, and provide a clearer set of controls tailored to the particular precincts than DDO17.

• DDO28 will require a general reduction in height to 4 or 5 storeys to achieve an outcome that places satisfactory weight on the heritage values of HO474 – Burnley Street Precinct.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



8

• Some changes to the controls within the tables for Council’s preferred version of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 are recommended to achieve an acceptable heritage outcome; these are provided in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this evidence.

• The proposed application of mandatory controls within the land subject to the Heritage Overlay is consistent with the guidance provided by Planning Practice Notes 59 and 60 and that the relevant tests for the use of mandatory controls are met.

• DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 should avoid differentiating between mandatory and preferred controls based on the significance or grading of part of a streetscape.

• The heritage and precinct specific design requirements articulated in Council’s preferred version of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 are generally consistent with the recommendations of the Heritage Review. However, it is my view that a recession plane or view line test similar to that included within Figures 1 and 2 of the Council adopted version of DDO15 – Johnston Street Activity Centre – should be incorporated into DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 insofar as they affect land subject to or abutting the Heritage Overlay to complement the proposed height and setback controls.

• The submissions made by the community members, in particular the and and reviewed as part

of this evidence, generally achieve a better heritage outcome than that recommended by the Heritage Review, or DDO17 as exhibited, or the Council preferred versions of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28. However, in my opinion, Council’s preferred versions of DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 provide appropriate weight to heritage conservation considerations and are consistent with the application of the City of Yarra’s existing heritage policy.

• Having further reviewed submissions received and the previous advice provided by GJM Heritage, it is my view that the changes to the extent of Heritage Overlays and gradings within Appendix 8 recommended in the Heritage Assessments Report should be implemented.

1.14 Declaration

[26] I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Jim Gard’ner, Director - GJM Heritage

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



9

2. Swan Street Built Form Study Area [27] The Swan Street Built Form Study Area (the Study Area) included the length of Swan Street

from Punt Road in the west to Burnley Park in the east. It extended generally from the railway line in the south to the northern boundary of allotments on the north side of Swan Street. At Church Street, the Study Area extended to approximately 120 metres north of Swan Street. Within its extent, the Study Area includes highly intact nineteenth and early twentieth century retail streetscapes, particularly at its western end between the railway viaduct and Church Street. Three additional areas were added to the Study Area during the project, as shown in red in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Extent of Study Area outlined in red with additional areas for consideration shaded in red (from Figure 2 Heritage Review)

[28] The Study Area included parts of four precincts identified within the Structure Plan: Precinct 1 – Richmond Station, Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail, Precinct 3 – Swan Street East and Precinct 4 – Burnley Station Village. These precincts were generally reflected in the four precincts included within DDO17 and the extent of coverage for DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 respectively.

[29] Of these precincts, it is only Precinct 2 that is substantially affected by the Heritage Overlay (HO335 – Swan Street Precinct, Richmond). Precinct 2 also includes three places included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR), namely: Former Richmond Post Office, 90-92 Swan Street (H0048), Dimmeys, 140-160 Swan Street (H2184), Former State Bank, and 216 Swan Street (H0732). Precincts 1 and 3 contain some individual heritage places but are largely unencumbered by the Heritage Overlay. Precinct 4 contains HO474 – Burnley Street Precinct, Richmond as well as individual heritage places.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



10

Figure 2. Swan Street Structure Plan area and precincts (© David Lock & Associates)

[30] The character of the Study Area varies greatly along the length of Swan Street, moving from the highly intact turn of the century ‘High Street’ towards the western end, to a diverse and substantially less historically intact retail and residential area towards the east. While predominantly occupied by retail and commercial uses, the Study Area includes some residential properties at its eastern end. The four precincts are described further below.

2.1 Precinct 1 – Richmond Station

[31] West of the railway bridge, the Richmond Railway Station dominates the north side of Swan Street. The south side contains a mixture of intact late-nineteenth and early twentieth century two-storey buildings, including the Precinct Hotel, as well as at-grade car parks and forecourts.

2.2 Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre

[32] The principal Swan Street High Street commences immediately east of the railway viaduct with the Corner Hotel located on the north side and the former Richmond Post Office on the south side of Swan Street. Between the railway viaduct and the apex of the hill at Brighton Street, Swan Street has a highly consistent Victorian and Edwardian commercial character. The built form ranges from narrow fronted single and two-storey shops with simple parapets, to large two and three-storey commercial buildings with highly decorated facades and parapets. The majority of the heritage buildings are identified as ‘contributory’

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



11

buildings within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335), with the larger and more elaborately articulated buildings often identified as ‘individually significant’. While their heritage gradings may differ, similar planning controls are required to protect their heritage values and that of the High Street streetscape in its totality. A small number of late twentieth century and early twenty-first century buildings have been constructed as infill in an otherwise highly intact turn of the century streetscape.

[33] The consistent heritage character continues along the west side of Church Street between Swan Street and the railway line to the south. The majority of the buildings on the east side of Church Street have been redeveloped during the twentieth century. Church Street to the north of Swan Street does not retain the same degree of intactness and as a result does not present as a consistent heritage streetscape. However, the scale remains predominantly two-storey.

2.3 Precinct 3 – Swan Street East

[34] The intactness and consistency of the streetscape decreases beyond the eastern boundary of the Swan Street Precinct (HO335). East of Charles Street, the north side of Swan Street contains a mixture of nineteenth century commercial buildings, single and two-storey buildings dating from the early to late twentieth century, and a number of individually significant large-scale buildings including the Central Club Hotel (HO285), the Richmond Drill Hall (HO440), and the Burnley Theatre (HO286). While the majority of these buildings retain a parapeted form, some are atypical in form, such as the Burnley Theatre.

[35] The south side of Swan Street, east of Brighton Street, retains little nineteenth or early twentieth century fabric and the buildings are predominantly of recent construction. Many have at-grade forecourts to the Swan Street frontage.

2.4 Precinct 4 – Burnley Station

[36] Further east, at the intersection of Burnley Street, the Burnley Street Precinct (HO474) includes a hotel and eight commercial properties on the north side of Swan Street (including 413 and 415 Swan Street, which is included in the Heritage Overlay as HO442). The Burnley Street Precinct extends north to include the single and two-storey shops and the terrace of single-storey houses at 345-367 Burnley Street, with 400-402 Burnley Street included within an individual Heritage Overlay (HO429). Together these form a fairly intact row of single and two-storey buildings dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The buildings are generally of more modest scale and detail, typical of a local shopping centre, in contrast to the larger and more highly detailed buildings of the Swan Street Precinct. Opposite the Burnley Street Precinct, on the south side of Swan Street, are a group of five single-storey early twentieth century houses that have been assessed as not having heritage significance.

[37] East of the Burnley Street Precinct, the north side of Swan Street retains little nineteenth or early twentieth century fabric and, like the south side, the buildings are predominantly of recent construction. To the east of Belgravia Street, the north side of Swan Street becomes

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



12

residential in character and this continues to Park Grove at the eastern end of the Study Area, abutting the Burnley Gardens. The residences on the north side of Swan Street are included within the Bendigo Street Precinct (HO309) and a small number of these houses are contained in the Study Area, however these properties were excluded from the extent of DDO19 (and subsequently DDO28). The properties on the south side of Swan Street, opposite the Bendigo Street Precinct, are unadorned single and two-storey commercial buildings, which date from the mid-twentieth century onwards.

Figure 3. The south side of Swan Street from Richmond Railway Station [Precinct 1]

Figure 4. Swan Street looking east from Bontherambo Street [Precinct 2]

Figure 5. The south side of Swan Street looking east from Docker Street [Precinct 2]

Figure 6. Church Street looking south from Swan Street [Precinct 2]

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



13

Figure 7. North side of Swan Street looking west from Charles Street [Precinct 2]

Figure 8. North side of Swan Street looking east from Lord Street [Precinct 3]

Figure 9. North side of Swan Street looking west from east of Burnley Street [Precinct 4]

Figure 10. West side of Burnley Street looking south from Farmer Street [Precinct 4]

Figure 11. 491-501 Swan Street [part Precinct 4]

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



14

Figure 12. Precinct 1 (as amended) showing extent of Heritage Overlay (pink) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

Figure 13. Precinct 1 (as amended) showing extent of VHR (yellow) (Note: No VHR places within Precinct 1) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



15

Figure 14. Precinct 2 showing extent of Heritage Overlay (pink) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

Figure 15. Precinct 2 showing extent of VHR (yellow) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



16

Figure 16. Precinct 3 showing extent of Heritage Overlay (pink) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

Figure 17. Precinct 3 extent of VHR (yellow) (Note: No VHR places within Precinct 3) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



17

Figure 18. Precinct 4 (as amended) showing extent of Heritage Overlay (pink) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

Figure 19. Precinct 4 (as amended) showing extent of VHR (yellow) (Note: No VHR places within Precinct 4) (VicMap, retrieved 11 November 2019)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



18

3. Heritage Assessments Report and Heritage Review [38] GJM was commissioned by the City of Yarra to prepare two discrete pieces of heritage work

within the Study Area to inform the Built Form Framework. These are discussed in detail below.

3.1 Heritage Assessments Report

[39] The GJM ‘Swan Street Built Form Study: Heritage Assessments & Analysis Report’ (5 October 2017) (Heritage Assessments Report) was commissioned to:

• Review the suitability of the extent of the existing Heritage Overlays within the Study Area and to identify where gaps or inconsistencies exist (if any); and

• Review the suitability of the existing Statements of Significance for heritage places and precincts against the extant heritage fabric and identify where the statements require updating for the purposes of properly considering built form recommendations.

[40] A building by building review of the gradings (‘Individually significant’, ‘Contributory’ and ‘Not-contributory’) was not undertaken as part of the scope and only clear anomalies were identified and re-gradings recommended.

[41] The heritage assessments for places recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay were completed having regard to the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning’s Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (July 2015) (PPN1 2015, current at the time of the assessments) and the following gradings for heritage places as defined in Council’s heritage policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme (‘Development Guidelines for sites subject to the Heritage Overlay’):

Individually significant: The place is a heritage place in its own right. Within a Heritage Overlay applying to an area each individually significant place is also Contributory.

Contributory: The place is a contributory element within a larger heritage place. A contributory element could include a building, building groups and works, as well as building or landscape parts such as chimneys, verandahs, wall openings, rooflines and paving.

Not contributory: The place is not individually significant and not contributory within the heritage place.

[42] Each property was visually inspected from the street and historic research was conducted using a variety of sources including historic plans and maps (including the Kearney Map and Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Plans), Sands and McDougall Directories, rate books and historic photographs and aerials. Comparative analysis against similar places included in the Heritage Overlay within a similar geographic area was undertaken to determine whether the places satisfied the threshold for local heritage significance.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



19

[43] A series of recommendations arose from the Heritage Assessments Report, which are summarised in Table 1. A response to the submissions made in respect of specific property recommendations is provided in Section 7 of this evidence.

Table 1: Summary of Recommendations from the Heritage Assessments Report

HO number

Address Current heritage status

Recommendation

Statement of Significance Review

HO335 Swan Street Precinct, Richmond

Precinct HO Update the existing Statement of Significance.

HO309 Bendigo Street Precinct Precinct HO Update the existing Statement of Significance.

HO405 Former Greyhound Hotel, 60-62 Swan Street, Richmond

Individual HO Update the existing Statement of Significance.

HO286 Former Burnley Theatre, 365 Swan Street, Richmond

Individual HO Update the existing Statement of Significance

HO294 House, 15 Wellington Street, Cremorne

Individual HO Update the existing Statement of Significance

Assessment for Inclusion in the Heritage Overlay

Interim HO524

Swan Street West Precinct, 30-42 Swan Street

Outside HO Include 30-42 Swan Street on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as the ‘Swan Street West Precinct’, comprising four ‘Contributory’ graded buildings.

Interim HO522

Shop and Residence, 273A Swan Street

Outside HO Include 273A Swan Street on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as an individual heritage place.

Interim HO523

Pair of Shops and Residences, 323-325 Swan Street

Outside HO Include 323-325 Swan Street on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as an individual heritage place.

Extension of Swan Street Precinct Heritage Overlay (HO335)

Interim HO501

223-239 Swan Street Outside HO Extend the eastern boundary of HO335 to include 223-239 Swan Street.

Heritage Grading Review

HO335 129 Swan Street ‘unknown’ Amend Appendix 8 to change the grading of this building to ‘Not-contributory’.

HO335 218 Swan Street ‘contributory’ Amend Appendix 8 to change the grading of this building to ‘Not-contributory’.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



20

HO332 67 Docker Street ‘contributory’ Amend Appendix 8 to change the grading of this building to ‘Not-contributory’.

Heritage Overlay Boundary Review

HO364 375-377 Punt Road ‘Contributory’ Properties demolished and redeveloped - recommend removal from HO364 and Appendix 8.

HO315 416-418 Church Street ‘Non-contributory’ 416-418 Church Road is the southern-most property on the west side of Church Street within HO315 (Church Street Precinct) recommended removal of this property from HO315 and Appendix 8.

HO332 57 Swan Street (The Corner Hotel)

‘Individually significant’

Amend the boundaries of HO332 and HO335 to exclude 57 Swan Street from HO332 and include within HO335 and update Appendix 8 to reflect the commercial nature of this building.

Update the Statement of Significance to better reflect the social (intangible) significance of this live music venue.

3.2 Heritage Review

[44] At the direction of Council at project inception, the ‘Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review’ (27 September 2017) (Heritage Review) was prepared having specific regard to the tension between the planning policy objectives of Activity Centres to increase the intensity of development and the requirements to retain heritage places. The Heritage Review describes this on pages 2-4:

Council is undertaking a Swan Street Built Form Study (the Study) in conjunction with Tract Consultants following the adoption of the Swan Street Structure Plan (SSSP) in 2014. The SSSP, prepared by David Lock & Associates, provides a strategic plan and vision for the Swan Street area, which comprises ten distinct precincts. The SSSP contains strategies and objectives in relation to the four key themes of land use, built form, public realm and access and movement, with specific aims that include the protection of the valued heritage character of the area.

To give meaningful effect to the SSSP in the Yarra Planning Scheme, the Study reviews the existing and desired built environment in the Swan Street corridor within the SSSP area. The Study will in turn inform the content of a Design Development Overlay (DDO), which will form part of a future amendment to the Yarra Planning Scheme. The Study Area encompasses – in full or in part – five of the ten SSSP precincts along the Swan Street corridor.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



21

As part of the Study, GJM Heritage (GJM) has been commissioned by Council to undertake a Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review (Heritage Review) to provide specific advice on the heritage considerations for the Study Area. The purpose of the Heritage Review is to ensure that the recommendations arising from the Study – and translated into the DDO – take full and proper account of the important heritage values within the Study Area, leading to fully integrated decision-making when considering new development within the Swan Street corridor.

The Heritage Review considers heritage places and precincts currently included in the Heritage Overlay of the Yarra Planning Scheme. GJM has considered the suitability of the extent of the existing Heritage Overlays and reviewed the currency of the existing Statements of Significance to ensure they provide adequate guidance for the identification and management of important heritage features. GJM has also analysed and evaluated preliminary recommendations for built form controls prepared by Tract Consulting from a heritage perspective, and this analysis will inform the final recommendations of the Study.

[45] A number of planning policies and provisions, including the Yarra Housing Strategy, Clause 71.02-3 of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) (at Clause 10 prior to the introduction of VC148) and Plan Melbourne 2017-20501 supported the approach taken.

[46] The Swan Street Activity Centre is generally zoned Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) and is a designated Major Activity Centre (MAC). The Yarra Housing Strategy variously identifies parts of the Activity Centre as being ‘Moderate’ and ‘High’ change areas. The area within the Activity Centre on the north side of Swan Street, east of Punt Road, is identified as a ‘Moderate’ change area in the Housing Strategy as is the southern side of Swan Street between Punt Road and Coppin Street. The land on the southern side of Swan Street east of Coppin Street is identified as being a ‘High’ change area.

[47] Clause 71.02-3 of the VPP addresses ‘integrated decision making’, and states:

Society has various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic wellbeing, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social wellbeing affected by land use and development.

Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. However, in bushfire affected areas,

1 Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is listed as a relevant policy document at Clause 11.01-1S – Settlement and is listed as

a Background Document at Table 72.08 for Clauses 10 to 19 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



22

planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy consideration.

[48] In addition to the above policy context, the Heritage Review was also prepared having regard to recent Planning Panel recommendations relating to DDO controls for Activity Centres. At that time of preparing the Heritage Review, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C134, gazetted on 11 August 2016, was the most relevant of these given the similarities in historic built form and land uses.

[49] In summary, the Heritage Review found that a number of mandatory built form parameters were required to ensure the heritage values of the Swan Street ‘high street’ were appropriately managed into the future. These included mandatory street wall heights, street wall setbacks and upper level setbacks. In addition, a number of discretionary parameters were recommended to encourage new built form to respond appropriately to the important heritage context of the area. The full suite of recommendations is found within the Heritage Review.

[50] The Heritage Review was intended to inform Council’s consideration of built form controls that provided weight to heritage conservation while recognising the expectation for increased density and development through the MAC status and C1Z zoning of Swan Street.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



23

4. Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 - Exhibited [51] The Amendment C191 Explanatory Report states that the amendment is required to

manage and respond to increased development activity along the Swan Street Activity Centre area (Activity Centre). The extent of the land proposed to be subject to DDO17 was reduced from the Study Area extent considered as part of the Heritage Review. DDO17 includes modified extents of the four precincts included in the Structure Plan.

Figure 20. Swan Street Activity Centre (Figure 1 from the Yarra C191 Explanatory Report)

[52] The purpose of Amendment C191, as set out in the Explanatory Report, is:

As a designated major activity centre, Swan Street, Richmond is required to play a significant role in achieving the directions of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, in relation to both housing and employment. Council’s recently adopted Housing Strategy also seeks to direct new housing to areas within or close to activity areas that have good access to public transport, open space, and other services and limit housing growth in established residential areas, consistent with Plan Melbourne, state and regional policy

Swan Street, Richmond is a highly intact turn of the [twentieth] century ‘high street’ of consistent scale and architectural quality. Currently, the centre does not have permanent built form planning controls to ensure that new development has regard to the potential impacts on the heritage significance of Swan Street, or the surrounding low scale (heritage) residential neighbourhoods.

[53] As exhibited, Amendment C191 sought to introduce DDO17 which is described as follows:

Amendment C191 proposes to implement the built form recommendations of the Swan Street Activity Centre Built Form Framework, September 2017 (framework)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



24

through the introduction of Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17) on a permanent basis. The framework has been prepared by Tract (urban design) with extensive input from GJM Heritage (heritage) and Traffix Group (access and movement). It implements and builds upon the vision and key principles for change outlined in the Swan Street Structure Plan and provides a strong strategic basis for the future planning of the area.

DDO17 includes general and precinct controls that respond to the changing context along Swan Street. Mandatory heights are proposed to be applied to the majority of Precinct 2 in response to the Precinct’s intact heritage streetscape and also to Precincts 3 and 4 to protect the amenity of adjoining low scale residential areas. The framework is a comprehensive piece of strategic work that demonstrates mandatory controls are appropriate in this context and necessary to achieve the preferred built form outcomes.

Discretionary height controls are proposed to be applied to land outside of the Heritage Overlay, where there are no sensitive interfaces, for example, land on the south side of Swan Street that is in close proximity to the railway line and commercial land (Precincts 1, 3 and 4). These are appropriate locations for discretionary controls to provide more flexibility to accommodate contextual variations and innovative design. Where discretionary building heights are proposed in DDO17, a range of performance-based provisions would need to be met to ensure appropriate development.

Importantly, the DDO provides built form certainty where there are heritage, residential amenity, and public realm sensitivities and allows for some discretion where there are fewer site constraints. Amendment C191 will facilitate development appropriate to a major activity centre, whilst ensuring that new development is site responsive, and improved amenity outcomes are achieved.

[54] Of particular relevance to this evidence, Amendment C191 proposes the following amendments to the extent and application of the Heritage Overlay within the Activity Centre:

Amendment C191 gives effect to the heritage recommendations of the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments & Analysis (GJM Heritage, October 2017), including applying the Heritage Overlay to 15 places of heritage significance and removing 4 places from the Heritage Overlay, as they do not contribute to the significance of their broader heritage precincts. The assessment has also recommended that Appendix 8 of the Yarra Planning Scheme be amended to identify 3 places as ‘not contributory’ to the Swan Street Precinct, Richmond (HO335) and the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332) as they have undergone substantial alterations, which have irrevocably reduced their heritage significance.

The assessment has also recommended removing the place at 57 Swan Street (the Corner Hotel) from the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332) and including it as an

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



25

individually significant place within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335), as the hotel has formed an important part of the social and reactional history of Swan Street.

4.1 Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay

[55] DDO17 contains general and precinct specific design requirements for each precinct within the Activity Centre, including built form controls relating to building height, street wall height and front setbacks, upper level setbacks, and side and rear boundary setbacks. DDO17 also contains heritage design requirements which apply to land affected by a Heritage Overlay or immediately adjacent to a heritage building, which are to be read in conjunction with the precinct design requirements.

[56] DDO17 includes the following ‘General design objectives’:

• To recognise and respond to the distinct character and varying development opportunities defined by the four precincts along Swan Street.

• To support a new mid rise scale built form character with lower built form at the interfaces with streets and the adjoining low rise residential areas that maintains an active, high quality and pedestrian friendly environment.

• To ensure development maintains the prominence of the heritage street wall and respects the architectural form and qualities of heritage buildings and the heritage streetscapes.

• To minimise the amenity impacts on residential properties adjoining the Swan Street Activity Centre including overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk impacts.

• To ensure that vehicular access to development does not adversely impact the level of service, efficiency, and safety of the arterial and tram network.

[57] Following is a summary of the proposed built form controls for each precinct within DDO17.

4.1.1 Precinct 1 – Richmond Station

[58] Precinct 1 generally extends to the depth of one property along the south side of Swan Street from Punt Road in the west to Stephenson Street (which follows the line of the railway viaduct) in the east. It includes two heritage places: Interim HO524 – Swan Street West Precinct (30-42 Swan Street), and HO405 – Precinct Hotel (60-62 Swan Street), as well as a small part of land facing Punt Road within HO364 which is not occupied by any contributory buildings.

[59] Within Precinct 1, DDO17 establishes preferred building heights of 21m and 27m with a mandatory minimum upper level setback behind the front of ‘Individually Significant’ graded heritage buildings of 5m and a preferred minimum upper level setback behind the front of other buildings of 5m.

[60] Building heights and setbacks are to be informed by a discretionary control that:

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



26

Any part of a building above the street wall must be designed to ensure that it occupies no more than one third of the vertical angle defined by the whole building in the view from a sight line of 1.7 metres (on the opposite side of the street).

[61] The street wall height for infill development within or adjacent to land subject to the Heritage Overlay (Interface C) is identified as:

11m maximum or the parapet height of the adjoining individually significant or contributory building if higher than 11m.

8m minimum.

Match the parapet height of the taller adjoining heritage building.

4.1.2 Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre

[62] For Precinct 2, DDO17 provides a range of preferred and mandatory upper level heights ranging from 18m on the north side of Swan Street within HO335 to 34m on larger sites addressing the rail corridor at the south of the precinct.

[63] A mandatory minimum upper level setback behind the front of ‘Individually Significant’ graded heritage buildings of 5m has been applied with a preferred 5m minimum upper level setback behind the front of other buildings to the north side of Swan Street and on the south east of Royal Place. A 10m upper level setback for development up to 21m in height and 20m for any height above 21m is provided on the south side of Swan Street to protect the landmark views of the Dimmeys Clocktower. Minimum 5m preferred setbacks from side streets are provided for land affected by HO335 and buildings graded ‘Individually Significant’ and 3m elsewhere.

[64] Precinct 2 generally applies the same street wall height requirements and 1/3:2/3 upper level visibility test as proposed for Precinct 1.

4.1.3 Precinct 3 – Swan Street East

[65] In recognition of the absence of intact heritage precincts, DDO17 provides for maximum mandatory and preferred heights of between 21m and 40m within this precinct, with the highest built form being proposed on the southern side of Swan Street where there are few, if any, sensitive interfaces.

[66] The same street wall heights and 1/3:2/3 upper level visibility test as proposed for Precincts 1 and 2 is applied to ‘Individually Significant’ graded buildings within Precinct 3.

4.1.4 Precinct 4 – Burnley Station

[67] DDO17 provides a range of preferred and mandatory upper level heights ranging from 18m on the north side of Swan Street east of Belgravia Street to 40m on larger sites addressing the rail corridor at the south of the precinct. A 21m mandatory height is applied to the majority of HO474 addressing Burnley Street.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



27

[68] A mandatory 5m minimum upper level setback behind the front of ‘Individually Significant’ graded heritage buildings has been applied, along with a preferred 5m minimum upper level setback behind the front of other buildings to Burnley Street and the north side of Swan Street on the blocks flanking Burnley Street. A minimum 10m mandatory setback is applied to the former Burnley Theatre, 365 Swan Street (HO286). Minimum 5m preferred setbacks from side streets are provided for land affected by HO474 and buildings graded ‘Individually Significant’ and generally 3m elsewhere. Precinct 4 applies the same street wall height requirements and 1/3:2/3 upper level visibility test at ‘Interface C’ as found in Precincts 1, 2 and 3.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



28

5. Changes in Policy Setting since Project Completion and Exhibition [69] Since the completion of the Heritage Review in September 2017 and exhibition of

Amendment C191 there have been a number of key matters that have impacted on the policy settings in which the project was undertaken. These are:

• Planning Panel Reports into Yarra Amendments C220 and C231 and Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C258;

• Submissions made during and after the exhibition of Amendment C191;

• Additional, more detailed modelling prepared by Tract following exhibition of Amendment C191;

• The updates made to PPN60; and

• The review of the City of Yarra’s landmarks policy.

5.1 Planning Panel Report into Yarra Amendment C220

[70] The Panel Report into Amendment C220 provides guidance of relevance to Amendment C191. In particular, the Panel stated:

In urban design terms, the 6 metre setback will retain the ‘human scale’ of Johnston Street, secure the distinction between the street wall and upper levels and will reduce the potential for overshadowing and adverse wind conditions.

...

The Panel does not agree that less significant sections [of Johnston Street] warrant a different treatment. Less significant areas equally deserve to exhibit the overall urban design outcome: a strong street wall with a distinct setback to the mid level form. (p.66)

[71] Page 56 of the Panel Report recommends the following objective which is relevant to Precinct 2 – Swan Street Activity Centre (which comprises the Swan Street Precinct, HO335) and part of Precinct 4 – Burnley Street Village (which includes Burnley Street Precinct, HO474):

To preserve the valued heritage character of the streetscape and ensure that the predominantly two storey (heritage scale) street-wall remains the visually prominent built form of Johnston Street west of the railway line bridge, ensuring that upper levels are visually recessive.

[72] The Panel considering Amendment C220 discussed the use of a 45 degree angular recession plane within DDO15 instead of a visibility ratio or test (p.70):

The issue the Panel has with the use of a street wall to upper level visibility ratio of upper level visibility to street wall is that the quantum of upper level development that is possible is highly dependent on the height of the street wall. In Johnston

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



29

Street where a lower scale heritage street wall may be retained the approach is unlikely to deliver an equitable outcome.

[73] The Panel concluded that a 45 degree upper level set back above a nominal 11m high street wall is appropriate for establishing the height and setbacks for new development in a predominantly two-storey streetscape.

5.2 Planning Panel Report into Yarra Amendment C231

[74] The Panel for Amendment C231 found that the strategic work undertaken in support of the amendment was strong and that it assisted in justifying the majority of the built form parameters recommended in DDO16, particularly with respect to mandatory controls. At p29 of the Panel Report, the Panel notes that:

Exceptional circumstances exist for the application of mandatory controls for development as the QPAC (Queens Parade Activity Centre) includes a number of significant and contributory heritage places and heritage fabric set within a consistent streetscape form.

[75] The Panel support for the built form parameters outlined in DDO16 is particularly instructive for Amendment C191 given the quality and variety of the built form across Swan Street is similar to that of Queens Parade.

5.3 Planning Panel Report into Melbourne Amendment C258

[76] The Panel Report into Amendment C258 recommends the abandoning of streetscape significance gradings currently included in the City of Melbourne’s Heritage Places Inventory (p.40).

[77] In my view, the findings of these Panels remove the need to justify mandatory controls on the basis of the level of significance as articulated within the GJM Review, and therefore all areas within HO335 (whether graded or not) are appropriate for mandatory street wall height and setback controls if they are necessary to protect the heritage values of the precinct as a whole.

[78] In addition, it is my view that the same policy objectives and built form controls should apply for places subject to the Heritage Overlay irrespective of their grading in Appendix 8.

5.4 Submissions

[79] I have been provided with 35 submissions made either during or after the exhibition of Amendment C191. These submissions raise a number of heritage-related issues. My response to these submissions is provided in Section 7 of this statement of evidence.

5.5 Modelling

[80] In workshops held on 16 July, 26 July and 8 August 2019, updated modelling prepared by Tract tested the impact of DDO17 as exhibited as well as some alternative built form

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



30

parameters recommended through submissions and as a result of the Panel findings in respect of Amendment C220. I was involved in the second of these workshops held on 26 July 2019. Subsequent modelling of specific locations was undertaken by Tract in August that was informed, in part, by the advice provided by GJM. The GJM advice in relation to Precincts 1 and 2 was formally provided to Council in the Preliminary Heritage Advice dated 30 August 2019 [Annexure B]. The updated modelling provided a more accurate depiction of the existing form and appearance of the Study Area and from more realistic view points than had previously been made available to GJM. This modelling enabled a more thorough understanding of the potential impact of new development to be understood.

5.6 Planning Practice Note 60

[81] The GJM and Tract reports were written in the context of the June 2015 version of PPN60. In September 2018, DELWP published an updated version of this document following the completion of the pilot project Better Height Controls in Activity Centres2.

[82] Of relevance to this matter, PPN60 now provides an additional justification for the use of mandatory controls based on ‘comprehensive strategic work’, and reads:

Mandatory height or setback controls should only be applied where:

• Exceptional circumstances exist; or

• council has undertaken comprehensive strategic work and is able to demonstrate that mandatory controls are appropriate in the context, and

• they are absolutely necessary to achieve the preferred built form outcomes and it can be demonstrated that exceeding these development parameters would result in unacceptable built form outcomes.

In relation to exceptional circumstances PPN60 states:

Exceptional circumstances may be identified for individual locations or specific and confined precincts, and might include:

• significant heritage places where other controls are demonstrated to be inadequate to protect unique heritage values.

[83] The amended version of PPN60 reflects a broader shift within the application of the Victoria Planning Provisions in favour of the use of mandatory controls. In my opinion the Heritage Review, subsequent GJM advice (see Section 5.8 of this evidence for further detail), and the more recent Tract modelling collectively provide a comprehensive strategic basis for height and setback controls for land subject to the Heritage Overlay within the Study Area. The

2 Refer to the Panel Report to Yarra C220 chapter 1.2 for further discussion on the pilot project and the

amendment to PPN60.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



31

Heritage Review, previous heritage studies and the inclusion of individual heritage places and precincts on the VHR and the Heritage Overlay demonstrate the significance of the heritage values of Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre in particular.

[84] In my view, the application of mandatory controls within the land subject to the Heritage Overlay within the Activity Centre is consistent with the guidance provided by both PPN59 and PPN60, as follows:

• There is a sound strategic basis having regard to the planning policy framework as it relates to heritage.

• The controls will clearly implement a policy of protecting the consistent streetscapes in Swan Street, particularly within Precinct 2 and views to and the setting of landmark and State significant buildings including the Dimmeys Clocktower which is recoginsed within the Landmarks and Tall Structures Policy at Clause 22.03 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

• The majority of provisions are appropriate in heritage terms and will lead to the outcomes prescribed in the vast majority of cases (consistency of street wall, visually recessive development, protection of views to landmarks etc) and will avoid the risk of adverse outcomes.

• It will resolve divergent views about heritage impacts when a consistent outcome is required, and will avoid the risk of adverse heritage outcomes due to development pressure.

• The controls will likely lead to reduced costs due to lesser officer time in assessing non-compliant proposals (and applicant time in preparing them) and fewer challenges at VCAT.

5.7 Review of the City of Yarra Landmarks Policy

[85] The City of Yarra commissioned a review of the landmarks and tall structures policy at Clause 22.03 which resulted in the report Landmarks & Views Assessment prepared by Ethos Urban and dated October 2019 (Note: in 2017, GJM provided advice on the architectural features of the landmarks and tall structures typologies). The Landmarks & Views Assessment considered views to the Dimmey’s clocktower that are relevant to a consideration of new built form within Swan Street and this evidence.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



32

Figure 21. Dimmey’s Clocktower

[86] The assessment of the ‘Clock Tower of Dimmey’s, Swan Street’ in the Ethos Urban assessment identifies a number of primary views of the clocktower. In addition to those identified, there are a number of views of the Dimmey’s clocktower provided from the footpath on the north side of Swan Street. Some of these potential views (which are generally provided between Charles Street in the east and Stewart Street in the west) are obscured, or partially obscured, by shop canopies and verandahs, street trees, power poles and signage. Of these views I consider that the view from the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart Street to be relevant for informing built form controls as this is the first point at which the clocktower is the principal local landmark as you travel along Swan Street from the west. Likewise, I consider the view from the northeast corner of the intersection of Church and Swan Street to be a key view as this is a major crossroads and an important wayfinding location for pedestrians.

Figure 22. View of Dimmey’s clocktower from the intersection of Stewart and Swan Streets (©Ethos Urban)

Figure 23. View of Dimmey’s clocktower from the intersection of Church and Swan Streets

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



33

5.8 Supplementary GJM Advice

[87] Council sought three pieces of advice from GJM following the exhibition of C191, the conclusions of which are summarised below.

5.8.1 Memorandum of Advice dated 21 January 2019

[88] In December 2018, GJM was engaged by the Council to advise on two heritage issues raised by DELWP in their conditional authorisation to prepare Amendment C191. The two heritage issues identified by DELWP were as follows:

1. Whether the individually significant heritage values for the property at 273A Swan Street, Richmond (HO522) are considered to still apply, given recent works to the ground floor of the building.

2. Whether it is more appropriate to create a small heritage precinct that includes 319, 321, 323 and 325 Swan Street for Heritage Overlay HO523 (323-325 Swan Street).

[89] The GJM memorandum of advice dated 21 January 2019 concluded that:

1. The shop / residence at 273A Swan Street, Richmond, although more altered than when first assessed (in October 2016), remains comparable with other similar buildings graded ‘individually significant’ in Appendix 8 and warrants inclusion on the Heritage Overlay of the Yarra Planning Scheme;

2. 319 Swan Street should remain on the Heritage Overlay as an individual place; and

3. 323-325 Swan Street, Richmond should be included on the Heritage Overlay of the Yarra Planning Scheme as an individual place and that these properties should not be included with 319 and 321 Swan Street as a precinct-based Heritage Overlay given the very small size of such a precinct.

5.8.2 Memorandum of Advice dated 17 July 2019 [Annexure A]

[90] Following exhibition of Yarra C191, Council requested that GJM review and provide a response in relation to the submissions 15 (30-40 Swan Street, Richmond), 17 (218 Swan Street, Richmond), 18 (57-61 Swan Street, Richmond) and 25 (67 Docker Street, Richmond). The memorandum of advice dated 17 July 2019 is provided as Annexure A. It concluded:

The Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review provided advice on the minimum setbacks and other built form controls necessary to protect the identified heritage values of the study area noting its underlying zoning and Major Activity Centre status. This review was informed by the Swan Street Structure Plan and the 3D modelling and built from controls recommended by Tract. Some, but not all, of the recommended controls were translated into the exhibited version of DDO17. Subsequently, the Yarra C220 Panel Report has made recommendations relevant to Swan Street which warrant revisiting the use of a sight line test to moderate upper level built form and differentiating between the built form controls applied to

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



34

‘Individually Significant’ and ‘Contributory’ buildings. We also note that further modelling of Swan Street in the context of other submissions is also proposed.

The Heritage Assessments & Analysis report considered any anomalies in the identification, designation and mapping of heritage places within the study area. It is noted that, common to many local councils that utilise gradings or levels of significance, there is inconsistency in how gradings are applied within Appendix 8 and the Heritage Assessments & Analysis report does not attempt to re-grade every building.

[91] In relation to the individual properties identified in submissions 15, 17, 18 and 25 the memorandum recommended that:

Swan Street West precinct, 30-40 Swan Street, Richmond:

• Interim HO524 should be applied on a permanent basis

• The Statement of Significance should be an incorporated document pursuant to Clause 72.04 of the Yarra Planning Scheme

• Subject to further 3D modelling the built form controls within DDO17 should be applied.

Berties the Butcher, 218 Swan Street, Richmond:

• Should be regraded from ‘Contributory’ from ‘Not-contributory’

• Should remain within the extent of HO335 – Swan Street Precinct.

• Subject to further 3D modelling the DDO17 should be applied with the built form controls amended to apply setback and height controls that achieve an outcome similar to that sought by the sight line test.

The Corner Hotel, 51-67 Swan Street, Richmond:

• Should be removed from HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct and included within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct

• Should retain a grading of ‘Individually Significant’



67 Docker Street, Richmond:

• 65 and 67 Docker Street are houses of almost identical in form and development and should have the same grading in Appendix 8

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



35

• The C1Z zoning appears to be an anomaly and we recommended that they be rezoned from C1Z to NRZ

• 65 Docker Street is graded Not-contributory’ while 67 is graded ‘Contributory’

• 67 Docker Street should be regraded from ‘Contributory’ from ‘Not-contributory’ graded

• Should remain within the extent of HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct.

5.8.3 Preliminary Heritage Advice dated 30 August 2019 [Annexure B]

[92] In July 2019, GJM was commissioned to prepare responses to a number of submissions with regards to heritage, being submissions 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 29. GJM prepared a report entitled Preliminary Heritage Advice: Yarra Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Richmond and dated 30 August 2019 addressing these submissions and providing advice in relation to the built form controls for Precincts 1 and 2 within DDO17. This report did not provide a full review of DDO17 and only considered the specific elements requested to be reviewed.

[93] The preliminary heritage advice report is provided in Annexure B. It made the following recommendations:

• A mandatory upper level setback of 6m from the heritage street wall is appropriate between Wellington and Cremorne Streets on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 1 to protect the visual prominence of the heritage street wall of Interim HO524 – Swan Street West.

• A mandatory upper level setback of 6m from the heritage street wall is appropriate to the north side of Swan Street and east of Royal Place on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 2.

• A 10m mandatory upper level setback between the railway viaduct and Royal Place on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 2 is necessary to protect the visual prominence of the Dimmeys Tower.

• Further modelling of pedestrian views towards the Dimmeys Tower based on the improved Council base data would be desirable as the GJM Built Form Heritage Review relies on earlier modelling prepared by Tract that utilised less accurate Google Streetview imagery.

• The upper level setback of individual heritage places on prominent street corners – such as the Precinct Hotel at 60-62 Swan Street - should be informed by the extent of the heritage fabric and may require site specific built form controls including upper level setbacks.

• Where a new infill development is proposed, the new building should match to the predominant parapet height of the heritage street wall or the taller of the

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



36

immediately adjacent heritage façade (note: the height of the infill or new street wall should be no lower than 8m and no higher than 11m).

• The maximum heights proposed within parts of Precincts 1 and 2 are, in my view, one or two storeys taller than that which is likely to achieve a satisfactory heritage outcome – refer to Chapter 3 and Figures 7 and 9.

• The mapping of maximum building heights within Precinct 2 should be simplified and better reflect the impacts of the mandatory upper level setbacks.

• Having considered the Panel recommendations for Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C220 and Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C258, it is my view that different built form controls or levels of heritage fabric retention should not be applied based on levels of heritage significance.

• I support splitting DDO17 into four separate DDOs that provide finer grained guidance and tailored controls to each precinct.

• Consistent with the Panel recommendations for C220 and the post exhibition changes made to DDO16 within Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C231, it is recommended that use of a sightline test within DDO17 be removed from the control to ensure consistency of practice across the City of Yarra. The combination of mandatory street wall height, upper level setback and the 45o angular plane recommended in the Yarra C220 Panel Report should be considered.

• The heights stated in metres and number of storeys should be reviewed to ensure consistency and discourage low inter-floor heights at ground and first levels that would compromise the retail and commercial activities traditionally associated with Swan Street.

• Having further considered submissions 15, 17, 18 and 21, no changes are recommended to the proposed grading recommendations of the properties addressed in these submissions. Refer also to the separate Memorandum of Advice, dated 17 July 2019, prepared by GJM to provide a detailed response to the submissions in relation to gradings.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



37

6. Opinion on Post-Exhibition Changes to Amendment C191 [94] On 10 September 2019, Council adopted a ‘preferred’ version of the DDO for the Activity

Centre which split DDO17 into four separate DDOs, namely:

DDO25 – Precinct 1 – Richmond Station

DDO26 – Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre

DDO27 – Precinct 3 – Swan Street East

DDO28 – Precinct 4 – Burnley Station.

Each of these DDOs are discussed below.

[95] Other post-exhibition changes include making section 1.0 (Design objectives) precinct-specific and the addition of the street wall and setback requirement at section 2.3 (Design requirements) as follows:

On corner sites where two different street wall heights are nominated, buildings should ‘turn the corner’ and apply the Swan Street wall height. If the Swan Street wall is higher it should transition to the lower nominated street wall height on the side street.

[96] I support these changes, which should make the DDOs clearer and more targeted to the different heritage values of their respective precincts.

[97] It is my view that the definition of ‘Heritage Building’ at section 2.1 should also include places included in the VHR.

[98] The Heritage Design Requirements at section 2.3 of DDO25, 26, 27 and 28 are consistent with those within DDO17 with the modal verb ‘must’ replaced with ‘should’. This change to the wording is appropriate in my view as it more clearly recognises the discretionary nature of design requirements as opposed to mandatory controls.

[99] It is my view that an additional Heritage Design Requirement should be included to encourage the upper level (or levels) of any new development to be set further back from the secondary street wall to encourage a greater level of concealment of ‘penthouse’ or ‘roof top’ elements. Such a design objective could read:

• The top-most level (or levels) of new development should be set further back from the principal heritage frontage and secondary street wall and treated as a penthouse or roof top element.

[100] I note that the Panel Report for Amendment C231 recommended the removal of Heritage Design Guidelines from DDO16 following Council’s advice that it was updating the Yarra Planning Scheme into the new (post-VC148) Planning Policy Framework structure. While the review of Clause 22.02 and its integration into Clause 15.03-1L is underway, without this being complete, it is my view that there is value in including heritage design guidelines

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



38

where these augment, but do not duplicate, the existing provisions of Clauses 21.05-1, 22.02 and 22.10-3.3.

[101] The removal of the 1/3:2/3 sightline test within the Preferred Requirements from the exhibited version of DDO17 means that the preferred DDOs now rely solely on the set back and height controls to determine the appropriate form and height of new taller built form. DDO15 - Johnston Street Activity Centre (as adopted by Council following the Panel Report in relation to Amendment C220) provides more detailed guidance on new built form through the use of the 45 degree angular plane and the requirements for an upper level setback (as recommended in paragraph 97 of this evidence). It is my view that this, or a similar, preferred building envelope is equally applicable to Swan Street to ensure new built form does not dominate or overwhelm the important heritage fabric of this streetscape.

[102] Figures 1 and 2 of adopted DDO15 are reproduced below and it is my view that these, or similar preferred building envelope requirements, should be incorporated into DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28 insofar as they affect land subject to or abutting the Heritage Overlay.

Figure 24. Johnston Street building envelope requirement – Heritage Building (Figure 1 from DDO15)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



39

Figure 25. Johnston Street building envelope requirement – Infill Building (Figure 2 from DDO15)

[103] The Decision Guidelines at section 5 of DDOs 25, 26, 27 and 28 are appropriate in my view, and are generally consistent with those included in exhibited DDO17. These include decision guidelines that supplement those within Clause 43.01-8 and specifically consider matters relevant to the individual precincts. I support the addition of a decision guideline that seeks ‘design excellence’.

6.1 DDO25 – Precinct 1 – Richmond Station

[104] The Design Objectives at section 1.0 within DDO25 are tailored to Precinct 1 – Richmond Station and include the objective:

• To maintain the prominence of the Precinct Hotel on the corner of Cremorne Street and Swan Street within the streetscape.

[105] The heritage-related objective within DDO17 “To ensure development maintains the prominence of the heritage street wall and respects the architectural form and qualities of heritage buildings and the heritage streetscapes” has been removed which means there is no objective to retain the visual prominence of the prominent early twentieth century commercial buildings at 30-42 Swan Street (Interim HO524). It is my view that a design objective should be included within DDO25 to retain the visual prominence of this proposed Heritage Overlay precinct within the streetscape.

[106] Consistent with the advice provided in the Preliminary Heritage Advice on 30 August 2019, it is my view that the maximum height shown on Plan 1: Height and Interface Plan should be 18m (5 storeys) on land subject to the Heritage Overlay (30-42 Swan Street, Interim HO524, and the Precinct Hotel, 60-62 Swan Street, HO405) to avoid visually dominating the

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



40

heritage buildings. The amendment of the height limit from 27m (in DDO17 as exhibited) to 28m in DDO25 is not significant and will have no adverse impact on heritage places within the precinct. It is my view that the heights of development within land subject to the Heritage Overlay within Precinct 1 should be informed by a 45 degree angular plane (refer Figures 1 and 2 of adopted DDO15) to avoid visually dominating the heritage street wall within Interim HO524 or the Precinct Hotel (HO405).

[107] Following submissions, the impact of new development on the visual prominence of the Precinct Hotel was considered in more detail and a number of development scenarios were modelled by Tract. Increased setbacks above the façades of the Precinct Hotel was identified as being necessary to retain its local landmark status as it terminates this section of Swan Street. The preferred setbacks were informed by the depth of the principal roof forms of the hotel to retain the three-dimensional form of the building.

Figure 26. Changes recommended to heights (Figure 7 from GJM Preliminary Heritage Advice)

[108] The Decision Guidelines at Clause 5.0 includes appropriate heritage matters consistent with those included within DDO17, noting that those not relevant to this precinct, such as “The

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



41

impact of development on view lines to the Dimmey’s Clock Tower” have been removed as views of the Dimmey’s clocktower are nor provided from within Precinct 1.

Table 2: Summary opinion on street wall height and setbacks within DDO25

Interface Ref

Design Element Mandatory Requirements

Preferred Requirements

Opinion

A Street wall height

21m maximum No heritage impacts – noting that 375 & 377 Punt Road (within HO364) have been demolished and redeveloped

Street wall setback

0m No heritage impacts

Upper level setback

6m minimum No heritage impacts

C Street wall height

11m maximum

8m minimum

Match the parapet height of the taller adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of 6m from the heritage building

Supported

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

Minimum 6m for heritage buildings

Minimum 6m elsewhere

Supported

F Street wall height

11m minimum

No heritage impacts

Street wall setback


Upper level setback


H Street wall height

N/A No heritage impacts

Street wall setback

0m minimum unless setback is identified on Plan 2

No heritage impacts

Upper level setback


I Side and rear wall height

8m maximum on a common boundary with a property in a residential zone

11m maximum if boundary abuts a laneway

Supported to moderate built form down to low-scale HO places

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



42

Upper level setback

Development must be setback in accordance with Figure 1 and Figure 2

Development must minimise repetitive stepped form


J Street wall height

11m maximum

8m minimum


Supported

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

Minimum 10m from Swan Street setback

Minimum 8.5m from Cremorne Street setback

Supported – to retain the principal roof form of the Precinct Hotel.

6.2 DDO26 – Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre

[109] The Design Objectives at section 1.0 within DDO26 are tailored to Precinct 2 – Swan Street Activity Centre and include the objectives to retain the prominence of the heritage street wall and protect the views of the Dimmeys Clocktower from the north side of Swan Street:

• To ensure development maintains the prominence of the heritage street wall and respects the architectural form and qualities of heritage buildings and the heritage streetscapes.

• To ensure development, on the south side of Swan Street, maintains the Dimmeys Tower as the prominent landmark in the streetscape when viewed from the northern footpath of Swan Street east of the rail bridge and west of Church Street

[110] Consistent with the advice provided in the Preliminary Heritage Advice on 30 August 2019, it is my view that the maximum height should be generally be 18m (5 storeys) on the properties facing Swan Street. This is generally reflected on Plan 1: Height and Interface Plan for Precinct 2 except for the site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Church

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



43

and Swan Street (187-189 Swan Street / 421-423 Church Street), which in my opinion should also have a maximum height of 18m (five storeys) to create consistent low-scale built form facing Swan Street. I note that some shallower properties on the northern side of the street between Carroll and Waverley Streets are only able to accommodate four storeys and these therefore have a maximum height of 14m (four storeys). It is my view that the heights of development within Precinct 2 should be informed by a 45 degree angular plane (refer Figures 1 and 2 of adopted DDO15) to avoid visually dominating the heritage street wall within HO335, Interim HO501 or individual heritage places.

[111] I note that three VHR places (Former Richmond Post Office, 90-92 Swan Street (H0048), Dimmeys, 140-160 Swan Street (H2184), Former State Bank, and 216 Swan Street (H0732)) are identified without building heights on the Height and Interface Plans within DDO26. I consider this is appropriate as the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria is the statutory authority that would determine heritage permits in relation to these sites. I also support providing street wall height and setback controls within DDO26 for the VHR places as this will help protect the broader heritage streetscape values of HO335.

Figure 27. Changes recommended to heights (Figure 9 from GJM Preliminary Heritage Advice)

[112] The Decision Guidelines at Clause 5.0 include appropriate heritage matters consistent with those included within DDO17.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



44


Interface Ref



Opinion

B Street wall height

11m maximum 8m minimum

Match the parapet height of the adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of 6m from the heritage building

Supported – mandatory street wall height appropriate within the HO

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

6m minimum setback



11m maximum

8m minimum


Supported

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback



Supported

D Street wall height

11m maximum 8m minimum

Match the parapet height of the adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of 6m from the heritage building


Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

10m minimum for development up to 21m 20m minimum for any height above 21m

Supported to protect the views of the Dimmeys Clocktower

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



45


11m maximum Supported

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

6m minimum for land affected by HO335 and individually significant buildings. 3m minimum elsewhere

Supported in part – 6m preferred minimum setback to side streets should also apply to all places on the VHR and the HO (including Interim HO501)

G Street wall height

14m maximum

No heritage impacts

Street wall setback


Upper level setback



N/A Noted

Street wall setback

0m minimum unless setback is identified on the Plan 2

Supported

Upper level setback

0m Supported in part - a preferred upper level setback of 6m minimum is required on the southern elevation (end of terrace) of 468 Church Street to be consistent with interface F and protect the primacy of extant heritage fabric


8m maximum on a common boundary with a property in a residential zone. 11m maximum if boundary abuts a laneway


Upper level setback

Development should be setback in accordance with


GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



46

Figure 1 and Figure 2

Development should minimise stepped form

6.3 DDO27 – Precinct 3 – Swan Street East

[113] The Design Objectives at section 1.0 within DDO27 are tailored to Precinct 3 – Swan Street East and include the following heritage-related objective:

• To ensure that, along the north side of Swan Street, the heritage buildings remain visually prominent in the streetscape.

[114] Precinct 3 only contains a small number of properties that are subject to the Heritage Overlay, namely: 232-234 Coppin Street (HO245); 237-239 Swan Street (Interim HO501); 273A Swan Street (Interim HO522); Former Central Club Hotel, 291 Swan Street (HO285); Swan Street Drill Hall, 309 Swan Street (HO440); 319 Swan Street (HO441); 323-325 Swan Street (HO523). Of these, all are located on the north side of Swan Street with the exception of the isolated two-storey late-Victorian house at 34 Coppin Street (HO245).

[115] The Height and Interface Plan provides mandatory height limits on the northern side of Swan Street ranging from 21m (6 storeys) to 28m (8 storeys). The preferred heights on the south side of Swan Street range between 28m and 40m (12 storeys). A preferred height of 28m is proposed over 34 Coppin Street, although such a height will not be readily achieved on a site occupied by a two-storey heritage dwelling. As per my position on Precincts 1 and 2, it is my view that the heights of development of land subject to the Heritage Overlay within Precinct 3 should be informed by a 45 degree angular plane (refer Figures 1 and 2 of adopted DDO15) to avoid visually dominating the heritage street wall within Interim HO501 or individual heritage places.

[116] The Decision Guidelines at Clause 5.0 include appropriate heritage matters consistent with those included within DDO17.


Interface Ref



Opinion


11m maximum

8m minimum

Match the parapet height of the taller adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of

Supported

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



47

6m from the heritage building

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback



Supported

E Street wall height

14m maximum Not supported

Either apply Interface C on the north side of Swan Street; or

Interface E should be modified so that development abutting the heritage overlay should match the parapet height of the taller adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of 6m from the heritage building.

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

6m minimum Mandatory 6m upper level setback should apply to sites subject to the HO



Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

6m minimum for land affected by HO335 and individually significant buildings. 3m minimum elsewhere

6m preferred minimum setback to side streets should also apply to all places on the HO (including HO285, HO440, HO441, and HO501)


14m maximum.

Interface F should apply to the eastern side of Bell Street to protect the visual prominence of HO522

Street wall setback

0m Supported

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



48

Upper level setback

3m minimum 6m preferred minimum setback to side streets should apply to places on the HO (including HO522)

6m mandatory front setback should apply to HO245 (32-34 Coppin Street)



Street wall setback


No heritage impacts

Upper level setback






Upper level setback

Development should be setback in accordance with Figure 1 and Figure 2



6.4 DDO28 – Precinct 4 – Burnley Station

[117] The Design Objectives at section 1.0 within DDO27 are tailored to Precinct 4 – Burnley Station and include the following heritage-related objective:

• To ensure development respects the scale, rhythm, and architectural detail of the streetscape and the heritage buildings in the Burnley Street Heritage Precinct.

[118] While this provides an objective in relation to HO474 – Burnley Street Precinct it does not address the individual heritage place within Precinct 4, the former Burnley Theatre, 365 Swan Street (HO286). To recognise the importance of retaining the visual prominence of this building it is my view that an additional design objective be included within DDO28:

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



49

• To maintain the prominence of the former Burnley Theatre on the corner of Edinburgh Street and Swan Street within the streetscape.

[119] DDO28 excludes the three single storey residential (or former residential) buildings at 493, 495 and 497 Swan Street that are included within HO309 – Bendigo Street Precinct and were originally included within the Study Area.

[120] The Height and Interface Plan provides mandatory height limits on the northern side of Swan Street ranging from 14m (4 storeys) to 28m (8 storeys). Preferred heights of between 21m (6 storeys) and 40m (12 storeys) are applied to the southern side of Swan Street. A mandatory height of 21m is applied to properties addressing Burnley Street within HO474.

[121] The 21m, 24m and 28m heights are, in my view likely to be excessive in the context of the modestly scaled single and two-storey buildings within HO474 and the maximum height should be reduced to 14m (4 storeys) or 18m (5 storeys) depending on the property depth of land subject to the Heritage Overlay.

[122] Further, it is my view that the heights of development on land subject to the Heritage Overlay within Precinct 4 should be informed by a 45 degree angular plane (refer Figures 1 and 2 of adopted DDO15) to avoid visually dominating the heritage street wall within HO464 or the former Burnley Theatre.

[123] The Decision Guidelines at Clause 5.0 includes appropriate heritage matters consistent with those included within DDO17.


Interface Ref



Opinion


11m maximum

8m minimum


Supported

Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

10m minimum from Swan Street setback for land affected by HO 286 (365 Swan Street)


Supported

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



50

Minimum 6m for other heritage buildings

E Street wall height

14m maximum No heritage impacts

Street wall setback


Upper level setback




Street wall setback

0m Supported

Upper level setback

6m minimum for individually significant buildings 3m minimum elsewhere

6m preferred minimum setback to side streets should also apply to all places on the HO (including HO286, HO429, and HO474).

Interface C should be applied to the Burnley Street elevations of the following properties:

• 385-389 Burnley Street

• 404 Burnley Street

• 395 Swan Street

• 405 Swan Street.


14m maximum

No heritage impacts

Street wall setback


Upper level setback




Street wall setback


No heritage impacts

Upper level setback


GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



51




No heritage impacts

Upper level setback

Development should be setback in accordance with Figure 1 and Figure 2


No heritage impacts

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



52

7. Review of Selected Submissions [124] I have been instructed to provide a specific response to the 30 submissions received during

exhibition and the six received post-exhibition. Only the matters directly relating to heritage considerations or the recommendations of the Heritage Review and Heritage Assessments Report are specifically addressed. In particular I respond to:

• Submission 3 / 3b; • Submission 6; • Submission 7; • Submission 8; • Submission 11; • Submission 13; • Submission 14; • Submission 15; • Submission 16; • Submission 17; • Submission 18; • Submission 21; • Submission 22; • Submission 25; • Submission 27; • Submission 29; • Submission 30; • Submission 31; • Submission 33; • Submission 35; and • Submission 36.

7.1 General Heritage Matters

[125] Site or property specific submissions are addressed individually while common issues are addressed in the table below:

Table 6: Matters raised in submissions

ISSUE SUBMITTER(S) RESPONSE

Visual bulk at interface with residential areas

6, 11, 14 In my view the diagrams provided at Figures 1 and 2 of the preferred DDOs ensures a satisfactory moderation of built form from adjoining residential heritage areas.

Street wall height 7, 13 The street wall height requirements have been amended to reflect the advice in the Heritage Review, namely:

11m maximum

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



53

8m minimum

Match the parapet height of the taller adjoining heritage building, for a minimum length of 6m from the heritage building.

Interface D also provides for new development to match the existing street wall height of the adjacent heritage building for a distance of 6m.

Height and setback controls on corner sites

7 The policy in relation to differing street wall heights and setbacks has been resolved through the addition of the following design requirement at section 2.3 of the preferred DDOs:

On corner sites where two different street wall heights are nominated, buildings should ‘turn the corner’ and apply the Swan Street wall height. If the Swan Street wall is higher it should transition to the lower nominated street wall height on the side street.

Facadism 7, 16, 25, 27, 29

The setting back of new built form a minimum of 6m from the retained street frontage will not in my view result in facadism. It is my view that facadism is appropriately defined as occurring when only the principal façade (or facades) of a building are retained while constructing a completely new building behind. The retention of a minimum 6m depth behind the front of the building will, in the majority of cases, avoid ‘facadism’ and will retain the legibility of the façade as being part of a three-dimensional form. I also note that 6m is typical of the approximate depth of the front room of the nineteenth century shop/residence building type.3 Approximately 75% of the front most chimneys are (to their rear face) set back 6m or less.4

Retention and enhancement of heritage buildings

13, 29 The policies at Clauses 15.03-1S and 22.02-5.1 and the decision guidelines at Clause 43.01-8 provide for the retention of heritage fabric, including façades. The DDOs do not need to duplicate demolition controls or general heritage policy.

State and local policy encourage the enhancement of heritage places through conservation (restoration and reconstruction).

3 An analysis using NearmapTM imagery shows that within Precinct 2 the principal roof form of the heritage

buildings (buildings that were graded ‘not-contributory’ or had lost their original roof form were discounted) ranges between approx. 5.5m and 29m with the majority lying within the range of 8m-16m. The mean depth of the main form of the building across the 83 buildings considered was 13m.

4 An analysis using NearmapTM imagery shows that within Precinct 2 the frontmost extant chimney of the heritage building (buildings that were graded ‘not-contributory’ or had lost their chimneys were discounted) ranges between approx. 3.5m and 10m with the majority lying within the range of 3.5m-5.5m. The mean depth of the rear face of the 50 chimneys measured was 5m.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



54

It is unnecessary to duplicate these provisions within the DDOs.

Retention of heritage buildings behind facades

13, 16, 27, 29 The policies at Clauses 15.03-1S and 22.02-5.1 and the decision guidelines at Clause 43.01-8 provide for the retention of heritage fabric. The DDOs include heritage design requirement to augment these provisions:

• encourage the retention of solid built form behind retained facades and avoid balconies behind existing openings.

Building heights 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 29, 31, 35, 36

The building heights within Precinct 2 have generally been reduced between exhibited DDO17 and the preferred DDO26 reflecting improved modelling, recent panel reports and submissions received. It is my view that a further reduction of height from 21m to 18m for 187-189 Swan Street / 421-423 Church Street is required. DDO26 (with this recommended change) would limit the height of new development over the majority of the sites facing Swan Street to 5 storeys or less.

It is my view that the heights proposed for Precinct 4 should generally be reduced to 14m (4 storeys) to 18m (5 storeys) in height.

Depth of upper level setback 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27, 29, 31, 35, 36

The 5m upper level setback was originally established in the 2014 Swan Street Structure Plan which preceded both the Built Form Framework prepared by Tract and the Heritage Review. Having considered modelling undertaken of other comparable commercial high streets in the City of Yarra, the recommendations included in the Panel Report into Yarra C220 and C231, and the revised modelling for Swan Street using more accurate and realistic base data, I consider that a 6m setback is necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome that retains the visual prominence of the heritage street wall. I note that an 8m setback was proposed for the majority of Queens Parade Precinct 4 (Yarra C231) to, in part, reflect the greater (60m) width of that boulevard.

While a 10m (or greater) setback may achieve a ‘better’ heritage outcome, I consider 6m to be an acceptable minimum setback to enable the prominence of the heritage streetscape to be retained.

Viewing angles to assess heritage impacts

11 It is established practice that views to heritage places and landmarks are considered from the public realm, i.e. the public street or parkland. Private or elevated views are generally not relevant in assessing heritage impacts.

Application of mandatory controls

15, 16, 18, 22, 30, 31, 35, 36

The application of a mandatory street wall height control to Swan Street is considered appropriate in terms of PPN59 and PPN60. It is also necessary in my view to maintain the consistent two-storey street wall datum along the high street and to ensure new upper-level built form is set back adequately from the street frontage. I note that a consistent mandatory setback control is supported by the Panel Reports

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



55

into Yarra C220 and C231 to achieve a similar objective within the Johnston Street and Queens Parade streetscapes, which share similarities in heritage built form to Swan Street.

Use of a 1/3:2/3 sightline test 16, 18, 27 The adoption of a sightline test to inform appropriate building heights was informed by a number of matters, in particular the use of a 1/3:2/3 ratio of new built form visible above heritage façades within the Structure Plan, which formed the strategic basis for the Framework. I note that similar tests, such as a 1/4:3/4 ratio, are used within other local planning schemes such as DDO18 in the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Since the preparation of the GJM Report, Planning Panels has considered Amendment C220, which also proposed sightline tests for determining the height of new upper-level development. The Panel Report identified that ratio-based sight line tests were potentially inequitable and difficult to apply. 5 They recommended instead that a combination of upper level setbacks, height controls and a 45o upper-level setback be used to inform the scale of new built form. The approach recommended by the Panel for Amendment C220 can provide clear setback and height-based controls and I support the application of such controls in the Swan Street Activity Centre where they provide an appropriate heritage outcome.

Application of different planning policy and fabric retention for ‘Individually significant’ and ‘Contributory’ graded buildings.

16, 27 The Amendment C220 Panel concluded that mandatory controls should be applied for mid-level setbacks above the street wall and that this should not vary dependant on the heritage status or gradings applied. Further, the Panel Report into Melbourne Amendment C258 concludes that it is unnecessary to distinguish between differently graded buildings within local policy and that a single set of policies should apply to places subject to the Heritage Overlay.

Conflict between the provisions of DDO17 and the heritage policy at Clause 22.02

16, 29 Both the exhibited DDO17 and preferred DDOs seek to achieve a planning outcome that balances the sometimes-conflicting objectives of protecting heritage places while enabling the intensification of development within the Swan Street Activity Centre. This tension within the planning scheme is addressed at Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated Decision Making). Decision-making for development on land that is subject to both proposed DDOs and the Heritage Overlay will

5 “The issue the Panel has with the use of a street wall to upper level visibility ratio of upper level visibility to street

wall is that the quantum of upper level development that is possible is highly dependent on the height of the street wall. In Johnston Street where a lower scale heritage street wall may be retained the approach is unlikely to deliver an equitable outcome.” (Yarra C220 Panel Report, p.70)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



56

need to apply appropriate weight when balancing both sets of provisions.

Heritage fabric in shopping strips should have same level of protection as applies in residential areas

16, 27, 29 While I acknowledge that the two storey shop / residence typology commonly found on commercial high streets such as Swan Street share a number of similarities with the two storey Victorian terraced house form (such as the parapeted front wall, similar relationship to solid and void on the upper level, generally concealed roof form and often visible front chimneys), the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme establishes different expectations between the visibility of additions to residential properties as described at Figures 2 and 3 of Clause 22.02-5.7.1 and the specific requirements for ‘Industrial, Commercial and Retail Heritage Place or Contributory Elements’ at Clause 22.02-5.7.2. This difference acknowledges that new upper-level additions to industrial, commercial and retail properties will have a degree of visibility.

Application of height controls on sites abutting land subject to the Heritage Overlay

33 Clause 22.10-3.3 provides the policy for the height of new development abutting land subject to the Heritage Overlay (such as 487 Swan Street) and it is my view that it is reasonable for DDO28 to apply a mandatory height control to moderate built form abutting a terrace of single storey buildings within HO309.

Lighting schemes to heritage buildings

13 While it is desirable to appropriately illuminate heritage buildings, I do not consider this a matter for the DDO.

7.2 375-377 Punt Road – Submissions 3 / 3b

[126] Submissions 3 and 3b support the removal of 375-377 Punt Road from the Heritage Overlay. The properties at 375-377 Punt Road are identified in Appendix 8 as being ‘contributory’ to HO364 - Wellington Street Precinct but were demolished in early 2014 and the sites have recently been redeveloped. The land on which these two buildings were located is isolated from the main extent of HO364 and the removal of the land from the Heritage Overlay along with the Rout Street carriageway west of Huckerby Street was recommended in the Heritage Assessments Report. It is my view that the removal of this land from HO364 along with the reference to these two properties from Appendix 8 is appropriate.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



57

Figure 28. Redeveloped sites at 375-377 Punt Road (source: nearmapTM, 31 Aug 2019)

Figure 29. Part HO364 – 375-377 Punt Road outlined (source: VicPlan, 16 Nov 2019)

7.3 Precinct Hotel, 60 Swan Street - Submission 13

[127] Submitter 13 asserts that “No development should detract from or compromise the ensemble which forms the Precinct Hotel’s façade on Swan Street and Cremorne Street”. Detailed modelling was undertaken by Tract of development envelopes on the Precinct Hotel site and this has informed my view in relation to height (18m / 5 storeys) and has be incorporated into DDO25. The preferred setbacks (10m from Swan Street and 8.5m from Cremorne Street) within Interface F have been established to retain the principal roof form of this building. These controls along with the design objective “To maintain the prominence of the Precinct Hotel on the corner of Cremorne Street and Swan Street within the streetscape”, in my view will ensure the heritage values of this individual heritage place will be retained.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



58

Figure 30. Precinct Hotel, 60 Swan Street

7.4 30-42 Swan Street - Submission 15

[128] Submission 15 sets out the interests of the owners of: 36-46 Swan Street and 2-4 Jessie Street (part within Interim HO524); 79-89 Swan Street (part HO335, part HO332); 161-165 Swan Street (HO335); 173-179 Swan Street (HO335) and 191-197 Swan Street (HO335). Submission 15 objects to the application of mandatory height and setback controls and question the strategic justifications for these. This is addressed in Table 6 above.

[129] Of particular relevance to this evidence, Submission 15 objects to the application of the Heritage Overlay to 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne (Interim HO524).

Figure 31. 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne

Figure 32. Interim HO524 (source: VicPlan, 16 Nov 2019)

[130] An assessment of the group of four properties opposite the Richmond Train Station by GJM in 2017 resulted in a recommendation for their inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as the ‘Swan Street West Precinct’, comprising four ‘contributory’ buildings. The heritage citation prepared in support of the recommendation is provided at Appendix C of the Heritage Assessments Report.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



59

[131] The four buildings that make up 30-42 Swan Street have been assessed as meeting Criterion A – Historical (Importance to the course or pattern of the City of Yarra’s cultural history) and Criterion D – Representativeness (Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments) at a local level.

[132] The heights of the four buildings vary by one storey, which is typical of the difference of street wall heights found in similar streetscapes included on the Heritage Overlay throughout the City of Yarra. Likewise, the period of construction (including alterations between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) represents the same period for which the buildings within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct are recognised. It is my view that this albeit small precinct demonstrates cohesiveness in terms of use, visual form, architectural language, scale and period of construction to the degree necessary to warrant inclusion on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

[133] The proposed Swan Street West Precinct is illustrative of historical development along a major early commercial thoroughfare in the City of Yarra, and has been identified as a separate and distinct group of buildings (from those included within HO335) that warrants inclusion on the Heritage Overlay. While small, the precinct is highly intact and clearly demonstrates the principal characteristics of a major Victorian and Edwardian commercial High Street. As is consistent with PPN1 and numerous Panel decisions, it is my view that significance should be the driver for consideration for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay rather than other matters such as strategic redevelopment opportunities.

[134] Having further considered Submission 15 and the findings of the Heritage Assessments Report, I remain of the view that the properties at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne meet Criterion A (historical) and D (representativeness) at a local level and together form a small but cohesive precinct. Therefore, it is my view that Interim HO524 should be made permanent.

7.5 218 Smith Street - Submission 17

[135] Submission 17 objects to the proposed re-grading of 218 Swan Street, Richmond from ‘contributory’ to ‘not-contributory’. Submission 17:

• Refutes the assertion that, 218 Swan Street (Berties the Butcher) is "not contributory to the heritage overlay or precinct".

• States that it is a deliberate mistake by both Yarra and Tract Consultants to grade the 218 Swan Street as not-contributory

• Asserts that the place is one of the oldest original buildings in Swan St (c 1850s) and its early construction date is evidenced by the original building's size and form, having the simple gabled roof pitch running parallel to the street.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



60

Figure 33. 218 Swan Street, Richmond

[136] 218 Swan Street is a simple, single-storey parapeted building that is currently graded ‘contributory’ in the context of the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8. It is flanked by an ‘individually significant’ building to the west and a ‘non-contributory’ building to the east. Appendix 8 assigns a broad construction date range of between 1850-1890. The 1895 MMBW Detail Plan confirms that the building had been constructed by this date, while Sands & McDougall Directories identifies that Pope & Sons Butchers occupied the building from 1893.

[137] The building presents to Swan Street as comprising a simple cornice with flanking consul brackets and an unadorned parapet which has been partially over-clad. The pitched roof form facing Swan Street has been removed, leaving a free-standing brick gable visible from Swan Street. The shopfront and verandah have also been altered, leaving very limited original fabric visible from the public realm.

[138] The Heritage Assessments Report identified that 218 Swan Street cannot be readily appreciated as a reasonably intact Victorian shop, and it is therefore recommended that the property be re-graded to ‘not contributory’ to the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8. I note that there is no proposal to remove the land at 218 Swan Street from the Heritage Overlay and agree that this should remain part of HO335 – Swan Street Precinct.

[139] While elements of the extant building may date from an early period of the development of Swan Street, this is not clearly evident from the public realm with perhaps the exception of the (now freestanding) gable ends.

[140] 218 Swan Street has undergone a number of changes that have diminished its intactness to its nineteenth century form. These include:

• Removal of the pitched roof form and replacement with a flat roof • Partial over-cladding of the simple parapet • Removal of original verandah (evident in the 1896 MMBW plans)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



61

• Addition of a cantilever canopy • Replacement of the shopfront windows in the mid twentieth century.

[141] The level of alteration to 218 Swan Street is greater than that evident to other ‘contributory’ graded buildings within HO335, and the extant fabric demonstrates relatively few of the contributory elements within the precinct. The alterations have greatly altered the visual appearance of 218 Swan Street, and it is my view that the building now lacks sufficient integrity to warrant its grading as a ‘contributory’ element to HO335.

7.6 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond - Submission 18

[142] Submission 18 is made on behalf of the owner and operator of the Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond. The submission notes that “the hotel is widely regarded as one of Australia’s premier live music venues, while also providing an important casual late venue including dining for locals and as a support to the nearby sports precinct”.

[143] It is submitted that the Heritage Overlay is not the most appropriate tool to protect the use of the live music venue as it regulates the development of the land. It also asserts that discretionary rather than mandatory controls should apply and that this site should be included within Precinct 1 – Richmond Station rather than Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre.

[144] The Corner Hotel at 57 Swan Street is currently contained within the Richmond Hill Precinct but the building addresses Swan Street. This property has been analysed in the context of the Statements of Significance and historic functions of both the Richmond Hill and Swan Street precincts to determine whether it should be included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335) or remain in the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332). It is noted that, in summary, the Swan Street Precinct is significant as a turn of the century commercial High Street and that the Richmond Hill Precinct is significant in this area (south residential sub-area) for its early workers cottages and early residential development.

Figure 34. The Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



62

[145] The Corner Hotel fronts Swan Street, directly to the east of the railway line overpass. The original Corner Hotel was constructed on the site in the early 1870s and was rebuilt to its current form in the 1960s. The hotel is an atypical heritage place in the context of both the Richmond Hill Precinct, in which it is currently included, and the Swan Street Precinct. The heritage values of the Corner Hotel lie in its historical and social value as an important live music venue. An updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel was prepared as Appendix F of the Heritage Assessments Report to clearly articulate its heritage significance, including as a live music venue.

[146] Notwithstanding the atypical nature of this heritage place, in both its earlier Victorian-era form and its current c1960s form, the hotel directly addresses Swan Street. Since the construction of the rail overpass in c1885, the Hotel has formed the north-western gateway to the Swan Street High Street and is intricately woven into the social and recreational history of Swan Street. The Heritage Assessments report therefore recommended that:

• The entirety of 57 Swan Street be removed from the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332) and included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335). Alternatively, a site-specific Heritage Overlay could be applied to this property.

• Appendix 8 and Heritage Overlay Map 08HO be updated to reflect the above change.

• The updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel be included as an Incorporated Document in the Yarra Planning Scheme.

[147] The Heritage Overlay is the appropriate mechanism to recognise places of heritage significance, including historical and social significance where there is “something to be managed” as set out in PPN1. I note that the Corner Hotel is already included within the Heritage Overlay and Yarra C191 does not change this status.

[148] The property is currently graded ‘Individually significant’ in Appendix 8. The Statement of Significance prepared as part of the Heritage Assessments Report is intended to recognise the social significance of the place and its long-term historical use. Ultimately, this approach provides for the current use to continue with fewer encumbrances than if the Statement of Significance for HO332 was used as a key basis for decision making on the property.

[149] The Corner Hotel is located east of the rail viaduct and is visually and physically separated from Precinct 1 – Richmond Station. It, like the former Post Office at 90 Swan Street, serve as the western ‘gateway’ to the Swan Street commercial high street and should remain within Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre Precinct. In my view there is no compelling heritage rationale for designating this land as part of Precinct 1.

[150] Although the key heritage values of the Corner Hotel are historical and social, the mandatory built form controls are designed to protect the wider heritage significance of the Swan Street Precinct. This includes retaining the visual prominence of the two-storey street wall by setting back new upper-level development. Therefore, it remains my view that a mandatory setback control from Swan Street should apply, noting that preferred controls are recommended for the Botherambo and Wangaratta street frontages.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



63

7.7 497 Swan Street, Richmond - Submission 21

[151] Submission 21 supports the application of height controls but assert that the extent of the Activity Centre should align with the C1Z zoning. In relation to heritage they recommend that 497 Swan Street and ‘adjoining terraces’ be removed from HO309 asserting that:

These terraces are ungraded and contribute insignificantly to the Heritage Character of the area and, in this location, impede the strategic purpose of commercial intensification along Swan Street.

[152] 497 Swan Street is one of a row of four terraced singled storey houses dating from the Edwardian (1901-1914) period. The row of houses has been altered; with 497 Swan Street having had a shop that occupies what was the verandah, and front garden added during the Inter-War (1918-1939) period. Located within the C1Z and subject to HO309 – Bendigo Street Precinct, Richmond, this property forms the boundary between the C1Z and the Neighbourhood Residential Zoned (NRZ) that makes up the remainder of HO309. The property is located within Precinct 4 – Burnley Station of the proposed DDO17.

Figure 35. 491-501 Swan Street

[153] I note that numbers 493, 495, 497, 499 and 501 Swan Street are all graded ‘contributory’ within Appendix 8, which means that the terraces are not ‘ungraded’ as asserted. The citation for the Bendigo Street Precinct specifically includes the Swan Street properties and identifies contributory attributes that are evident in the terraces. These include (emphasis added):

The contributory buildings in the Bendigo St Heritage Overlay Area include mainly (but not exclusively) small attached and detached Victorian-era and Edwardian-era

one-storey houses, but with some well preserved residential examples from the immediate post First-War era, having typically:

• Pitched gabled or hipped roofs, with some facade parapets;

• One storey wall heights;

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



64

• Weatherboard, face brick (red, bichrome and polychrome), bluestone, or stucco walls;

• Corrugated iron roof cladding, Marseilles pattern terra-cotta tiles, with some slate roofing;

[154] The Heritage Review describes this area at page 7:

To the east of Belgravia Street, the north side of Swan Street becomes residential in character and this continues to Park Grove at the eastern end of the Study Area, abutting the Burnley Gardens. The residences on the north side of Swan Street are included within the Bendigo Street Precinct (HO309) and a small number of these houses are contained in the Study Area.

[155] And goes on to make the following recommendations at pages 54 and 55:

The Study Area, again reflecting the extent of commercially zoned land on Swan Street, includes three properties that are subject to the Bendigo Street Precinct (HO309). Other than these three properties, the rest of HO309 is zoned NRZ recognising the low-rise residential character of the area. The three buildings at 493, 495 and 497 Swan Street form part of a row of four single-storey Edwardian-era terraced houses identified as ‘contributory’ in Appendix 8. 493 and 495 Swan Street appear reasonably intact, while 497 Swan Street has been converted to commercial use with a shop constructed in front of the house.

The preferred built form outcomes for the portion of HO474 within the Study Area are:

• That the properties should remain low-rise residential in character. • New development take the form of high quality, contemporary, recessive

additions to the predominantly single-storey houses in accordance with Council’s heritage policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

We recommend that the status of these properties be reconsidered with either all properties included in, or excluded from, the Study Area. In heritage terms, rezoning this land NRZ and removing these properties from the Study Area would be the preferred outcome.

[156] The period of construction, form and levels of intactness of the dwellings at 493, 495, 497, 499 and 501 Swan Street is consistent with their ‘contributory’ grading in Appendix 8 and in my view there is no reason to consider amending the extent of HO309 to exclude these properties from the Heritage Overlay.

7.8 214-216 Swan Street – Submission 22

[157] Submitter 22 asserts that the application of mandatory built form controls is not warranted and that discretionary controls should apply to 214-216 Swan Street. They further submit that heritage listed properties and precincts differ from each other and require case-by-case responses to their individual heritage values.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



65

[158] 214-216 Swan Street is a former State Bank designed with a flamboyant Edwardian Free-style façade. The building is included on the VHR (H0732) and therefore works to this property would be subject to a heritage permit under the Heritage Act 2017. In recognition of this, 214-216 Swan Street is identified as a VHR site on the Height and Interface Map in DDO26 and does not have a maximum height identified. The site is proposed to be subject to Interface B, which is in my view appropriate as the mandatory 6m minimum setback is necessary to protect the broader heritage values of HO335 even if a heritage permit was issued for a lesser setback.

Figure 36. 214-216 Swan Street (source: VHD, SOHE 2008)

7.9 67 Docker Street – Submission 25

[159] Submitter 25 requests that Council reconsider the regrading of 67 Docker Street from ‘contributory’ to ‘not-contributory’, given that it forms part of the historic Docker Subdivision or, if it proposed to be demolished, that the building be subject to photographic recording.

[160] The single-storey Victorian cottage at 67 Docker Street, Richmond, is currently graded ‘contributory’ in Appendix 8 within HO332 - Richmond Hill Precinct. It forms half of a near-identical pair of terraced houses with 65 Docker Street, which is currently graded ‘not contributory’ in Appendix 8.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



66

Figure 37. 65 (left) and 67 (right) Docker Street

[161] 65 and 67 Docker Street were included within the Study Area by virtue of their C1Z zoning. They are however, in form, use and historical development, residential in character and it is unclear why they are zoned C1Z when the immediately adjacent residential properties to the north are zoned NRZ. The zoning of these two houses appears to be an anomaly and it is my view that it would be more appropriate that they be rezoned from C1Z to NRZ.

[162] Consistent with the Heritage Assessments Report it is recommended that both 65 and 67 Docker Street should have the same heritage status, and – given their substantial alterations – it is considered that both should be identified as being ‘not contributory’ to the Richmond Hill Precinct in Appendix 8.

[163] Both cottages have been significantly altered in near identical ways, which are assumed to have been undertaken by the same owner (or series of owners). These alterations include:

• The construction of a low rendered wall (probably dating from the Inter-War period or at the latest the very early Post-War period)

• The filling-in of the verandah (and front gardens) in a weatherboard clad element built on the rendered wall (probably dating from the early Post-War period). Note: the presence of Victorian-era raised and fielded four panel doors does not show that the filled-in verandahs date from the nineteenth century but suggest that the original front doors may have been moved forward and installed within the new weatherboard-clad frontage.

• Second storey additions set back approx. 8m from the front boundary, which were probably erected in the 1990s

• Recladding of roofs at the time of the construction of the rear additions.

[164] The Statement of Significance for the Richmond Hill Heritage Overlay Area (South Sub-Area) states (emphasis added):

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



67

The main development period evident in south sub-area of the Richmond Hill Heritage Overlay Area is that of the Victorian-era. There is also a contribution from the Edwardian-era and some well-preserved inter-war buildings and individually significant places of all eras.

Contributory elements The Heritage Overlay Area contributory elements include (but not exclusively) mainly detached and some attached Victorian-era (some early Victorian-era), one-storey houses having typically: • Steeply pitched gabled or hipped roofs; • One storey wall heights; • Weatherboard (square or bead edge), face brick (dichrome), stone, or stucco

walls; • Corrugated iron roof and slate cladding; • Chimneys of either stucco finish (with moulded caps) or of matching face

brickwork with corbelled capping courses; • Simple post-supported timber verandah elements facing the street; • Less than 40% of the street wall face comprised with openings such as windows

and doors; and • Front gardens, sometimes minimal, originally bordered by typically timber

picket front fences of around 1m height.

Contributory elements also include: • Corner shops and residences with display windows and zero boundary

setbacks; • Well preserved buildings, including typically one storey buildings from the pre-

Second War era. • A regular subdivision plan with alternating wide principal streets and narrow

service streets; and • Public infrastructure, expressive of the Victorian and Edwardian-eras such as

bluestone pitched road paving, crossings, stone kerbs, channels, and asphalt paved footpaths.

[165] While it is acknowledged that some elements of 65 and 67 Docker Street are reflected in the Statement of Significance for the South Sub-Area of HO332 - Richmond Hill Precinct, together they do not reflect a ‘well preserved’ example of Victorian, Edwardian or Inter-War period buildings. The alterations made to both houses have dramatically altered the visual appearance of both 65 and 67 Docker Street and it remains my view that their presentation to the streetscape does not demonstrate the contributory aspects of the precinct as defined in the Statement of Significance.

[166] It remains my opinion that both 65 and 67 Docker Street, being a near identical, but much-altered, pair of terraced houses should be graded the same within Appendix 8. The contribution that either make to HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct is considered relatively marginal and on balance it is my view that both buildings should be graded ‘not-contributory’.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



68

[167] In relation to the submission that the house “…be subject to the photographic essay if it cannot be saved” I note that if a planning permit was issued for the demolition of either or both of these buildings a condition could be applied by Council requiring that an archival photographic record be made of the extant fabric.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



69

8. Tract Modelling [168] The following screen shots were taken from the Tract 3D modelling showing the Council

preferred controls for DDO25, DDO26, DDO27 and DDO28. The images supplement those provided in Tract’s 3D Modelling Report dated 18 October 2019.

8.1 Precinct 1- Richmond Station (DDO25)

View looking southeast from Richmond Station (Figure 4 from the Tract Modelling Report)

The Precinct Hotel from the north side of Swan Street (Figure 9 from the Tract Modelling Report)

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



70

8.2 Precinct 2- Swan Street Retail Centre (DDO26)

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Stewart Street

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Waverley Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



71

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Docker Street

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Church Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



72

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from St Crispin Street

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Yan Lane

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



73

View of Dimmey’s Clocktower from Charles Street

View from Green Street looking northwest

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



74

Church Street looking south from Swan Street

View of the south side of Swan Street looking east from Church Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



75

View of the north side of Swan Street looking east from Church Street

View of the north side of Swan Street looking east from Brighton Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



76

8.3 Precinct 3 - Swan Street East (DDO27)

View of the north side of Swan Street looking east from opposite Lord Street

8.4 Precinct 4 - Burnley Station (DDO28)

Former Burnley Theatre from opposite Edinburgh Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



77

View of Burnley Street (eastern side) Swan Street (northern side) from the southwest corner of the intersection of Burnley and Swan Streets

View of the west side of Burnley Street from the northeast corner of the intersection of Burnley and Swan Streets

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



78

View of the north side of Swan Street looking west from opposite 493-501 Swan Street

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Annexure A: Memorandum of Advice: Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Response to submissions in relation to gradings (GJM Heritage, 17 July 2019)

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Memorandum of Advice

Preliminary Heritage Advice: Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre

Response to submissions in relation to gradings

Prepared for: Ms Alayna Chapman, Senior Strategic Planner, City of Yarra

Date: 17 July 2019 File: 2019-030

1. Introduction

GJM Heritage prepared the Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review (dated 29 September 2017) and the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis (dated 5 October 2017) and subsequently provided advice on 21 January 2019 in relation to three specific properties (273A and 323 & 325 Swan Street) considered as part of the Study. The GJM reports followed the preparation of the Swan Street Structure Plan by David Lock Associates in 2014 and the preparation of recommended built form controls by Tract Consultants in May 2017.

Following exhibition of Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre a number of submissions were received. The City of Yarra has requested that GJM review and provide a response in relation to the submissions 15 (30-40 Swan Street, Richmond), 17 (218 Swan Street, Richmond), 18 (57-61 Swan Street, Richmond) and 25 (67 Docker Street, Richmond).

The following memorandum provides written advice on each of these properties and was informed by a site visit undertaken on 26 May 2019. All photos were taken at that time by GJM unless otherwise noted.

This advice has been undertaken having regard to the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning’s Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (August 2018) (PPN1), and the exhibited version of Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17).

The following gradings for heritage places identified in Appendix 8 of the Review Of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007 (Graham Butler & Associates), revised May 2017 (Appendix 8), are defined in Council’s heritage policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme (‘Development Guidelines for sites subject to the Heritage Overlay’):

• Individually significant: The place is a heritage place in its own right. Within a Heritage Overlay applying to an area each individually significant place is also Contributory.

• Contributory: The place is a contributory element within a larger heritage place. A contributory element could include a building, building groups and works, as well as building or landscape parts such as chimneys, verandahs, wall openings, rooflines and paving.

• Not contributory: The place is not individually significant and not contributory within the heritage place.

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

2

2. Heritage Advice

The content of this memorandum has been organised into the following four subsections:

2.1 57 Swan Street, Richmond (Corner Hotel)

2.2 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne

2.3 67 Docker Street, Richmond

2.4 218 Swan Street, Richmond

It is noted that, in summary, the Swan Street Precinct is significant as a turn of the century commercial High Street and that the Richmond Hill Precinct is significant in this area (south residential sub-area) for its early workers cottages and early residential development.

2.1 57 Swan Street, Richmond (Corner Hotel) [1870s / 1960s]

The Corner Hotel at 57 Swan Street is currently contained within the Richmond Hill Precinct but the building addresses Swan Street. This property was analysed in the context of the Statements of Significance and historic functions of both the Richmond Hill and Swan Street precincts to determine whether it should be included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335) or remain in the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332).

The Corner Hotel fronts Swan Street to the south, Botherambo Street to the east and Wangaratta Street to the west and is located directly to the east of the railway line overpass. The original Corner Hotel was constructed on the site in the early 1870s and was rebuilt to its current form in the 1960s. The hotel is an atypical heritage place in the context of both the Richmond Hill Precinct, in which it is currently included, and the Swan Street Precinct. The heritage values of the Corner Hotel lie in its historical and social value as an important live music venue. An updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel was prepared as part of the GJM Heritage Assessments and Analysis to clearly articulate its heritage significance and this is provided at Appendix A to this report.

In both its earlier Victorian-era form and its current c1960s form, the hotel directly addresses Swan Street. Since the construction of the rail overpass in c1885, the Hotel has formed the north-western entry to the Swan Street high street and is intricately woven into the social and recreational history of Swan Street. In the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis it was recommended that:

• The entirety of 57 Swan Street be removed from the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332) and included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335).


Figure 1. The Corner Hotel, 57 Swan Street, Richmond

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

3

• The updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel be included within a ‘Statements of Significance for Yarra High Streets’ reference document to Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme (see Appendix A).

Submission 18 Summary and Response

The response under each point is provided in italics.

Heritage

• Submits that the Heritage Overlay is not the most appropriate tool to protect the use of the live music venue as it regulates the development of the land.

The Heritage Overlay is the appropriate mechanism to recognise places of historical and social significance. Planning Practice Note 1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay includes criteria in relation to these values1 . We note that the Corner Hotel is already included within the Heritage Overlay and Yarra C191 does not change this status.

• Notes that the best approach is to examine whether the Heritage Overlay and ‘individually significant’ designation helps or hinders the ongoing use of the site for live music.

Inclusion on the Heritage Overlay should not constrain the current or future use of the property. We note that this property is already subject to the Heritage Overlay and is currently a popular live music venue; the heritage status of this property is not intended to change.

• Submits that protecting the place makes it less adaptable to meet its purpose and is not critical to the social values of the place.

As noted above this property is already subject to HO332 and is currently graded ‘Individually significant’ in Appendix 8. The Statement of Significance prepared as part of the Heritage Assessments and Analysis is intended to recognise the social significance of its current use to help provide for this to continue with fewer encumbrances than if the Statement of Significance for HO332 was used as the basis for decision making on the property.

• States that, while the Corner Hotel is valued as a live music venue, the building itself (which according to the GJM Heritage Report was rebuilt in the mid-1960s) has been altered considerably and could not be considered significant in its own right.

Places are considered locally significant if they meet one of the heritage criteria described within PPN1. The GJM assessment identifies that:

o The place meets the threshold for Criterion A – Historical (Importance to the course or pattern of the City of Yarra’s cultural history), and illustrates the following themes as outlined in the City of Yarra Thematic History (1998):

1 Criterion A - Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance)

Criterion G - Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance)

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

4

7.0 Leisure and Entertainment in the Suburbs -7.1 Licensed Hotels and ‘Sly Grog’

o The place meets the threshold for Criterion G – Social (Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons) at a local level.

• States that, if the Heritage Overlay is to be applied, it is essential that the Statement of Significance provides an appropriate level of guidance (so as not to confuse the built fabric with the social significance).

It is again noted that the property is already subject to the Heritage Overlay and graded ‘Individually significant,’ and this status is not proposed to change. The change from HO332 to HO335 is intended to better recognise that the Corner Hotel forms part of the Swan Street commercial high street rather than the residential and industrial Richmond Hill Precinct. The Statement of Significance at Appendix A is intended to clearly articulate the significance of the property and to inform future development.

Mandatory controls

• Submits that a mandatory upper-level setback of 5 metres along Swan and Stewart Streets) is unreasonable, given that the heritage significance of the Corner Hotel is ‘social’ rather than ‘physical’.

In relation to this property the Heritage Assessments and Analysis notes that “[The Corner Hotel] is atypical in its form and its heritage value resides more heavily in its social and historical significance than its architectural significance or its contribution to the wider streetscape. Mandatory setbacks other than those proposed to the Swan Street frontage would appear to be unnecessary”2. The application of a mandatory control to Swan Street is considered appropriate to maintain the consistent two-storey street wall along the high street and ensure new built form is setback adequately from street frontage. We note that a consistent mandatory setback control is supported by the Yarra C220 Panel Report3.

• Submits that the proposed mandatory maximum building height does not take into account the context of the site, the opportunity for urban consolidation, and the opportunity for architectural excellence to be achieved with taller and more intensive built form.

While not subject to any specific recommendation within the Built Form Heritage Review I note that the proposed 27m height limit is the highest within the draft DDO17 on the northern side of Swan Street within Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre. A 27m height limit would allow for an eight (8) storey building. GJM’s Built Form Heritage Review identified that the maximum building height within Precinct 2 on the north side of Swan Street should not exceed five (5) to six (6) storeys, and it is my view that the corner hotel site could not accommodate

2 GJM, Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review, 29 September 2017, p.73. 3 Panel Report - Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C220 Johnston Street Built Form Controls, 22 February 2019, p.61-62.

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

5

a building of this, or greater, height without adversely affecting the heritage significance of HO332 or HO335.

Heights and setbacks

• Submits that the discretionary northern/rear wall height and setback requirements (shown in Figure 2 of the draft DDO17) are unreasonable due to the site’s interface to the north being Mixed Use Zone.

These controls are primarily to provide for amenity issues rather than heritage and I note there is no sensitive heritage interface to the immediate north of the Corner Hotel – no comment.

• Recommends the following built form controls:

- A discretionary (rather than mandatory) maximum height limit at the site.

Mandatory controls supported – refer comments above

- Discretionary (rather than mandatory) upper-level setbacks along Swan and Stewart Streets.

The mandatory building maximum is applied to protect the identified values of the place from intrusive development. – refer also to comments above.

- The 1/3, 2/3 rule not be applied at the site.

The 1/3:2/3 sightline test established in the Swan Street Structure Plan (David Lock & Associates, 2014) and follows the sightline methodology used in Moreland DDO18 and Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

The Yarra C220 Panel Report considered the use of a sightline test for new built form and concluded that use of numerical setback and height controls provided a clearer and more consistent built form control. We therefore are content with setback and height controls that achieve the same, or better, heritage outcome to the application of a 1/3:2/3 sightline test of new built form to heritage street wall.

- Deletion of the discretionary northern/ rear wall height and setback requirements having regard to the predominantly commercial uses behind the Corner Hotel.

Mandatory setbacks are also designed to protect these values by reducing the visual impact of any future design proposals with upper-level additions on the heritage place, and on the streetscape character of the precinct – refer also to comments above

Residential interface

• States that the redevelopment of the site’s car park could potentially provide screening benefits to residential land to the north.

Not a heritage issue – no comment.

Precinct boundary

• Recommends that Council consider whether the site might be a more appropriate fit within Precinct 1 (Richmond Station).

The Corner Hotel is located east of the rail viaduct and is visually and physically separated from Precinct 1 – Richmond Station. It, like the former post office at 90 Swan Street the Corner

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

6

Hotel, serves as the western entry to the Swan Street commercial high street and should remain within Precinct 2.

• Submits that is if the site is to remain within Precinct 2, the built form controls should be reconsidered and more appropriately tailored to the context of the site.

The built form controls provided within DDO17 for this site are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the heritage values of the Swan Street commercial corridor. The controls proposed have adequately considered the nature of the site at 57 Swan Street.

In summary the Built Form Heritage Review built form recommendations were:

• 5m minimum upper level setback to Swan Street (mandatory)

• 5m minimum upper level setback to Botherambo and Wangaratta Streets (preferred)

• Application of the 1/3:2/3 sightline test to inform the maximum height and maximum upper-level built form (preferred)

In line with the Built Form Heritage Review we recommend that new development on the north side of Swan Street not exceed five (5) to six (6) storeys which is less than the eight (8) allowed for in the 27m height limit described in DDO17.

Although the heritage values of the Corner Hotel are primarily historical and social the mandatory built form controls are designed to protect the wider heritage significance of the Swan Street Precinct. This includes retaining the visual prominence of the two-storey street wall by setting back new upper-level development. Therefore, it remains our view that a mandatory setback control from Swan Street should apply, noting that preferred controls are recommended for the Botherambo and Wangaratta Street frontage. Refer also to the discussion above.

2.2 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne [c.1870s-1920s]

30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne is included within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as Interim HO524 – Swan Street West Precinct.

An assessment of the group of four properties opposite the Richmond Train Station at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne has resulted in a recommendation for their inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as the ‘Swan Street West Precinct’, comprising four ‘contributory’ buildings.

The heritage citation prepared in support of the recommendation is provided at Appendix B of this report.


GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

7



The overarching intent of Amendment C191

• Supports strategic review into the overall built form opportunities for the Swan Street Activity Centre.

Noted

Capacity analysis/Height

• Notes the lack of capacity analysis to substantiate building heights contemplated in throughout the centre.

Not a heritage issue – no comment.

Mandatory controls

• Objects to the introduction of mandatory building height and setback controls.

The Built Form Heritage Review does not specifically address the use of mandatory controls over this land, but I note that DDO17 establishes a preferred overall building height of 21m (approx. 6 storeys) and a mandatory 5m upper-level setback from Swan Street. The application of a mandatory control to Swan Street is considered appropriate to maintain the consistent two-storey street wall along the high street and ensure new built form is setback adequately from street frontage. We note that a consistent mandatory setback control is supported by the Panel Report into Yarra Amendment C2204.

• Submits that the proposed mandatory building height and setbacks are insufficiently justified and are unwarranted.

In relation to similar built form on Johnston Street the Panel Report into Yarra C220 concluded that mandatory controls should be applied for mid-level setbacks above the street wall and that this should not vary dependant on the heritage status or gradings applied5.

Heritage

• Objects to the application of proposed new Heritage Overlay on the properties at No. 30-40 Swan Street, Richmond.

The four buildings that make up 30-42 Swan Street have been assessed through the Heritage Assessments and Analysis as meeting Criterion A – Historical (Importance to the course or pattern of the City of Yarra’s cultural history) and Criterion D – Representativeness (Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments) at a local level, and therefore the inclusion of this precinct on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is appropriate.

4 ibid, p.61-62. 5 Ibid. p.66.

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

8

• Submits that the varying height, scale, and dates of the construction of the places, along with the extent of intervention that has occurred, reduces their heritage significance.

The heights of the four buildings varies by only one storey, which is typical of the difference of street wall heights found in similar places included on the Heritage Overlay. Likewise, the period of construction, including alterations (between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) represents the same period for which the buildings within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct are recognised. It is our view that this, albeit small, precinct demonstrates cohesiveness in terms of use, visual form, architectural language, scale and period of construction to the degree necessary to warrant inclusion on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

• Submits that the isolation of these places from the balance of the activity centre and their strategic redevelopment opportunities outweigh any potential benefit derived from their protection.

The Swan Street West Precinct is an illustrative example of historical development along a major, early commercial thoroughfare in the City of Yarra and has been identified as a separate and distinct group of buildings (from those included within HO335) that warrants inclusion on the Heritage Overlay. While small, the precinct is highly intact and clearly demonstrates the principal characteristics of a major Victorian and Edwardian commercial High Street. Consistent with numerous panel decisions it is our view that the strategic redevelopment opportunities that this, or any other site, should not influence the decision on whether or not to include a place on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

• Submits that heritage protection would constrain the future development of these properties.

This is not a relevant matter when considering whether or not to include a place on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Numerous Planning Panel reports have reiterated that the decision as to whether or not to include a property on the Heritage Overlay should be based on whether the place meets the threshold of ‘locally significant’ against one or more of the heritage criteria as set out in PPN1.

Whether there is a reasonable case for removing 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne from proposed heritage precinct HO524

We remain of the view that the properties at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne meet Criteria A (historical) and D (representativeness) at a local level and together form a small but cohesive precinct. Therefore, it is our view that Interim HO524 should be made permanent.

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

9

2.3 67 Docker Street, Richmond (c.1850-1890)

The single-storey Victorian cottage at 67 Docker Street, Richmond, is currently graded ‘contributory’ in the context of HO332 - Richmond Hill Precinct in Appendix 8. It forms a near-identical pair of terraced houses with 65 Docker Street which is currently graded ‘not contributory’ in Appendix 8. Both cottages have been significantly altered in a similar manner with infilled front verandahs, porch walls and rear two-storey hipped roof additions.

Consistent with the Heritage Assessments & Analysis report it is recommended that both 65 and 67 Docker Street should have the same heritage status, and – given their substantial alterations – it is considered that both should be identified as being ‘not contributory’ to the Richmond Hill Precinct in Appendix 8.

65 and 67 Docker Street are included within the study area by virtue of their Commercial 1 Zoning. They are however, in form, use and historical development, residential in character and it is unclear why they are zoned C1Z when the immediately adjacent residential properties to the north are zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The zoning of these two houses appears to be an anomaly and we recommended that they be rezoned from C1Z to NRZ.



• Asks Council to reconsider the regrading of 67 Docker Street, given its being part of the historic Docker subdivision or at the very least, the place be subject to the photographic essay if it cannot be saved.

It remains our view that both 65 and 67 Docker Street, being a near identical, but much-altered, pair of terraced houses should be graded the same within Appendix 8. The contribution that either make to HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct is considered relatively marginal and on balance it is recommended that both buildings be graded ‘not-contributory’. We also note that if a planning permit was issued for the demolition of either or both of these buildings a condition could be applied by Council requiring that an archival photographic record be made of the extant fabric.

Confirmation as to whether the alterations to 67 Docker Street, Richmond (and by extension 65 Docker Street) has irrevocably reduced its level of significance

Figure 3. 65 (left) and 67 (right) Docker Street, Richmond

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

10

The pair of terraced houses at 65 and 67 Docker Street were single storey cottages with simple parapets to the front. Both have undergone near identical alterations, which are assumed to have been undertaken by the same owner (or series of owners). These include:

• The construction of a low rendered wall (probably dating from the Inter-War period or at the latest the very early Post-War period)

• The filling-in of the verandah (and front gardens) in a weatherboard clad element built on the rendered wall (probably dating from the early Post-War period). Note: the presence of Victorian-era raised and fielded four panel doors does not show that the filled-in verandahs date from the nineteenth century but suggest that the original front doors may have been moved forward and installed within the new weatherboard-clad frontage

• Second storey additions set back approx. 8m from the front boundary, which were probably erected in the 1990s

• Recladding of roofs at the time of the construction of the rear additions

The Statement of Significance for the Richmond Hill Heritage Overlay Area (South Sub-Area) states (emphasis added):

The main development period evident in south sub-area of the Richmond Hill Heritage Overlay Area is that of the Victorian-era. There is also a contribution from the Edwardian-era and some well-preserved inter-war buildings and individually significant places of all eras.

Contributory elements The Heritage Overlay Area contributory elements include (but not exclusively) mainly detached and some attached Victorian-era (some early Victorian-era), one-storey houses having typically:

• Steeply pitched gabled or hipped roofs; • One storey wall heights; • Weatherboard (square or bead edge), face brick (dichrome), stone, or stucco walls; • Corrugated iron roof and slate cladding; • Chimneys of either stucco finish (with moulded caps) or of matching face brickwork with

corbelled capping courses; • Simple post-supported timber verandah elements facing the street; • Less than 40% of the street wall face comprised with openings such as windows and doors;

and • Front gardens, sometimes minimal, originally bordered by typically timber picket front fences

of around 1m height.

Contributory elements also include: • Corner shops and residences with display windows and zero boundary setbacks; • Well preserved buildings, including typically one storey buildings from the pre-Second War

era. • A regular subdivision plan with alternating wide principal streets and narrow service streets;

and • Public infrastructure, expressive of the Victorian and Edwardian-eras such as bluestone pitched

road paving, crossings, stone kerbs, channels, and asphalt paved footpaths. •

While it is acknowledged that the various elements of 65 and 67 Docker Street are reflected in the Statement of Significance for the South Sub-Area of HO332 - Richmond Hill Precinct, together they do not reflect a ‘well

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

11

preserved’ example of Victorian, Edwardian or Inter-War period buildings. The alterations made to both houses have dramatically altered the visual appearance of both 65 and 67 Docker Street and it is our view their presentation to the streetscape does not demonstrate the contributory aspects of the precinct as defined in the Statement of Significance.

Whether the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments & Analysis should be amended to reflect any

new findings contained in Submission 15

On balance, it remains our view that neither 65 nor 67 Docker Street contribute to HO332 to the degree that warrants re-grading 65 Docker Street to ‘contributory’ when considered against the definition of this term provided within Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme. We therefore do not believe that the Heritage Assessments and Analysis report should be amended.

It is, however, more important for consistency that the same grading be applied to both 65 and 67 Docker Street given their near identical nature. If Council decided to retain the grading of 67 Docker Street as ‘contributory’ we consider it essential that 65 Docker Street be reassessed to determine if this building warrants regrading.

2.4 218 Swan Street, Richmond (c.1850 – 1890)

This simple, single-storey parapeted building is currently graded ‘contributory’ in the context of the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8. It is flanked by an ‘individually significant’ building to the west and a ‘non-contributory’ building to the east. Appendix 8 assigns a broad construction date range of between 1850-1890. The 1895 MMBW Detail Plan confirms that the building had been constructed by this date, while Sands & McDougall Directories identifies that Pope & Sons Butchers occupied the building from 1893.

The building presents to Swan Street as comprising a simple cornice with flanking consul brackets and an unadorned parapet which has been partially over-clad.

The pitched roof form facing Swan Street has been removed leaving a free-standing brick gable visible from Swan Street. The shopfront and verandah have also been altered leaving very limited original fabric visible from the public realm.

As the building cannot be readily appreciated as a reasonably intact Victorian shop, it is recommended that the property be re-graded to ‘not contributory’ to the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8.




GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

12

Heritage


It remains our view that 218 Swan Street cannot be readily appreciated as a reasonably intact Victorian shop, and it is therefore recommended that the property be re-graded to ‘not contributory’ to the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8.

• States that it is a deliberate mistake by both Yarra and Tract Consultants to grade the 218 Swan Street as non-Contributory (and therefore should be removed from the Heritage Overlay).

We note that there is no proposal to remove the land at 218 Swan Street from the Heritage Overlay and agree that this should remain part of HO335 – Swan Street Precinct.

• States that the place is one of the oldest original buildings in Swan St (c 1850s) and its early construction date is evidenced by the original building's size and form, having the simple gabled roof pitch running parallel to the street.

While, elements of the extant building may date from an early period of the development of Swan Street, this is not clearly evident from the public realm with perhaps the exception of the (now freestanding) gable ends. It remains our view that the extant building at 218 Swan Street lacks the intactness required to warrant a ‘contributory’ grading and is not legible as a contributory part of HO335.

• States the place was originally a house when first built, as part of a 2 or 3-dwelling row (218-222 Swan MMBW map shows 3 former houses) set back from the street front about 8 - 12 feet.

Noted.

• Suggests that that Westpac Bank at 220 -222 Swan Street should be deemed “non-contributory” rather than 218 Swan Street.

This remains our position. Mapping

• States that as the Amendment maps do not include labels of the street names, which form the 'boundary' of affected areas, the proposed changes are unclear.

This point is unclear - no changes are proposed to the mapping of the extent of HO335 in relation to 218 Swan Street.

• Submits that all directly-affected parties are entitled to be provided with open, clear, accurate and reliable information in matters, and furthermore have the right and opportunity to have input into the process and outcome.

This is a matter for Council’s response – no comment.

Heights/Setbacks

• Submits that the heights proposed along Swan Street are excessive and unwarranted.

In relation to the block on the south side of Swan Street between Royal Place to the west and Church Street to the east, which includes 218 Swan Street, DDO17 proposes a mandatory upper-level setback of 5m, a mandatory building height of 21m (approx. 6 storeys) and the use of a 1/3:2/3 new built form to existing street wall sightline test. These were informed by

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

13

the Swan Street Structure Plan (DLA), the Built Form Heritage Review (GJM) and 3D modelling prepared by Tract Consultants. It is our view that these represent the minimum setback and maximum visible new built form that can be achieved while protecting the heritage values of HO335.

• Submits that there are no, or very limited building setbacks or permeation between the various buildings permitted, meaning a "fortress wall" of continuous built form up to (in some cases) 20 levels above ground could be developed.

This is primarily an urban design consideration - refer also to the comments above.

Urban consolidation

• Submits that no other Major Activity Centre within Yarra is subject to a similar proposal.


• States that Richmond is being sacrificed to excessive heights and over-dense, overdevelopment to protect other parts of Yarra (i.e. Fitzroy, Carlton, Clifton Hill, Collingwood) from development.


Confirmation as to whether the alterations to 218 Swan Street Swan Street, Richmond has irrevocably

reduced its level of significance.

218 Swan Street has undergone a number of changes that have diminished its intactness to its nineteenth century form. These include:

• Removal of the pitched roof form and replacement with a flat roof

• Partial over-cladding of the simple parapet

• Removal of original verandah (evident in the 1896 MMBW plans)

• Addition of a cantilever canopy

• Replacement of the shopfront windows in the mid twentieth century.

The Statement of Significance for HO335 – Swan Street Precinct identifies the following elements as being contributory to the precinct (emphasis added):

Contributory elements include (but not exclusively) typically attached Victorian-era and Edwardian-era mainly two-storey shops and residences having typically:

• Facade parapets, with pitched roofs behind • Two storey wall heights, • No front or side setbacks; • Face brick (red, dichrome and polychrome) or stucco walls; • Corrugated iron and slate roof cladding; • Chimneys of either stucco finish (with moulded caps) or of face red brickwork with corbelled

capping courses; • Post-supported street verandahs as shown on the MMBW Detail Plans (135), • Less than 40% of the street upper wall face comprised with openings such as windows; • Display windows, timber or tiled shopfront plinths, and entry recesses at ground level; and • Red brick, storage or stable buildings at the rear or side lane frontage for some properties;

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

14

Contributory elements also include: • Well preserved buildings from the inter-war period and individually significant buildings from

all periods; • Public infrastructure, expressive of the Victorian and Edwardian-eras such as bluestone pitched

road paving, crossings, stone kerbs, and channels, and asphalt paved footpaths The level of alteration to 218 Swan Street is greater than that evident to other ‘contributory’ graded buildings within HO335, and the extant fabric demonstrates relatively few of the contributory elements within the precinct.

The alterations have greatly altered the visual appearance of 218 Swan Street, and it is our view that the building now lacks integrity and makes little or no contribution to HO335.

Whether the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments & Analysis should be amended to reflect

any new findings contained in Submission 17.

It remains our view that 218 Swan Street should be graded ‘not-contributory’ within HO335, but that the land should remain within the extent of the Heritage Overlay.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations

3.1 Conclusion

The Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review provided advice on the minimum setbacks and other built form controls necessary to protect the identified heritage values of the study area noting its underlying zoning and Major Activity Centre status. This review was informed by the Swan Street Structure Plan and the 3D modelling and built from controls recommended by Tract. Some, but not all, of the recommended controls were translated into the exhibited version of DDO17. Subsequently, the Yarra C220 Panel Report has made recommendations relevant to Swan Street which warrant revisiting the use of a sight line test to moderate upper level built form and differentiating between the built form controls applied to ‘Individually Significant’ and ‘Contributory’ buildings. We also note that further modelling of Swan Street in the context of other submissions is also proposed.

The Heritage Assessments & Analysis report considered any anomalies in the identification, designation and mapping of heritage places within the study area. It is noted that, common to many local councils that utilise gradings or levels of significance, there is inconsistency in how gradings are applied within Appendix 8 and the Heritage Assessments & Analysis report does not attempt to re-grade every building.

3.2 Recommendations

We make the following recommendations in relation to submissions 15 (30-40 Swan Street, Richmond), 17 (218 Swan Street, Richmond), 18 (57-61 Swan Street, Richmond) and 25 (67 Docker Street, Richmond):

Swan Street West precinct, 30-40 Swan Street, Richmond:

• Interim HO524 should be applied on a permanent basis



Berties the Butcher, 218 Swan Street, Richmond:

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

15

• Should be regraded from ‘Contributory’ from ‘Not-contributory’

• Should remain within the extent of HO335 – Swan Street Precinct.

• Subject to further 3D modelling the DDO17 should be applied with the built form controls amended to apply setback and height controls that achieve an outcome similar to that sought by the sight line test.

The Corner Hotel, 51-67 Swan Street, Richmond:

• Should be removed from HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct and included within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct

• Should retain a grading of ‘Individually Significant’



67 Docker Street, Richmond:

• 65 and 67 Docker Street are houses of almost identical in form and development and should have the same grading in Appendix 8

• The C1Z zoning appears to be an anomaly and we recommended that they be rezoned from C1Z to NRZ

• 65 Docker Street is graded Not-contributory’ while 67 is graded ‘Contributory’

• 67 Docker Street should be regraded from ‘Contributory’ from ‘Not-contributory’ graded

• Should remain within the extent of HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct.

Jim Gard’ner | Director

GJM Heritage

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A: Heritage Citation – The Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond

Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis (5 October 2017)

GJMHeritage

1

HeritageCitation

THECORNERHOTEL

Address: 57-61SwanStreet,Richmond

Preparedby: GJMHeritage

Date: August2017

Placetype:Hotel Architect:Notknown

Grading:IndividuallysignificantinSwanStreetPrecinct(HO335)

Builder:Notknown

Integrity:Fair ConstructionDate:1966

Figure1.57-61SwanStreet,Richmond(GJMHeritage,October2016)

GJMHeritage

2

StatementofSignificance

Whatissignificant?

Thetwo-storeyhotelknownastheCornerHotel,57-61SwanStreet,Richmond,builtinthe1960s.

Howisitsignificant?

TheCornerHotel,57-61SwanStreet,Richmond isof localhistoricalandsocial significance to theCityofYarra.

Whyisitsignificant?

TheCornerHotel,RichmondhasmadeastrongcontributiontothecommercialandsociallifeofRichmondfromitsestablishmentintheearly1870sandanimportantandhighlyinfluentialcontributiontothemusicindustryasanimportantlivemusicvenuesinceitsrebuildinginthemid1960sandrenovationinthe1990s[CriterionA].

TheCornerHotel,Richmondisofparticularsocialsignificanceforitslong-termandcontinueduseasalivemusic venue. It is awell-established andwell-known venuewhich is considered amongst themost pre-eminentintheCityofYarraandthebroadercommunity[CriterionG].

HistoricalThemes

TheplaceillustratesthefollowingthemesasoutlinedintheCityofYarraThematicHistory(1998):

7.0LeisureandEntertainmentintheSuburbs-7.1LicensedHotelsand‘SlyGrog’

PlaceHistory

TheCornerHotelwasfirst listedin itsSwanStreet locationintheSands&McDougallDirectories in1872withthelicenseheldbyDavidandJaneMcCormick(Johnston,2005).Thehoteloccupiedthewesternendofatwo-storeybuilding(whichcomprisedthreepremises;Figures2-3)thatmayhavebeenbuiltasearlyas1869(S&Mc).From1873,JohnFrenchwaslistedasthepublicanoftheCornerHotel(S&Mc).

Anearlynewspaperarticle(post-1916whenthetramlinewasestablished;RBHS)advertisedthesaleofthe‘CornerHotelRichmond’withaphotooftheearlierbuildingonthesiteandtheCornerHoteloccupyingthewestern premises (Figure 2). Anoblique aerial photodating to 1945 (Figure 4) shows the earlier CornerHotel building and outbuildings to the rear. The roof form of the earlier building appears to have been‘updated’duringtheInterwarperiod.

ThefollowingextractfromChrisJohnston’sarticleontheCornerHotelchroniclesthehotel’shistory(2005):

In 1881 aWilliamMalone renovated thepub to include "first class" hotelaccommodationwith"bestbrands"ofales,winesandspirits.Maloneheldthepubuntil1895;ownerswiththesurnamesofHall,Horrigan,Murphy,Kerr,Dwyer,MunroandMarriotlookedafterituntilthe1930s,NellyO'Connorandherhusbandhadthepubfrom1929until1935;Nelly'sfatherhadthePloughInninAvenal,nearSeymour.

MusicatTheCornerseemstohavebeguninthe1940sjazzera,butonlybyday.Detailsaresketchy,althoughmanyRichmondold-timersdistinctlyremembermusicfromtheroofgardenontopofthepub.Inthe1950sthepubfellunderthecontroloftheMelbourneCooperativeBrewingCompany,anoffshootofCarltonandUnitedBreweries,withthesitetitledas"Crownportion22,ParishofJikaJika,CountyofBourke".Itwastheheightofthesixo'clockswillera,whenpubshadtoshutat6pm.Workingmenwouldchargeinat5.30pm,fightingtothebar,orderingbeers five at a time. "The pub was very famous then," says Austin Black, aformerCUBpropertyinspector."Ithadaverylongbar."ThelawwasabolishedinVictoriain

GJMHeritage

3

1966.Closing timebecame10pm,but theoldCornerHotel, intact for100or soyears,wasthencompletelydemolished,justasitstoodtomakeakilling,tomakewayforwiderrailwaylines out of Richmondstation, which was busier now with the growth of the eastern andsouthernsuburbs.Itwasrebuiltquickly,however,asastand-alone,largerhotel,withoutthepreviousadjoining shops, a 1000-square-metre building on the same site, just shifted alittleto let the trains through. It had a beer garden on the roof, hotelaccommodationupstairs, and two bars - one of which would become the famous CornerHotelbandroom.

From1985until1987,WayneGaleco-ownedthepubwiththeItalian-bornGualtieribrothers,JoeandFrank.JoewasalegendaryMelbournemusicidentitythroughthe1970sand1980s-heownedBombayRockandEarl'sCourtin StKilda,whichbecame theVenue.HealsohadtwoJoey'sbars,inStKildaandPrahran.In1987,GualtieriandtheotherpartnerssoldupandWayne Gale bought the business back with his share of theproceeds. In 1988, twoluckystrikes bathed The Corner in lights, if onlybriefly. Pink Floyd guitarist DaveGilmourplayed unannounced at The Corner in February, with an all-star band, asTheFishermen.Then inOctober,Mick Jaggercamecallingandplayedan impromptugigatTheCorner.

By 1993, The Corner wasnear-derelict.Biker gangs had claimed the smaller public bar astheirownand ithad turned intoano-gozoneandeventually itwasdeserted.Newownersswooped, and Michael Geoghagen bought the lease in late 1993.He found The Corner"wrecked". The cellars were flooded, he says, the bar wasvandalised, the upstairs roomsweredamagedand therewasevidenceof squatters.Hespent$14,000on renovations,andtriedtogetthebandsback.Itworked,toadegree,butGeoghagenleftTheCornerafteronlyayear,anditlayidleforanothersixmonths.Thenthecurrentownerscamein,TimNortheastandMatEveritt,whoboughttheplacein1995.TheCornerisnowuniversallyconsideredthebestmedium-sizedrockvenueintown.

Figure2.TheCornerHotelat57SwanStreetin1896(MMBWDP1069,dated1896).

GJMHeritage

4

Figure3.TheearlierbuildingcomprisingtheCornerHotelandtwoadjacentshops.Nodaterecordedon

advertisementbutdatestopost-1916whenthetramlinewasconstructedonSwanStreet(RBHSHS03064).

Figure4.Detailofa1945aerialphotoshowingtheearlierbuildingthattheCornerHoteloccupied

(CharlesD.Pratt,c1945,SLVImageH91.160472).

GJMHeritage

5

PhysicalDescription

The Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond is located on the north side of Swan Street betweenWangarattaandBotharamboStreets.ItoccupiesanirregularlyshapedallotmentwhichfacesSwanStreetandtheadjoiningStewartStreet.The latterrunsatananglealongthenorthsideoftheelevatedrailwayline.

The Swan Street/Stewart Street facade is simple and two-storey, with tiled lower face and lightweightcladding, enclosing a roofed beer garden, at the upper level. To the north is a two-storey red brickrectangularbuilding,with tiledhipped roof,which runseast-westbetweenWangarattaandBotharamboStreets.Anassortmentofopenairdecksandbuildingsectionslinkthesetwomainbuildings.

IntactnessandIntegrity

The current hotelwas constructed in the 1960s.Additions and alterations have sincebeenmade to thebuilding.Theplaceretainsafair levelofphysical intactnessto its1960sconstruction.Theplaceretainsahighlevelofintegritytoitshistoricalandsocialvalues.

AssessmentAgainstCriteria

FollowingisanassessmentoftheplaceagainsttherecognisedheritagecriteriasetoutinPlanningPracticeNote1:ApplyingtheHeritageOverlay(July2015).

CriterionA:Importancetothecourseorpatternofourculturalornaturalhistory(historicalsignificance).

TheCornerHotel,RichmondhasmadeastrongcontributiontothecommercialandsociallifeofRichmondfromitsestablishmentintheearly1870sandanimportantandhighlyinfluentialcontributiontothemusicindustryasanimportantlivemusicvenuesinceitsrebuildinginthemid1960sandrenovationinthe1990s

CriterionG:Strongorspecialassociationwithaparticularcommunityorculturalgroupforsocial,culturalor spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of the place to Indigenous peoples as part of theircontinuinganddevelopingculturaltraditions(socialsignificance).

TheCornerHotel,Richmondisofparticularsocialsignificanceforitslong-termandcontinueduseasalivemusic venue. It is awell-established andwell-known venuewhich is considered amongst themost pre-eminentintheCityofYarraandthebroadercommunity.

GradingandRecommendations

TheCornerHotelhasoccupiedaprominentpositionatthewesternendofthecommercialheartofSwanStreet,Richmondsinceitwasfirstconstructedintheearly1870s.TheplaceisstronglylinkedtothehistoricfunctionandformofSwanStreet.ItisrecommendedthattheplacebeincludedintheHeritageOverlayofthe Yarra Planning Scheme as an individually significant heritage place within the Swan Street Precinct(HO335).

Identifiedby:

Butler,GraemeandAssociates(2007,updated2013),CityOfYarraReviewOfHeritageOverlayAreas.

The 2007 Study graded the place as Individually Significant within the Richmond Hill Precinct(HO332).

AllomLovell&Asociates(1998),CityofYarraHeritageReview.

The1998StudyrecommendedtheplacebeincludedintheRichmondHillPrecinct.

GJMHeritage

6

References:

CharlesD.Pratt,AirspyImageH91.160472,1945,accessedviaStateLibraryofVictoriapicturecollection.

Johnston,Chris(2005),‘Corner-HouseofRock’,publishedinAgeMelbourneMagazine,November2005.Accessedvia‘TheCornerHotel15yearsanniversary’,<https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/2/45976/81822/pub/html/31.html>,accessedJuly2017.

MelbourneandMetropolitanBoardofWorks(MMBW)DetailPlan1069,dated1896.

RichmondandBurnleyHistoricalSociety(RBHS),ImageNo.HS03064(nodate),viaCityofYarraLibrarycatalogue.

Sands&McDougall(S&Mc)Directories.

GJM Heritage

_______________________________________________________________________________________

17

Appendix B: Heritage Citation – 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne

Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis (5 October 2017)

GJM Heritage

1

Heritage Citation

SWAN STREET WEST PRECINCT

Address: 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne

Prepared by: GJM Heritage

Date: August 2017

Place type: Commercial shops Architect: Not known

Grading: Locally significant precinct comprising four contributory buildings Builder: Not known

Integrity: High (above street level) Construction Date: Victorian, Edwardian

Recommendation: Include in Heritage Overlay (Swan Street West Precinct) Extent of Overlay: Refer to Figure 20

Figure 1. 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne (GJM Heritage, October 2016)

GJM Heritage

2

Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The Swan Street West Precinct comprising 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne.

Elements that contribute to the significance of the place include (but are not limited to):

x The original external form, materials and detailing of the four buildings x The high level of integrity of the buildings to their late nineteenth and early twentieth century

design.

Later (post 1940) alterations and additions to the rear and shopfront are not significant.

How is it significant?

The Swan Street West Precinct is of local historical and architectural significance to the City of Yarra.

Why is it significant?

The Swan Street West Precinct is illustrative of historical development along a major, early commercial thoroughfare in the City of Yarra. As the only remaining group of intact commercial buildings from the Victorian and Edwardian periods west of the Swan Street railway bridge, this precinct demonstrates the commercial development at the west entrance of the major Swan Street ‘High Street’ up to the 1920s [Criterion A].

The small but intact Swan Street West Precinct clearly demonstrates the principal characteristics of a major Victorian and Edwardian ‘High Street’ in the City of Yarra. Typical characteristics, including parapeted facades with repetitive upper floor fenestration, rendered facades and ground floor shopfronts, are displayed in the variety of original forms, fabric and detailing of the four buildings [Criterion D].

Historical Themes

The place illustrates the following themes as outlined in the City of Yarra Thematic History (1998):

4.0 Developing local economy

- 4.4 Smaller Retailers: Strip Shopping

7.0 Leisure and Entertainment in the Suburbs

- 7.1 Licensed Hotels and ‘Sly Grog’

Precinct History

Swan Street was designated as a road reserve in Robert Hoddle‘s Crown Survey of 1837. Along with Bridge Road and Church Street, it was one of the first roads laid out in Richmond.

The land within the Swan Street West Precinct was part of Crown Allotments 1 and 2 (Parish of Jika Jika) sold by the Crown in 1849. By 1855, Richmond had undergone significant development. James Kearney’s 1855 survey map of Melbourne (Figure 2) shows development fronting the west end of Swan Street, with a further concentration of development near the intersection with Church Street. Early structures evident along Swan Street, including within the Precinct, appear to have been demolished during later development. In 1859 the Richmond Railway Station opened, spurring development in its vicinity.

Like Melbourne generally, Richmond experienced a development boom in the 1880s. Commercial development on Swan Street expanded as an increasing population coupled with exorbitant rents and soaring property prices drove shopkeepers out of Melbourne to the surrounding ring of inner cities, like Richmond. By the end of the 1890s much of the predominantly Victorian streetscape between Punt Road and Church Street had been formed (Figure 3). In 1901 Swan Street was sealed and intermittent construction and development of commercial buildings continued at the western end of Swan Street during

GJM Heritage

3

the Edwardian period. The arrival of the tramline in 1916 provided easier access to the Swan Street shopping strip.

Following World War I, vacant lots at the western end of Swan Street (between Punt Road and Church Street) were filled, and a number of earlier buildings replaced. The dense development along Swan Street at this time is evident on an aerial dating to c1925-c1940 (Figure 8). Redevelopment at the western end of Swan Street has seen the demolition of the majority of early commercial buildings on Swan Street between Punt Road and the railway line (Figures 9-10).

Figure 2. Kearney’s 1855 map showing earlier buildings along Swan Street, the red polygon highlights the buildings between Wellington Street and Cremorne Street.

Figure 3. The southern side of Swan Street, between Wellington Street (left) and Cremorne Street (right) in 1896 (MMBW DP 910).

30-32 Swan Street

In 1854, Richard Dunstone purchased the front portion of the current 30-32 Swan Street, while George H. Knight purchased a lot fronting Wellington Street (current 5 Wellington Street), which included the rear portion of the current 30-32 Swan Street (Old Law Note 2518). Knight built a weatherboard house at the rear of the property, which is evident on the 1896 Melbourne Metropolitan Board or Works (MMBW) plan (then part of 32 Swan Street; Figure 3). In 1882 Knight purchased the land fronting Swan Street at 30-32 Swan Street, to form the extent that exists in 2017 (LV:V1400/F951). In 1887 the property passed to Charles E Knight, Hobart gentleman, and John Mann, fruiterer. The property continued to change hands – in 1889 it was sold to Duncan Kerr, bookbinder, in 1894 to John Hurrey, gentleman, and in 1906 it was sold to John William Gipson (LV:V1400/F951). The property remained in the Gipson family until 1938, who also owned the adjacent 34 Swan Street (LV:V3141/F056; RB).

GJM Heritage

4

Images of this part of Swan Street, dating to c1891 and 1892, indicate that no building had been constructed on the Swan Street boundary of nos. 30-32 Swan Street by this date (Figures 4-6). The 1896 MMBW detail plan confirms that the front of 30-32 remained vacant, and the house remained at the rear of the property (since demolished) (Figure 3).

Nos. 30 and 32 Swan Street were first listed in the Sands & McDougall Directories in 1907; 30 was occupied by John Reardon, bootmaker, and 32 occupied by Walter Cameron, cabinetmaker. The 1910 Rate Books confirm that John Gipson was the owner of nos. 30 and 32 Swan Street, each described as a five room brick ‘house’, with different occupants (Gipson was also rated as the owner and occupant of 34 Swan Street) (RB).

An analysis of the architectural style and detailing of the building suggests that it may date from the early Edwardian period (1901-1918), and was probably constructed for Gipson. The single-storey section to the rear of the shop does not appear to be evident in the c1925-c1940 photo; built date not confirmed (Figure 8).

Figure 4. Looking west down Swan Street c1891, during a flood. Far left is 36-38 Swan Street, the next building with the verandah is no. 34. Beyond this, vacant lots are visible (SLV, Image a14552).

34 Swan Street

The current 34 Swan Street was sold to Charles E. Knight in 1854, then to George H. Knight in 1862 (Old Law Note 31103). It has been suggested that the existing building dates to 1870, however research indicates an earlier timber building existed at this date (Butler 2009:404). In 1884 the property was sold to Mark F. Toner and his wife Sarah (Old Law Note 31103). The rate books confirm that in 1886 Mark Toner, blacksmith, was rated as the owner and occupant of a timber (weatherboard) shop and 3 rooms, with a Net Annual Value of 20 pounds (RB). By 1889 Toner, a grocer, was rated as the owner and occupant of a 4 room weatherboard house and shop, with a Net Annual Value of 28 pounds (RB).

In 1890 Amelia M. Jago purchased the property. The following year in 1891 Walter Jago, Richmond butcher, was rated as the owner of the 4 room weatherboard house and shop, with an increased Net Annual Value of 38 pounds, now occupied by John W. Gipson, painter (RB). Images dating to c1891 and 1892 (Figures 4-6) show that a two-storey building existed at this date, with signage advertising Gipson’s business. Figure 6 suggests there was timber cladding to the façade of the second storey in 1892. The 1896 MMBW Detail

GJM Heritage

5

Plan (Figure 3) shows the building located on the front title boundary Swan Street, with a verandah over the footpath and a verandah on the rear elevation, as well as a long narrow outbuilding with a stables in the backyard (outbuilding since removed).

In 1897 the property was sold to Mary M. Gipson; the family remained the owner of 34 (and 30 and 32) Swan Street until 1938 (LV:V5124/F714). In 1900 John Gipson, painter, was rated for a 4 room brick house at 34 Swan Street. By 1910 the building was described with 7 rooms and a NAV of 45 pounds (RB).

In 1920, 34 Swan Street was still described as a 7-room brick building, with a NAV of 60 pounds (RB). However by 1925, the building at 34 Swan Street had a large increase of the NAV to 140 pounds (with no description). This large increase in Net Annual Value indicates substantial improvements at the property (RB). This evidence suggests that the third storey was added between 1920 and 1925, at which date the bay window may have also been added to the second storey. The large two-storey building on the rear boundary, evident in the c1925-c1940 photo (Figure 8), may also have been constructed during this period (date not confirmed).

A photo (Figure 7) shows the three-storey building at 34 Swan Street (which remains in 2017); the photo reportedly dates to c1900 however it probably dates later, as it shows the first floor bay window which probably dates to a later period. A c1925-c1940 aerial shows the three-storey (two-storey to the rear) building from the west, with Gipson’s advertisement on the side of the building, and the two-storey outbuilding to the rear (Figure 8).

An analysis of the architectural style and detailing of the building suggests that it may date from the late Victorian period (1875-1901), with a second floor addition and alterations made in the 1920s.

Figure 5. An image published in a local newspaper in 1892, showing the earlier form of 34 Swan Street. To the left is the extant building at 36-38 Swan Street (Reporter, 23 Sep 1892:4).

Figure 6. A better reproduction of the same image, 1892 (Latrobe Library Picture Collection cited in O’Connor, Coleman et al, 1985:120).

GJM Heritage

6

Figure 7. A photo of 34 Swan Street with three-storeys, reportedly dating to c1900 but probably dating to the 1920s; the c1900 date does not correlate with other evidence and the first floor bay window appears to date to the early Interwar period (Richmond Historical Society as cited in O’Connor, Coleman et al, 1985:67).

36-38 Swan Street

John Smith purchased the current 36-38 Swan Street in 1865, and was first listed in the Sands & McDougall Directories on this part of Swan Street as a grocer in 1869 (Old Law Note 14766; S&Mc). The 1869 rate books confirm that Mrs John Smith, publican, was the owner and occupant of a 6 room brick ‘house’, with a Net Annual Value of 52 pounds (RB). The following year in 1870, Mrs Smith was listed in the Sands & McDougall Directory as the publican of the Daniel O’Connell Hotel. Five years later in 1875, Smith’s building was described as an 8 room brick hotel with a similar NAV of 50 pounds. During this period Smith was also rated for a 3 room wooden house at the rear of the property, which was tenanted (RB). Mary Smith, wife of the late John Smith, died in 1876, with her residence noted as the Daniel O’Connell Hotel in Swan Street (Argus, 6 Apr 1876:8).

In 1875 the property was sold to Stephen Stapleton and in 1879 Ludwig Merick was the publican of the 8 room hotel (Old Law Note 14766; RB; S&Mc). In 1881 William J. Cuddon, accountant, purchased the hotel for a short period, before selling to Thomas Fogarty and Lawrence Doyle, wine and spirit merchants in 1882 (LV:V1280/F981; V1380/F900). By 1884 the hotel was renamed the Bowling Club Hotel, retaining an 8 room extent until the late 1880s when the hotel was recorded with 10 rooms. Miss Julia Torpey was the publican of the hotel from 1883 until c1900, when M. M. Fitzgerald took over (S&Mc; RB).

The building and its original ground floor facade are evident in c1891 and 1892 images (Figures 4-6). The footprint of the hotel is evident on the 1896 MMBW plan, with wings extending to the rear of the building with outbuildings in the backyard (Figure 3).

The hotel was sold by Doyle to Michael Fitzgerald in 1913 and subsequently leased to tenants (LV:V1380/F900). From 1919 the Bowling Club Hotel ceased to be listed in the Directories, after which nos. 36 and 38 Swan Street were listed with various commercial occupants (S&Mc). After Fitzgerald’s death in 1933, the building had various owners (LV:V1380/F900).

An analysis of the architectural style and detailing of the building suggests that the building dates from the mid-Victorian period (1860-1875). Various stages of additions and outbuildings are evident to the rear of the building (dates not confirmed).

GJM Heritage

7

40-42 Swan Street

The building at 40-42 Swan Street appears to have been constructed as two separate buildings, with no. 42 extended towards the street, and a unifying facade constructed, at a later date. The current aerial photograph (Figure 19) clearly shows two different roof forms behind the later façade.

In 1865 Abraham England purchased the property (the current 40-42), and was subsequently listed in the Sands & McDougall Directories, however it is not clear what building existed at this date. In 1869 the property was sold to Matilda J. W. Thorpe (Old Law Note 13829).

In February 1881 Ernest A. Avery, ‘general dealer’ officially purchased the property (LV:V1226/F124). However prior to this, the 1879-80 rate books recorded that Avery, greengrocer, was rated as the owner and occupant of the property just east of the hotel, with a 6 room brick house and a Net Annual Value of 36 pounds (RB). In 1880, Ernest A. Avery, dairy and greengrocer was listed for the first time in the Directories, just east of the hotel (S&Mc).

By 1881, Avery, a dairyman, was listed as the owner of the two adjacent lots east of the hotel. Next to the hotel was a 5 room brick and weatherboard shop with a NAV of 30 pounds, which was occupied by Avery. The second lot held a 5 room brick house with a NAV of 20 pounds (RB). By 1884 both of Avery’s lots were occupied by a 6 room brick ‘house’, both occupied by David Chambers, timber merchant; no. 40 had a NAV of 30 pounds, while no. 42 had a NAV of 24 pounds.

In 1891 the property was transferred to John Hall, bottle merchant (LV:V1226/F124). After Hall’s death in 1901, the property was jointly owned by Joseph Hall, a cellarman, and George Whaley, a bottle merchant (LV:V1226/F124). The 1896 MMBW plan (Figure 3) shows that two individual buildings existed at this date, with no. 42 setback from Swan Street with a verandah along the facade, which probably served as a residence at this date. Both buildings are shown with wings and outbuildings extending to the south (which appear to all have been replaced with later additions; dates not confirmed).

Between 1910 and 1922 the property was officially owned by Equity Trustees following the death of the previous owners (LV:V1226/F124). In 1910 the NAV of the properties (each with 6 rooms) was similar to that of 1884. By 1920, the NAV of no. 40 had increased from 32 pounds in 1910 to 45 pounds, while no. 42 had increased from 20 to 33 pounds (RB). John Jeffrey purchased the property in 1922; the Jeffrey family retained ownership until 1954 (LV:V3482/F274).

The rate books do not give a clear indication of when the facade was constructed for both 40 and 42, and when no. 42 was presumably extended to reach the front title boundary (as evident from the 1896 MMBW plan, Figure 3), however an analysis of the architectural style and details suggests that the façade dates to the early twentieth century. The two buildings were separately listed in the Directories, with various occupants, until c1925 when Robert Jeffrey ‘motor cars for hire’ was addressed at 40-42 Swan Street, with John Jeffrey, motor accessories and leather goods also addressed at 40 Swan Street (S&Mc).

An analysis of the architectural style and detailing of the building suggests that the building façade dates from the Edwardian period (1901-1918).

GJM Heritage

8

Figure 8. A detail of an oblique aerial (dated c1925-c1940) look east down the southern side of Swan Street from Wellington Street, with Gipson’s three-storey building prominent at 34 Swan Street (Charles D. Pratt, c1925-c1940, SLV Image H91.160/1640).

Figure 9. Swan Street off Punt Road (looking east) c1925-c1940 (Charles D. Pratt, c1925-c1940, SLV Image H91.160/1640).

Figure 10. Swan Street off Punt Road (looking east) in 2017 (Google Maps, 2017).

GJM Heritage

9

Physical Description

The row of commercial premises at 30-42 Swan Street is situated on the south side of Swan Street between Wellington and Cremorne Streets, opposite the Richmond Railway Station. The row is flanked by vacant allotments and is therefore viewed as an isolated group of commercial buildings with no front set back and little or no side setbacks. All buildings have rendered facades and roofs set behind parapets.

30-32 Swan Street (Figure 11)

The commercial premises at 30-32 Swan Street contains two shops with residences above and presents as a parapeted, two-storey rendered (overpainted) facade to Swan Street with detailing typical of the late Victorian/early Edwardian period. The upper façade contains two rectangular windows with prominent sills and simple label head mouldings. Central glazing bars divide the lower window sashes while air conditioning units have replaced the upper sashes. These windows are separated and flanked by raised vertical panels containing decorative mouldings. The parapet above has a central curved pediment with crowning scrolled motif, side urns on vermiculated rusticated pedestals (one missing) and a central diamond motif similarly rusticated. Front verandahs have been removed and the simple timber shopfront is more recent.

34 Swan Street (Figure 12)

The commercial premises at 34 Swan Street is a three-storey building which contains a single shopfront. The building dates from the late Victorian period with additions and alterations made in the 1920s. The front façade is rendered (overpainted) and contains two rectangular double-hung one-over-one sash windows at the upper level, with moulded stringcourses above and below, and a rectangular bay window at first floor level. The parapet is a plain cornice, with crowning curved pediment containing the number ‘34’, flanking scrolls and small central curved pediment.

The bay window at first floor level has a small hipped roof of corrugated iron, timber framed windows and diagonal timber panelling below. The shopfront has a recessed timber-framed side entry and large shop windows, which are likely to date from the 1920s (Context, 2014). A front verandah has been removed.

Figure 11. 30-32 Swan Street (GJM Heritage, October 2016) Figure 12. 34 Swan Street (GJM Heritage, October 2016)

GJM Heritage

10


The commercial premises at 36-38 Swan Street presents as a single parapeted, two-storey building to Swan Street, dating from the mid-Victorian period. The broad upper façade is rendered (overpainted) with three large incised diamond-shaped motifs and two rectangular double-hung two-over-two sash windows. These windows have moulded frames with incised scrolled decoration in pedimented window heads. The crowning parapet cornice has elaborate side consoles and central curved broken pediment with flanking scrolls. Shopfronts at street level are recent metal framed openings with a single entrance on the east side.


The commercial premises at 40-42 Swan Street comprises two adjoining buildings and presents as a single parapeted, two-storey building to Swan Street. The symmetrical rendered façade, which dates from the Edwardian period, has rusticated side pilasters and a simple curved parapet line. The upper façade contains a row of four rectangular double-hung one-over-one sash windows with simple moulded frames. At street level shopfronts have been rebuilt and a cantilever canopy constructed.

Figure 13. 36-38 Swan Street (GJM Heritage, October 2016) Figure 14. 40-42 Swan Street (GJM Heritage, October

2016)

Integrity

The buildings retain a high degree of integrity to the Victorian and Edwardian periods in fabric, form and detail. While the buildings have undergone some alterations, as described above, – including the loss of verandahs and some shopfronts at street level – these do not diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the places as highly intact examples of Victorian and Edwardian shops and residences.

Comparative Analysis

The commercial premises at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne are of note as an intact and representative row of commercial buildings, constructed in the Victorian and Edwardian periods.

Substantial numbers of commercial buildings were constructed in the City of Yarra from the 1880s to the 1920s. Those of the late nineteenth century typically incorporated classical elements and motifs into symmetrical parapeted facades with varying degrees of elaboration. Rendered facades were most common, with some facades of red brick and contrasting render and others of polychromatic brickwork. Rendered decoration, in the form of classical elements such as cornices, architraves, balustrading, urns, stringcourses and pediments, was commonly applied to facades and wall render was occasionally incised. Windows were typically rectangular, sometimes arch-headed, and these were repeated regularly across upper facades. Commercial buildings of the early twentieth century were typically built of face red brick with render contrasts and parapetted facades were generally symmetrically composed. Facades often

GJM Heritage

11

incorporated simple classical elements and non-classical detailing, such as Art Nouveau-inspired decoration.

Commercial buildings from this period were most commonly of two-storeys, with fewer single-storey and three or four-storey premises constructed. They were typically built as rows of attached buildings, as pairs, or as individual buildings with no side setbacks from adjoining properties and no front setback. Corner properties commonly had a splayed corner and addressed both streets, to various degrees.

Within the City of Yarra, large numbers of commercial premises built in the Victorian and Edwardian periods are included in the Heritage Overlay as individually significant and contributory places within precincts. Comparative groups of buildings within existing precincts, which broadly display characteristics similar to the precinct at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne, include:

x 409-417 Swan Street (Burnley Street Precinct, HO474) x 91-101 Swan Street (Swan Street Precinct, HO335) x 129-141 Bridge Road (Bridge Road Precinct, HO310) x 178-186 Bridge Road (Bridge Road Precinct, HO310).

Figure 15. 409-417 Swan Street (Burnley Street Precinct, HO474) (Google, Feb 2017).

Figure 16. 91-101 Swan Street (Swan Street Precinct, HO335) (Google, Oct 2016).

GJM Heritage

12

Figure 17. 129-141 Bridge Road (Bridge Road Precinct, HO310) (Google, Nov 2016).

Figure 18. 178-186 Bridge Road (Bridge Road Precinct, HO310).

Like these places, the commercial premises at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne display a range of characteristics which have strong associations with the Victorian and Edwardian periods and the buildings remain highly intact to demonstrate these associations.

The commercial premises at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne demonstrate the following Victorian characteristics:

x A variety of simple facade parapets, with pitched roofs behind x No front setbacks x Rendered walls x Rendered window frames, sills and hoods to upper storeys x Rendered ornament and incised decoration to upper storeys x Horizontal lines formed by parapets, cornices, and string courses x Repetitive upper floor fenestration patterns x Corrugated iron roof cladding.

GJM Heritage

13

Assessment Against Criteria

Following is an assessment of the place against the recognised heritage criteria set out in Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (July 2015).

Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).

The Swan Street West Precinct is illustrative of historical development along a major, early commercial thoroughfare in the City of Yarra. As the only remaining group of intact commercial buildings from the Victorian and Edwardian periods west of the Swan Street railway bridge, this precinct demonstrates the commercial development at the west entrance of the major Swan Street ‘High Street ‘up to the 1920s

Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness).

The small but intact Swan Street West Precinct clearly demonstrates the principal characteristics of a major Victorian and Edwardian ‘High Street’ in the City of Yarra. Typical characteristics, including parapeted facades with repetitive upper floor fenestration, rendered facades and ground floor shopfronts, are displayed in the variety of original forms, fabric and detailing of the four buildings.

Grading and Recommendations

It is recommended that the place be included in the Heritage Overlay of the Yarra Planning Scheme as a heritage precinct comprising four ‘contributory’ buildings.

Recommendations for the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) in the Yarra Planning Scheme:

External Paint Controls? No

Internal Alteration Controls? No

Tree Controls? No

Outbuildings or Fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-3? No

Prohibited Uses Permitted? No

Incorporated Plan? Incorporated Plan under No the provisions of clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, Planning Permit Exemptions, July 2014

Aboriginal Heritage Place? No

GJM Heritage

14

Extent of the recommended Heritage Overlay

To the property title boundary, as indicated by the polygon on the aerial below.

Figure 19. Aerial image showing recommended extent (adapted from nearmap)

GJM Heritage

15

Figure 20. Recommended extent of the Swan Street West Precinct shaded in red (adapted from existing Heritage Overlay map)

Identified by:

Context (2014), City of Yarra Heritage Gap Study: Review of 17 Heritage Precincts.

This study re-assessed the Swan Street West Precinct and concluded that it did not meet the threshold of local significance.

Butler, Graeme & Associates (2009), City of Yarra Heritage Gap Study Stage Two.

This study identified ‘Swan Street West Cremorne, Commercial Heritage Precinct’ which included 30, 36 and 40-42 Swan Street as ‘contributory’ buildings and 34 Swan Street as an ‘individually significant’ building.

O'Connor, John & Roslyn Coleman & Thurley O'Connor & Heather Wright & Australian Heritage Commission et al. (1985), Richmond Conservation Study.

The 1985 Study graded 34 Swan Street ‘C’ in the Building Index.

Nos. 30, 36-38 and 40-42 were graded ‘D’ in the Building Index.

References:

Butler, Graeme and Associates (2009), City of Yarra Heritage Gap Study Stage Two.

Charles D. Pratt, Airspy image, c1925-c1940, accessed via State Library of Victoria picture collection.

Context (2014), City of Yarra Heritage Gap Study: Review of 17 Heritage Precincts.

City of Richmond Rate Books, South Ward: 1886, entry 5902; 1869-70, entry 3087; 1875, entry 4323; 1879-80, entry 4499; 1879-80, entry 4500; 1881, entries 4461-62; 1882, entries 4620-21; 1884-85, entry 5398; 1889-90, entry 7278; 1890, entry 7280; 1900, entry 2126; 1910-11, entries 2276-87; 1920, entries 2393-34; 1925, entries 2377-80.

Kearney, James (draughtsman), Melbourne and its suburbs [cartographic material], 1855.

GJM Heritage

16

Land Victoria (LV), Certificates of Title, as cited above.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW), Detail Plan 910, dated 1896.

O'Connor, John & Roslyn Coleman & Thurley O'Connor & Heather Wright & Australian Heritage Commission et al. (1985), Richmond Conservation Study.

Old Law Notes, as cited above.

Reporter [Box Hill].

Sands & McDougall Directories (S&Mc)

State Library of Victoria (SLV), Images as cited.

The Argus.

GJM Heritage

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Annexure B: Preliminary Heritage Advice: Yarra Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Richmond (GJM Heritage, 30 August 2019)

Yarra C191 – Swan Street – Preliminary Advice 2019-030

GJM Heritage i

Preliminary Heritage Advice Yarra Amendment C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre, Richmond

30 August 2019

Prepared for Alayna Chapman, Senior Strategic Planner – City of Yarra

GJM Heritage

a: Level 3, 124 Exhibition Street [GPO Box 2634], Melbourne, VIC 3001 t: 0408 321 023 e: [email protected] w: www.gjmheritage.com

Yarra C191 – Swan Street Activity Centre – Preliminary Advice 2019-030

GJM Heritage

ii

© GJM Heritage (2019) All Rights Reserved

Project Team

Jim Gard’ner – Director

Jess Hogg – Heritage Consultant

Document versions

Project no. Version Issued to Date issued

2019-030 Draft v0.1 Alayna Chapman, Senior Strategic Planner 21 August 2019

Final Alayna Chapman, Senior Strategic Planner 2 September 2019


GJM Heritage iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. ivFindings and Recommendations .................................................................................................................. iv

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11.1 Description Swan Street Activity Centre .......................................................................................... 1

2. Response to Submissions .............................................................................................................. 22.1 Submission 15 – ................................. 32.2 Submission 16 – ....................................................................... 42.3 Submission 17 .................................................................................................................................. 72.4 Submission 18 – .......................................................................................................... 82.5 Submission 21 – ...................................................... 102.6 Submission 29 – .................................................................. 11

3. Advice on Proposed Built Form Controls .......................................................................................... 133.1 Precinct 1 – Richmond Station ....................................................................................................... 133.2 Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre .......................................................................................... 143.3 Other matters ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.3.1 Extent of DDO17 ........................................................................................................................ 173.3.2 Sight line test ............................................................................................................................. 173.3.3 Matching the height of adjacent heritage façades .................................................................... 173.3.4 Corner sites ................................................................................................................................ 17


GJM Heritage

iv

Executive Summary GJM Heritage (GJM) prepared the Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review (dated 29 September 2017) (Built

Form Heritage Review) and the Swan Street Built Form Study Heritage Assessments and Analysis (dated 5 October 2017) (Heritage Assessments and Analysis) and subsequently provided advice on 21 January 2019 in relation to three specific properties (273A, 323 and 325 Swan Street) considered as part of the project. The GJM advice followed the preparation of the Swan Street Structure Plan by David Lock Associates in 2014, and the preparation of recommended built form controls in the Swan Street Activity Centre Built Form Framework

(Built Form Framework) by Tract Consultants in September 2017. This work ultimately informed Council’s proposed Amendment C191 to the Yarra Planning Scheme.

From 28 February to 15 April 2019, Council exhibited its proposed amendment, which chiefly seeks to implement the built form principles and objectives of the Built Form Framework through the introduction of a new Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17). During this exhibition period, Council received 30 submissions including:

• 1 from a Heritage Advisory Committee member • 11 from residents • 10 from planning / property / legal consultants • 4 from landowners • 2 from heritage community advocacy organisations • 1 from a Government Authority • 1 from a trader.

In July 2019, GJM was engaged to attend workshops to test and discuss appropriate responses to these submissions with regards to heritage. Additionally, GJM was engaged to provide written advice confirming our position on upper-level setbacks and heights to heritage places along Swan Street. This report summarises our findings in regards to these matters. This report does not provide a full review of DDO17 and only considers the specific elements requested to be reviewed.

A site visit was conducted by Jim Gard’ner (of GJM) on 26 May 2019 to refresh our understanding of the precinct. Desktop analysis supplemented this fieldwork, including a review of aerial and Google Streetview imagery. On 26 July 2019, a workshop was held at the offices of Tract Consultants with GJM and Council in attendance, at which updated three-dimensional modelling of the Swan Street Activity Centre was considered.

Findings and Recommendations The findings and recommendations of this advice are:

• A mandatory upper level setback of 6m from the heritage street wall is appropriate between Wellington and Cremorne Streets on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 1 to protect the visual prominence of the heritage street wall of Interim HO524 – Swan Street West.

• A mandatory upper level setback of 6m from the heritage street wall is appropriate to the north side of Swan Street and east of Royal Place on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 2.

• A 10m mandatory upper level setback between the railway viaduct and Royal Place on the south side of Swan Street within Precinct 2 is necessary to protect the visual prominence of the Dimmeys Tower.

• Further modelling of pedestrian views towards the Dimmeys Tower based on the improved Council base data would be desirable as the GJM Built Form Heritage Review relies on earlier modelling prepared by Tract that utilised less accurate Google Streetview imagery.


GJM Heritage v

• The upper level setback of individual heritage places on prominent street corners – such as the Precinct Hotel at 60-62 Swan Street - should be informed by the extent of the heritage fabric and may require site specific built form controls including upper level setbacks.

• Where a new infill development is proposed, the new building should match to the predominant parapet height of the heritage street wall or the taller of the immediately adjacent heritage façade (note: the height of the infill or new street wall should be no lower than 8m and no higher than 11m).

• The maximum heights proposed within parts of Precincts 1 and 2 are, in my view, one or two storeys taller than that which is likely to achieve a satisfactory heritage outcome – refer to Chapter 3 and Figures 7 and 9.

• The mapping of maximum building heights within Precinct 2 should be simplified and better reflect the impacts of the mandatory upper level setbacks.

• Having considered the Panel recommendations for Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C220 and Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C258, it is my view that different built form controls or levels of heritage fabric retention should not be applied based on levels of heritage significance.

• I support splitting DDO17 into four separate DDOs that provide finer grained guidance and tailored controls to each precinct.

• Consistent with the Panel recommendations for C220 and the post exhibition changes made to DDO16 within Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C231, it is recommended that use of a sightline test within DDO17 be removed from the control to ensure consistency of practice across the City of Yarra. The combination of mandatory street wall height, upper level setback and the 45o angular plane recommended in the Yarra C220 Panel Report should be considered.

• The heights stated in metres and number of storeys should be reviewed to ensure consistency and discourage low inter-floor heights at ground and first levels that would compromise the retail and commercial activities traditionally associated with Swan Street.

• Having further considered submissions 15, 17, 18 and 21, no changes are recommended to the proposed grading recommendations of the properties addressed in these submissions. Refer also to the separate Memorandum of Advice, dated 17 July 2019, prepared by GJM to provide a detailed response to the submissions in relation to gradings.


GJM Heritage 1

1. Introduction This report provides a review and response to Submissions 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 29. It also provides advice on heights and setback controls proposed with Precinct 1 – Richmond Station and Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre of the Swan Street Study Area, informed by the workshop held on 26 July 2019 at Tract Consulting’s offices.

1.1 Description Swan Street Activity Centre

Figure 1: Extent of Study Area outlined in red (adapted from Tract Consultants diagram)

Swan Street has been a major commercial and retail thoroughfare in inner Melbourne since the middle of the nineteenth century and remains so to this day. The importance of the street is reflected in the rich legacy of State-significant and individually significant buildings and highly intact streetscapes of consistent scale and architectural quality. The Swan Street corridor is valued by the local community and visitors alike, and its heritage buildings provide an impressive backdrop for retail shops, hospitality venues and commercial uses.

The Study Area includes the length of Swan Street from Punt Road in the west to Burnley Park in the east. It generally extends from the railway line in the south to the northern boundary of allotments on the north side of Swan Street. At Church Street, the Study Area extends to approximately 120 metres north of Swan Street. Within its extent, the Study Area includes highly intact nineteenth and early twentieth century retail streetscapes, particularly at its western end between the railway viaduct and Church Street.

This report considers Precinct 1 – Richmond Station and Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre in particular but does not fully review the objectives, controls or content of proposed DDO17 as a whole. While this advice is based on the improved three dimensional (3D) modelling provided at the 26 July 2019 workshop, the impact of the proposed built form controls on the heritage streetscape, and in particular the views to the Dimmeys Tower, would be better understood by more detailed consideration from key pedestrian viewpoints. I note that the images of modelling prepared to inform this setback as reproduced in chapter 12.1 of the GJM Built Form Heritage Review show views adapted from Google Streetview, which give a less accurate representation of new built form than views taken from within the City of Yarra’s newer, more accurate, base model.

GJM Heritage 2

2. Response to Submissions On 17 July 2019, GJM prepared a Memorandum of Advice that responded to heritage issues raised when, following exhibition of C191, a number of submissions were received. Specifically, that memorandum provided responses to Submission 15 (30-40 Swan Street, Richmond), 17 (218 Swan Street, Richmond), 18 (57-61 Swan Street, Richmond) and 25 (67 Docker Street. Richmond).

This advice has been undertaken having regard to the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning’s Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (August 2018) (PPN1), and the proposed DDO17.

The following gradings for heritage places identified in Appendix 8 of the Review of Heritage Overlay Areas

2007 (Graham Butler & Associates), revised May 2018 (Appendix 8), are defined in Council’s Heritage Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme (‘Development Guidelines for sites subject to the Heritage Overlay’):

• Individually significant: The place is a heritage place in its own right. Within a Heritage Overlay applying to an area each individually significant place is also Contributory.

• Contributory: The place is a contributory element within a larger heritage place. A contributory element could include a building, building groups and works, as well as building or landscape parts such as chimneys, verandahs, wall openings, rooflines and paving.

• Not contributory: The place is not individually significant and not contributory within the heritage place.

I have been instructed to address the following submissions:

Submission 15 -

Submission 16 –

Submission 17 – Submitter’s name redacted

Submission 18 -

Submission 21 –

Submission 29 –


GJM Heritage 3

2.1 Submission 15 – Submission 15 sets out interest as owners of: 36-46 Swan Street and 2-4 Jessie Street (part within Interim HO524); 79-89 Swan Street (part HO335, part HO332); 161-165 Swan Street (HO335); 173-179 Swan Street (HO335) and 191-197 Swan Street (HO335). objects to the application of mandatory height and setback controls and question the strategic justifications for these. In relation to heritage, their primary submission is to object to the application of the Heritage Overlay to 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne.

30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne

30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne is included within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as Interim HO524 – Swan Street West Precinct.

An assessment of the group of four properties opposite the Richmond Train Station by GJM in 2017 resulted in a recommendation for their inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as the ‘Swan Street West Precinct’, comprising four ‘contributory’ buildings.

The heritage citation prepared in support of the recommendation is provided at Appendix B of this report.

Response – Built Form Controls

The Built Form Heritage Review does not specifically address the use of mandatory controls over this land, but I note that the exhibited version of DDO17 establishes a preferred overall building height of 21m (approx. 6 storeys) and a mandatory 5m upper-level setback from Swan Street. A 6 storey height is the maximum that I consider to be acceptable from a heritage perspective without visually dominating this group of buildings, but I note that a building envelope of this height is unlikely to be achieved on some of these sites which are as little as approximately 20m deep.

The application of a mandatory street wall height control to Swan Street is considered appropriate to maintain the consistent two-storey street wall datum along the high street and to ensure new built form is set back adequately from the street frontage. I note that a consistent mandatory setback control is supported by the Panel Report into Yarra Amendment C220 (p.61-62) to achieve a similar objective within the Johnston Street streetscape, which has a similar built form to Swan Street. The Yarra C220 Panel concluded that mandatory controls should be applied for mid-level setbacks above the street wall and that this should not vary dependant on the heritage status or gradings applied (p.66).

The 5m upper level setback was originally established in the 2014 Swan Street Structure Plan (David Lock & Associates) which preceded both the Built Form Framework prepared by Tract and the GJM Built Form Heritage Review. Having considered modelling undertaken of other comparable commercial high streets in the City of Yarra, the recommendations included in the Panel Report into Yarra C220, and the revised modelling for Swan Street using more accurate and realistic base data, I consider than a 6m setback is necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome that retains the visual prominence of the heritage street wall.


GJM Heritage 4

The Built Form Heritage Review considered the application of both PPN59 and PPN60, and this has informed the recommendations. It is considered that mandatory upper-level setbacks to 30-42 Swan Street are necessary to retain the prominence of these intact heritage facades.

Response – Interim HO524 – Swan Street West Precinct

The four buildings that make up 30-42 Swan Street have been assessed as meeting Criterion A – Historical (Importance to the course or pattern of the City of Yarra’s cultural history) and Criterion D – Representativeness (Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments) at a local level. As a result, the inclusion of this precinct on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay is appropriate.

The heights of the four buildings varies by only one storey, which is typical of the difference of street wall heights found in similar streetscapes included on the Heritage Overlay throughout the City of Yarra. Likewise, the period of construction (including alterations between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) represents the same period for which the buildings within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct are recognised. It is our view that this albeit small precinct demonstrates cohesiveness in terms of use, visual form, architectural language, scale and period of construction to the degree necessary to warrant inclusion on the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

The Swan Street West Precinct is illustrative of historical development along a major early commercial thoroughfare in the City of Yarra, and has been identified as a separate and distinct group of buildings (from those included within HO335) that warrants inclusion on the Heritage Overlay. While small, the precinct is highly intact and clearly demonstrates the principal characteristics of a major Victorian and Edwardian commercial High Street. As is consistent with PPN1 and numerous Panel decisions, it is our view that significance should be the driver for consideration for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay rather than other matters such as strategic redevelopment opportunities.

I remain of the view that the properties at 30-42 Swan Street, Cremorne meet Criteria A (historical) and D (representativeness) at a local level and together form a small but cohesive precinct. Therefore, it is my view that Interim HO524 should be made permanent.

2.2 Submission 16 – assert that the proposed controls will promote the

destruction of heritage buildings with the exception of their facades. They submit that the design requirements are contrary to the heritage objective and strategies at Clause 21.05-1 of the City of Yarra’s Municipal Strategic Statement and specifically note the difference in approach between ‘contributory’ and ‘individually significant’ graded buildings in relation to the retention of roof forms behind retained facades.

The contend that the controls within proposed DDO17 will result in ‘overt facadism’ and that the 5m upper level setback control is inadequate and will result in “…a street form and mass that is totally alien [to] these façades’ original context”. The identify that there are opportunities for urban intensification outside Precinct 2 – Swan Street Centre, particularly the south sides of Precincts 4 and 5.

While commending the detail of data and graphic presentation of the reports that provide the strategic underpinning of C191, the asserts that the controls within proposed DDO17 will be contrary to the heritage policy, particularly in relation to the demolition of roof forms at Clause 22.02-5.1 or the general guidance for new development, alterations or additions provided at Clause 22.02-5.7.1. The note that other local planning authorities have policies that successfully retain the most significant parts of contributory buildings while allowing for additions of up to two storeys to the rear where these are not too visible from the public realm. The submission goes on to quote from the Heritage Overlay Guidelines prepared on behalf of the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria in relation to facadism and notes the similarity between the two storey terraced house and shop/residence building types:


GJM Heritage 5

A facade is an exterior wall to a building or structure. Buildings are conceived in three

dimensions. For a building to continue to be a Contributory Element,

it should normally be retained in its original three dimensional form. Inadequate retention

of fabric can result in Facadism and should be avoided.1

The submission goes on to question the rationale for the use of an 11m maximum street wall height, 5m minimum upper level setback and 1/3:2/3 ratio of new built form to heritage street wall, which the notes results in a 6 storey building envelope.

The assert that inappropriate controls within a number of heritage strip shopping centres are being proposed within the City of Yarra and elsewhere in the Melbourne’s inner suburbs and that State Government policy is overriding local concerns. They conclude by stating that:

1. Heritage fabric in shopping strips need the same level of protection as applies in residential areas; 2. ‘Contributory’ graded buildings should be retained to the extent of the principal roof or at least

10m from the frontage, whichever is greater; 3. ‘Individually significant’ buildings should be retained in their entirety and not subject to maximum

building heights that exceed the existing built form.

Response

As noted in response to Submission 15 above – and having considered the revised modelling that is based on more accurate and realistic base data – I consider that a 6m setback, rather than the 5m originally proposed in the Swan Street Structure Plan, the Tract Built Form Framework and the GJM Built Form Heritage Review, is necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome that retains the visual prominence of the heritage street wall.

I do not consider that setting back new built form a minimum of 6m from the retained street frontage will result in facadism, which I describe as retaining only the principal façade (or facades) of a building while constructing a completely new building behind. The retention of a 6m depth behind the front of the building will, in the majority of cases, avoids ‘facadism’ as it is commonly defined and will retain the legibility of the façade as being part of a three-dimensional form. I also note that 6m is typical of the approximate depth of the front room of the nineteenth century shop/residence building type.2 The approximately ¾ of the front most chimneys are (to their rear face) set back 6m or less3.

The submit that the application of proposed DDO17 will be contrary to the heritage policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme. This assertion fails to recognise that the DDO is seeking to achieve a planning outcome that balances the sometimes-conflicting objectives of protecting heritage places while enabling the intensification of development within activity centres. This tension within the planning scheme is addressed at Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated Decision Making). Decision making for development on land subject to both proposed DDO17 and the Heritage Overlay will need and apply appropriate weight when balancing both sets of provisions.

1 The Heritage Overlay Guidelines: 3 Demolition, chapter 3.4.3 Facadism (Department of Sustainability and Environment, January 2007.

2 An analysis using NearmapTM imagery shows that within Precinct 2 the principal roof form of the heritage buildings (buildings that were graded ‘not-contributory’ or had lost their original roof form were discounted) ranges between approx. 5.5m and 29m with the majority lying within the range of 8m-16m. The mean depth of the main form of the building across the 83 buildings considered was 13m.

3 An analysis using NearmapTM imagery shows that within Precinct 2 the frontmost extant chimney of the heritage building (buildings that were graded ‘not-contributory’ or had lost their chimneys were discounted) ranges between approx. 3.5m and 10m with the majority lying within the range of 3.5m-5.5m. The mean depth of the rear face of the 50 chimneys measured was 5m.

GJM Heritage 6

The adoption of a sightline test to inform appropriate building heights was informed by a number of matters, in particular the use of a 1/3:2/3 ratio of new built form visible above heritage façades within the Swan Street

Structure Plan (p.19), which formed the strategic basis for the Tract Built Form Framework and the GJM Built

Form Heritage Review. I note that similar tests, such as a 1/4:3/4 ratio, are used within other local planning schemes such as Schedule 18 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO18) in the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Since the preparation of the GJM Report, Planning Panels have considered C220 – Johnston Street Built Form Controls, which also proposed sightline tests for determining the height of new upper-level development. The Panel Report identified that ratio-based sight line tests were potentially inequitable and difficult to apply4. They recommended instead that a combination of upper level setbacks, height controls and a 45o upper-level setback be used to inform the scale of new built form. The approach recommended by the Panel for C220 can provide clear setback and height-based controls and I support the application of such controls where they provide an appropriate heritage outcome.

While I acknowledge that the two storey shop / residence typology commonly found on commercial high streets such as Swan Street share a number of similarities with the two storey Victorian terraced house form (such as the parapeted front wall, similar relationship to solid and void on the upper level, generally concealed roof form and often visible front chimneys), the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme establishes different expectations between the visibility of additions to residential properties as described at Figures 2 and 3 of Clause 22.02-5.7.1 and the specific requirements for ‘Industrial, Commercial and Retail Heritage Place or Contributory Elements’ at Clause 22.02-5.7.2. This difference acknowledges that new upper-level additions will have a degree of visibility when viewed from the public realm.

I also note that the Panel Report into C220 discourages the application of different built form controls based on levels of significance (i.e. ‘individually significant’ or ‘contributory’) and states:

The Panel does not agree that less significant sections [of Johnston Street] warrant a different

treatment. Less significant areas equally deserve to exhibit the overall urban design outcome: a

strong street wall with a distinct setback to the mid level form. (p.66)

Further, the Panel Report into Melbourne Amendment C258 concludes that it is unnecessary to distinguish between differently graded buildings within local policy and that a single set of policies should apply to places subject to the Heritage Overlay (p.39).

In my view, the findings of these Panels remove the need to justify mandatory controls on the basis of 'individually significant' buildings or 'significant streetscapes' as articulated within the GJM Built Form

Heritage Review. As such, all areas within HO335 (whether graded or not) should be subject to mandatory street wall height and setback controls to protect the strong street wall and heritage values of the precinct as a whole.

Further to this, it is my view that the retention of heritage fabric is a matter appropriately addressed through the application of the heritage provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme (i.e. Clauses 15.03-1S, 22.02 and 43.01), not through DDO17. Notwithstanding the above, I note that the suggestion that individually significant graded buildings should be retained in full is contrary to Clauses 15.03-1S, 22.02 and 43.01, which envisage some level of redevelopment to these places.

4 “The issue the Panel has with the use of a street wall to upper level visibility ratio of upper level visibility to street

wall is that the quantum of upper level development that is possible is highly dependent on the height of the

street wall. In Johnston Street where a lower scale heritage street wall may be retained the approach is unlikely

to deliver an equitable outcome.” (Yarra C220 Panel Report, p.70)


GJM Heritage 7

2.3 Submission 17 The submitter addresses a number of general matters but primarily focuses on their objection to the proposed re-grading of 218 Swan Street, Richmond from ‘contributory’ to ‘not-contributory’. Submission 17:


• States that it is a deliberate mistake by both Yarra and Tract Consultants to grade the 218 Swan Street as not-contributory

• Asserts that the place is one of the oldest original buildings in Swan St (c 1850s) and its early construction date is evidenced by the original building's size and form, having the simple gabled roof pitch running parallel to the street.

The other matters raised in Submission 17 have been responded to under Submission 16 above.

218 Swan Street, Richmond

This simple, single-storey parapeted building is currently graded ‘contributory’ in the context of the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8. It is flanked by an ‘individually significant’ building to the west and a ‘non-contributory’ building to the east. Appendix 8 assigns a broad construction date range of between 1850-1890. The 1895 MMBW Detail Plan confirms that the building had been constructed by this date, while Sands & McDougall Directories identifies that Pope & Sons Butchers occupied the building from 1893.

The building presents to Swan Street as comprising a simple cornice with flanking consul brackets and an unadorned parapet which has been partially over-clad.

The pitched roof form facing Swan Street has been removed, leaving a free-standing brick gable visible from Swan Street. The shopfront and verandah have also been altered, leaving very limited original fabric visible from the public realm.

Response – 218 Swan Street, Richmond

It remains my view that 218 Swan Street cannot be readily appreciated as a reasonably intact Victorian shop, and it is therefore recommended that the property be re-graded to ‘not contributory’ to the Swan Street Precinct in Appendix 8. I note that there is no proposal to remove the land at 218 Swan Street from the Heritage Overlay and agree that this should remain part of HO335 – Swan Street Precinct.

While elements of the extant building may date from an early period of the development of Swan Street, this is not clearly evident from the public realm with perhaps the exception of the (now freestanding) gable ends. It remains our view that the extant building at 218 Swan Street lacks the intactness required to warrant a ‘contributory’ grading and is not legible as a contributory part of HO335.

218 Swan Street has undergone a number of changes that have diminished its intactness to its nineteenth century form. These include:


GJM Heritage 8

• Removal of the pitched roof form and replacement with a flat roof • Partial over-cladding of the simple parapet • Removal of original verandah (evident in the 1896 MMBW plans) • Addition of a cantilever canopy • Replacement of the shopfront windows in the mid twentieth century.

The level of alteration to 218 Swan Street is greater than that evident to other ‘contributory’ graded buildings within HO335, and the extant fabric demonstrates relatively few of the contributory elements within the precinct.

The alterations have greatly altered the visual appearance of 218 Swan Street, and it is my view that the building now lacks sufficient integrity to warrant its grading as a ‘contributory’ element to HO335.

2.4 Submission 18 – Submission 18 is made by on behalf of

in respect of

the Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond. The submission notes that “the hotel is widely regarded as one of Australia’s premier live music venues, while also providing an important casual late venue including dining for locals and as a support to the nearby sports precinct”.

submits that the Heritage Overlay is not the most appropriate tool to protect the use of the live music venue as it regulates the development of the land. It also asserts that discretionary rather than mandatory controls should apply and that this site should be included within Precinct 1 – Richmond Station rather than Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre.

The Corner Hotel at 57 Swan Street is currently contained within the Richmond Hill Precinct but the building addresses Swan Street. This property has been analysed in the context of the Statements of Significance and historic functions of both the Richmond Hill and Swan Street precincts to determine whether it should be included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335) or remain in the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332). It is noted that, in summary, the Swan Street Precinct is significant as a turn of the century commercial High Street and that the Richmond Hill Precinct is significant in this area (south residential sub-area) for its early workers cottages and early residential development.

The Corner Hotel, 57-61 Swan Street, Richmond

The Corner Hotel fronts Swan Street, directly to the east of the railway line overpass. The original Corner Hotel was constructed on the site in the early 1870s and was rebuilt to its current form in the 1960s. The hotel is an atypical heritage place in the context of both the Richmond Hill Precinct, in which it is currently included, and the Swan Street Precinct. The heritage values of the Corner Hotel lie in its historical and social value as an important live music venue. An updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel was prepared as part of the GJM Heritage Assessments and Analysis to clearly articulate its heritage significance.

Notwithstanding the atypical nature of this heritage place, in both its earlier Victorian-era form and its current c1960s form, the hotel directly addresses Swan Street. Since the construction of the rail overpass in c1885, the Hotel has formed the north-western gateway to the Swan Street High Street and is intricately woven into the social and recreational history of Swan Street. It is therefore recommended that:

Figure 4. The Corner Hotel, 57 Swan Street, Richmond


GJM Heritage 9

• The entirety of 57 Swan Street be removed from the Richmond Hill Precinct (HO332) and included within the Swan Street Precinct (HO335). Alternatively, a site-specific Heritage Overlay could be applied to this property.


• The updated Statement of Significance for the Corner Hotel be included as an Incorporated Document in the Yarra Planning Scheme.

Response – Heritage Controls

The Heritage Overlay is the appropriate mechanism to recognise places of heritage significance, including historical and social significance as set out in PPN1. I note that the Corner Hotel is already included within the Heritage Overlay and Yarra C191 does not change this status.

The property is currently graded ‘Individually significant’ in Appendix 8. The Statement of Significance prepared as part of the Heritage Assessments and Analysis is intended to recognise the social significance of the place and its long-term historical use. Ultimately, this approach provides for the current use to continue with fewer encumbrances than if the Statement of Significance for HO332 was used as a key basis for decision making on the property.

Response – Precinct Boundary

The Corner Hotel is located east of the rail viaduct and is visually and physically separated from Precinct 1 – Richmond Station. It, like the former post office at 90 Swan Street the Corner Hotel, serves as the western ‘gateway’ to the Swan Street commercial high street and should remain within Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre Precinct. In my view there is no compelling heritage rationale for designating this land as part of Precinct 1.

Response – Built Form Controls

The Built Form Heritage Review does not make specific recommendations in relation to this site beyond noting that preferred (rather than mandatory) upper level setbacks should be applied to the street frontages other than Swan Street. In summary the built form recommendations are:

• 5m minimum upper level setback to Swan Street (mandatory)

• 5m minimum upper level setback to Botherambo and Wangaratta Streets (preferred)

• Application of the 1/3:2/3 sightline test to inform the maximum height and maximum upper-level built form (preferred)

The Built Form Heritage Review recommends that new development on the north side of Swan Street not exceed five to six storeys (18m – 22m) which is less than the 27m height limit described in the exhibited version of DDO17. A 27m height limit would allow for development of up to eight storeys in height.

As noted in response to Submissions 15 and 16 above, and having considered the revised modelling that is based on more accurate and realistic base data, I consider than a 6m upper-level setback, rather than the 5m described in the exhibited version of DDO17 is necessary on the north side of Swan Street to achieve a satisfactory outcome that retains the visual prominence of the heritage street wall across the length of HO335.

In relation to this property, the Heritage Assessments and Analysis notes that “[The Corner Hotel] is atypical in its form and its heritage value resides more heavily in its social and historical significance than its architectural significance or its contribution to the wider streetscape. Mandatory setbacks other than those proposed to the Swan Street frontage would appear to be unnecessary”5. The application of a mandatory

5 GJM, Swan Street Built Form Heritage Review, 29 September 2017, p.73.

GJM Heritage 10

street wall and setback control to Swan Street is considered appropriate to maintain the consistent two-storey street wall along the high street and to ensure new built form is set back adequately from the street frontage. We note that consistent mandatory street wall and setback controls were supported by the Panel in respect of Yarra Amendment C220 (p.61-62).

Although the heritage values of the Corner Hotel are primarily historical and social, the mandatory built form controls are designed to protect the wider heritage significance of the Swan Street Precinct. This includes retaining the visual prominence of the two-storey street wall by setting back new upper-level development. Therefore, it remains our view that a mandatory setback control from Swan Street should apply, noting that preferred controls are recommended for the Botherambo and Wangaratta street frontages.

2.5 Submission 21 – support the application of height controls but assert that the

extent of the Activity Centre should align with the C1Z zoning. In relation to heritage they recommend that 497 Swan Street and ‘adjoining terraces’6 be removed from HO309 asserting that:

These terraces are ungraded and contribute insignificantly to the Heritage Character of the area and,

in this location, impede the strategic purpose of commercial intensification along Swan Street.

497 Swan Street, Richmond

497 Swan Street is one of a row of four terraced singled storey houses dating from the Edwardian (1901-1914) period. The row of houses has been altered; with 497 Swan Street having had a shop that occupies what was the verandah, and front garden added during the Inter-War (1918-1939) period. Located within the C1Z and subject to HO309 – Bendigo Street Precinct, Richmond this property forms the boundary between the C1Z and the Neighbourhood Residential Zoned (NRZ) that makes up the remainder of HO309. The property is located within Precinct 4 – Burnley Station of the proposed DDO17.

Figure 5. 491-501 Swan Street

Response

I note that numbers 493, 495, 497, 499 and 501 Swan Street are all graded ‘contributory’ within Appendix 8, which contradicts assertion in their letter that the terraces are ungraded. The citation for the Bendigo Street precinct specifically includes the Swan Street properties and identifies contributory attributes that are evident in the terraces. These include (emphasis added):

6 It is unclear whether Submission 21 in recommending that ‘adjoining terraces’ is seeking the removal of those properties within the terrace zoned C1Z (i.e. numbers 493, 495 and 497), all those within the terrace of four (once identical) houses (i.e. numbers 493, 495, 497 and 499) or all those current or former dwellings within HO309 that address Swan Street east of Queen Street (i.e. numbers 493, 495, 497, 499 and 501).


GJM Heritage 11

The contributory buildings in the Bendigo St Heritage Overlay Area include mainly (but not exclusively)

small attached and detached Victorian-era and Edwardian-era one-storey houses, but with some

well preserved residential examples from the immediate post First-War era, having typically:

. Pitched gabled or hipped roofs, with some facade parapets;

. One storey wall heights;

. Weatherboard, face brick (red, bichrome and polychrome), bluestone, or stucco walls;

. Corrugated iron roof cladding, Marseilles pattern terra-cotta tiles, with some slate roofing;

The GJM Built Form Heritage Review describes this area at page 7:

To the east of Belgravia Street, the north side of Swan Street becomes residential in character and

this continues to Park Grove at the eastern end of the Study Area, abutting the Burnley Gardens. The

residences on the north side of Swan Street are included within the Bendigo Street Precinct (HO309)

and a small number of these houses are contained in the Study Area.

And goes on to make the following recommendations at pages 54 and 55:

The Study Area, again reflecting the extent of commercially zoned land on Swan Street, includes three

properties that are subject to the Bendigo Street Precinct (HO309). Other than these three properties,

the rest of HO309 is zoned NRZ recognising the low-rise residential character of the area. The three

buildings at 493, 495 and 497 Swan Street form part of a row of four single-storey Edwardian-era

terraced houses identified as ‘contributory’ in Appendix 8. 493 and 495 Swan Street appear

reasonably intact, while 497 Swan Street has been converted to commercial use with a shop

constructed in front of the house.

The preferred built form outcomes for the portion of HO474 within the Study Area are:

• That the properties should remain low-rise residential in character.

• New development take the form of high quality, contemporary, recessive additions to the

predominantly single-storey houses in accordance with Council’s heritage policy at Clause

22.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

We recommend that the status of these properties be reconsidered with either all properties included

in, or excluded from, the Study Area. In heritage terms, rezoning this land NRZ and removing these

properties from the Study Area would be the preferred outcome.

The period of construction, form and levels of intactness of the dwellings at 493, 495, 497, 499 and 501 Swan Street is consistent with their ‘contributory’ grading in Appendix 8 and in my view there is no reason to consider amending the extent of HO309 to exclude these properties from the Heritage Overlay.

2.6 Submission 29 – like the assert that proposed DDO17 will encourage the

demolition of significant fabric and require the retention of the façade only (or ‘facadism’). They submit that higher built form of 5-6 storeys set back 5m from the street frontage will result in new development that would “…visually overwhelm what remains of the heritage entity and impose a street form and mass that is totally alien to these facades original context”.

specific concerns include:

• The potential loss of all historic fabric other than the facades of buildings • Insufficient upper level setbacks between Royal Place and Church Street to maintain views to the

Dimmeys Tower • The controls fail to preserve the scale and pattern of streetscapes and that 6 storey development

set back 5m is ‘totally out of scale with the heritage streetscape’

GJM Heritage 12

• The controls discourage the maintenance and restoration of heritage places • The controls encourage only the minimum retention of heritage fabric, that is their facades.

They suggest the controls will be contrary to the Heritage Policy particularly in relation to the demolition of roof forms at Clause 22.02-5.1 or the general guidance for new development, alterations or additions provided at Clause 22.02-5.7.1.

Response

The majority of the matters raised by have been responded to under Submission 16 – . In relation to the other matters raised, I note there is nothing within the objectives or controls within

proposed DDO17 that will ‘discourage the maintenance and restoration of heritage places’, and the heritage provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme will continue to apply to land subject to the Heritage Overlay.

submit that insufficient upper-level setbacks are provided between Royal Place and Church Street to maintain views to the Dimmeys Tower. The importance of the views towards the Dimmeys Tower is recognised in the GJM Built Form Heritage Review and the Tract Built Form Framework. The modelling undertaken to inform the exhibited amendment demonstrated that a 10m minimum mandatory setback was required on the south side of Swan Street between the railway viaduct to the west and Royal Place to east to protect the key views from the north side of Swan Street. As the distance from the Dimmeys Building increased, this minimum setback was set at 5m between Royal Place and Church Street. As noted in response to Submissions 15, 16 and 18 above, and having considered the revised modelling that is based on more accurate and realistic base data, I consider than a 6m upper level setback, rather than 5m, is necessary between Royal Place and Church Street to achieve an built form outcome that retains the visual prominence of the heritage street wall and retain key views of the Dimmeys Tower.


GJM Heritage 13

3. Advice on Proposed Built Form Controls

3.1 Precinct 1 – Richmond Station Precinct 1 generally extends to the depth of one property along the south side of Swan Street from Punt Road in the west to Stephenson Street (which follows the line of the railway viaduct) in the east. It includes two heritage places: Interim HO524 – Swan Street West (30-42 Swan Street), and HO405 – Precinct Hotel (60-62 Swan Street), as well as a small part of land facing Punt Road within HO364 which is not occupied by any contributory buildings.

Figure 6. Precinct 1 – Richmond Station - height and interface plan (exhibited version of DDO17)

Within Table 1 of proposed DDO17 the preferred street wall height for ‘Interface C’ reads:

11m maximum or the parapet height of the adjoining individually significant or contributory

building if higher than 11m.

8m minimum.


This somewhat conflicts with the advice provided in the GJM Built Form Heritage Review which intended that the street wall height for new or infill development be established at a mandatory maximum of 11m and a mandatory minimum of 8m to retain the two-storey heritage street wall of this precinct east of Wellington Street. The reference to matching the parapet height of adjoining ‘individually significant’ or ‘contributory’ buildings was intended to be a preferred control that only applied to existing adjacent parapet heights between 8m and 11m. It was not intended to allow new street wall heights to exceed 11m.

Modelling prepared to inform the 26 July 2019 workshop identified that a mandatory 6m upper level setback should apply to ‘Interface C’ to retain the visual prominence of the consistent two storey street wall.

The visual prominence and landmark qualities of the Precinct Hotel with its return façade to Cremorne Street are considered to require a larger upper-level setback. This was tested at the workshop and, as a result, street

GJM Heritage 14

wall height and upper level setback ‘Interface J’ was added to Precinct 1 (refer Figure 7) to provide a greater setback generally relating to the depth of the primary roof form of the Precinct Hotel.

I do not consider that a building height of 27m (7-8 storeys7) will be acceptable on the Precinct Hotel site to protect the visual prominence of this gate-way building and that 18m (5 storeys) is a more appropriate maximum height for this site. Likewise, 18m (5 storeys) rather than 21m (6 storeys) is likely to be the maximum appropriate height of new built form that can be achieved within Interim HO524 from a heritage perspective.

Figure 7. Precinct 1 – Richmond Station - height and interface plan as amended following workshop with further

recommended changes in heights to increase consistency and protect the visual prominence of heritage places

3.2 Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre Precinct 2 generally extends to the depth of a single property east of the railway viaduct to Charles Street on the northern side of Swan Street. The precinct extends north along Church Street to the extent of the C1Z land. On the southern side of Swan Street, Precinct 2 extends south to the railway corridor from the railway viaduct in the west and to Brighton Street in the east. The majority of the precinct is included within HO335 – Swan Street Precinct with smaller parts included within HO332 – Richmond Hill Precinct to the north. Precinct 2 also includes the following buildings included on the VHR:

• Former State Bank, 216 Swan Street (VHR H732)

• Former Richmond South Post Office, 90-92 Swan Street (VHR H48)

• Dimmeys, 140-160 Swan Street (VHR H2184)

7 Based on 4m inter-floor heights at ground and first floor levels and 3.2m inter-floor heights above a 27m height limit is only likely to allow a seven storey building to be constructed rather than eight storeys.

18m (HO524) 18m (HO524)


GJM Heritage 15

Figure 8. Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre - height and interface plan (from exhibited version of DDO17)

Figure 9. Precinct 2 – Swan Street Retail Centre - height and interface plan as amended following workshop with further

recommended changes in heights to increase consistency and protect the visual prominence of the heritage streetscape

24m

18m

15m 18m

18m

18m

18m 18m

GJM Heritage 16

Key changes to proposed DDO17 arising from the 26 July 2019 workshop (refer Figure 9) include:

• VHR sites are denoted in the legend and no prescribed maximum building heights are applied to theses sites (note: mandatory maximum street wall heights and mandatory minimum upper-level setbacks remain).

• The mandatory maximum building heights for places including and between 99 and 147 Swan Street has been reduced from 18m (5 storeys) to 15m (4 storeys).

• Three sub-precincts – one bounded by Shakespeare Place, Milton Place, Church Street and Swan Street; one bounded by Church Street, Swan Street and Charles Street; and one bounded by Church Street, Swan Street, Little Lesney Street and the southern boundary of 425 Church Street – have had their mandatory building heights reduced from 21m (6 storeys) to 18m (5 storeys).

• The rear boundary of the Corner Hotel site (57-61 Swan Street) now has ‘Interface H’ (0m setback minimum, 0m upper level setback).

While I generally support these changes, I consider that the following further amendments are required to achieve a satisfactory heritage outcome:

• The maximum heights should be more consistently applied along Swan Street with fewer variations – particularly mid-block - based on site depth to protect the general coherence of the streetscape. This includes applying a consistent 15m (4 storey) height limit over the land on the north side of Swan Street between Carroll and Stanley Streets.

• The maximum heights to the front parts of the sites facing Swan Street that are currently identified as having a 21m (6 storey) maximum height are not likely to achieve an acceptable heritage outcome as development of this scale on these - often shallow - sites is likely to visually dominate the heritage street scape. It is my view that a maximum height of 18m (5 storeys) should be applied to these sites. These include on the north side of Swan Street between:

o Waverly and Docker Streets

o Church and St Crispin Streets;

and on the south side of Swan Street between:

o the former Richmond Post Office (no. 90) and Shakespeare Place

o Little Lesney Street and Brighton Street.

• Similarly, the proposed 21m (6 storeys) proposed maximum height to the western part of the land between Carroll and Stanley Streets is unlikely to achieve an acceptable transition from the 15m (4 storey) height limit on the eastern part of this block and the whole the Swan Street frontage between Carroll and Waverley Streets should be set at 15m.

• The maximum height of 27m (7-8 storeys) proposed on the Corner Hotel site (60-62 Swan Street) and at 79-89 Swan Street is unlikely to achieve an acceptable heritage outcome unless the upper two levels are set further back from the street frontage. Application of Clause 22.02-5.7.1 and the 45o angular plan recommended in the Panel report for Yarra C220 should ensure that upper-levels are recessive and do not visually dominate the Swan Street precinct.

Within Table 2 of proposed DDO17, the preferred street wall height for Interfaces B, C and D reads:

11m maximum or the parapet height of the adjoining individually significant or contributory

building if higher than 11m.

8m minimum.


GJM Heritage 17


As noted under 3.1 above, this is a misinterpretation of our earlier advice and should be clarified.

3.3 Other matters 3.3.1 Extent of DDO17

Given the diversity of the built form and heritage character of the Swan Street corridor across the four precincts I support splitting DDO17 into four separate DDOs that provide finer grained guidance and tailored controls to each precinct.

3.3.2 Sight line test

The use of a sightline test was considered by the Panel for C220 and they have recommended instead that a combination of upper level setbacks, height controls and a 45o angular plane be used within DDO15 to inform the scale of new built form. The use of a sight line test was also removed from DDO16 as part of Yarra Amendment C231 following exhibition and replaced with setback and height controls. It is recommended that the approach taken for C191 is consistent with the Johnston Street and Queens Parade precincts, which share similarities in terms of activity centre status, building form, land use and heritage considerations.

3.3.3 Matching the height of adjacent heritage façades

Where a new development is proposed adjacent to a heritage place, the new development should match to the predominant parapet height of the heritage street wall or the taller of the immediately adjacent heritage façade (note: the height of the infill or new street wall should be no lower than 8m and no taller than 11m).

On larger development sites, the requirement for the new street wall to match the adjoining heritage buildings’ façade height (between 8m and 11m) should extent a minimum of 6m, which reflects the fine-grained rhythm of the small-scale shop residences.

3.3.4 Corner sites

The GJM Built Form Heritage Review noted the large number of intersecting streets along the Swan Street corridor and the importance of those buildings that articulate the corner through elaborate return facades, splayed corners or other architectural features. While guidance on new development on these sites is provided at Clause 22.02-5.7.2 ‘Corner Sites and Sites with Dual Frontages’, there is a need for an upper-level setback to protect the visual prominence and three-dimensional form of these buildings. A discretionary control (6m preferred upper-level setback) is appropriate to allow for the range of corner interface conditions and allow appropriate design responses.