government land standing advisory committee 26 … · 1.0 introduction 1.1 relevant qualifications...

HERITAGE OVERLAY 1 TOWER ROAD WERRIBEE COMMITTEE HEARING NNIGEL LEWIS PTY LTD 1

Architect

40 Stawell Street KewVictoria 3101 Australiat +61 3 9852 8940m +61 418 303 296

[email protected]

GOVERNMENT LAND STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 26 JULY 2018

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE WYNDHAM PLANNING SCHEME AT 1 TOWER ROAD (2 PRINCES HIGHWAY) WERRIBEE

HERITAGE EVIDENCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Relevant qual i f icat ions and experience Refer Appendix One

1.2 Area of expert ise re levant to th is report I have over 40 years experience in the documentation and conservation of historic buildings, works and landscapes. 1. 3 Background, instruct ions and procedures

Southern Rural Water is seeking to rezone the land known as “1 Tower Road” (2 Princes Highway, Werribee), from Public Use Zone to Activity Centre Zone 1, and reduce the extent of the Heritage Overlay (HO100) on the site. It also seeks to remove tree controls which apply to an avenue of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway frontage, and to two Peppercorns within the site. This amendment is being sought through the Government Land Service process. I have been instructed by Kristien Van den Bossche of the Wyndham City Council, to provide evidence regarding this amendment, and in particular, to review the submission made by Lovell Chen on behalf of Southern Rural Water. I have been asked, inter alia, to review the following:

• the proposed HO reduction and the removal of tree controls • confirm the heritage values of the Peppercorn trees, and their relationship to the Avenue

of Honour • establish an appropriate heritage curtilage to the peppercorn trees


• assess the impact of the proposed ACZ controls (18.5m building height) on the heritage place

• make an assessment on an appropriate maximum height across the site • recommend a reduced maximum height to protect views to the SRWSC building and

water tower.

In this report the site is often referred to as adjoining the old Geelong Road, as Geelong Road was the road name when the former State Rivers And Water Supply Commission depot was established. The old name has been used in parts of the statement to denote its historic importance. Any reference to the old Geelong Road refers to the Princes Highway. It is not to be confused with the current Old Geelong Road, another road north east of the site in Hoppers Crossing. Unless noted otherwise, the photographs included have been taken by myself when I undertook site inspections on 2 and 12 July 2018. 1.4 Referra l documents The following documents have been referred to in the preparation of this statement of evidence:

• Heritage Citation, Wyndham Heritage Study prepared by Context, 1997. • 1 Tower Road Werribee Heritage Assessment prepared by Lovell Chen, August 2017 • Arboricultural Assessment 1 Tower Road Werribee prepared by Treetec professional

tree services 6 July 2017 • VicRoads Widening Construction Works, Princes Highway, East Werribee, Victoria:

Historical Assessment, prepared by Biosis 6 July 2017

1.5 Areas covered by this evidence

Whether the Heritage Overlay of the Wyndham Planning Scheme HO 100 be curtailed as submitted. The appropriateness of the existing curtilage to the significant components with respect to its cultural heritage values. The heritage values of the trees on the site, in particular the row of Peppercorn trees along the Princes highway boundary. The visual impact of multi-level buildings on views of the 1926 administrative building the water tower and Peppercorn Trees. 1.6 Declarat ion 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 Committee.

NIGEL LEWIS

17 July 2018


2.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

The statement of evidence supports the full retention of the existing extent of Heritage Overlay HO100. This will ensure that the design and development envelope of the whole site takes account of the heritage values of the key components. This could be reviewed when the development of the rear of the property has taken place. This opinion is supported by a similar case, upheld in the Moonee Valley C186 Panel Report. The key components of cultural heritage significance are the 1926 State Rivers and Water Supply Commission office, the 1913 decommissioned water tower which rises to 17.8 metres, and the avenue of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway boundary. These have been established to form part of surviving significant avenue plantings on the old Geelong Road from the interwar period. Furthermore, they can be safely retained, despite their age and condition. However, it has assessed that the former hydraulic research laboratory and rear shed are of secondary significance, as are the two large peppercorn trees within the site that date from the post 1951 period. Conservation controls for these items is not required. Rezoning of the site could impact on views from the Princes Highway, in particular as seen from Cherry Street where it joins the Princes Highway. It is my opinion that a maximum height of 11 metres should be applied. This would reflect the maximum allowable height under Rescode (as per adjoining residential land) and would protect views to the heritage place. However, a height of 13.5 metres might be acceptable away from significant view lines. There is also a requirement for a suitable buffer around the significant structures and significant planting. The heritage impact of the reduced curtilage of the current proposal should be reduced by having an appropriate buffer zone.


Figure 1 1913 water tower 3.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF HO100 3.1 State Rivers And Water Supply Commission depot history This site was established some time before the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (SR&WSC) was established in 1906 to amalgamate local rural water boards and irrigation trusts. This organisation had a major role in the area by providing rural irrigation, especially the South Werribee market garden area fed by the newly constructed Pykes Creek Reservoir near Myrniong in the Pentland Hills. This reservoir also irrigated the market gardens and orchards of Bacchus Marsh. The 17.8 metres high cylindrical concrete water tower at 1 Tower Road was built in 1913 to serve the town water supply to Werribee. The facility also included a large square open sunken concrete or stone lined tank, and a caretakers house. The SR&WSC district office was built in 1926, a small hipped tiled roof structure facing Tower Road and built in 1926. In 1951 a large shed housing a hydraulic research laboratory was constructed. The Context citation provides a brief outline of the history of the site, with little detail. The Heritage Assessment prepared by Lovell Chen, dated August 2017, undertook additional useful research which, amongst other new information, revealed that the water tower was built in 1913, as outlined in the following extract from that report:

The Suburban and Township Allotments at Werribee in the Parish of Deutgam from August 1859 indicate the area of the current site was subdivided and owned in part by E Armstrong, J Finlay and T Chirnside (Figure 4). The subject site later became Crown Land which was occupied by the local water board in Werribee. This larger site included allotments to the east and the south after a re-subdivision of the area around WWI. The site in Tower Road was developed by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. The tower is thought to have been constructed in 1913 as part of the supply of water to the Werribee township. In June 1913, the Werribee Shire Banner reported the construction of the tower and caretaker’s residence (the latter in progress) and noted that in ‘a few month’s time’ [sic] the shire town would be ‘abreast of other

progressive centres as regards a water supply’.2 As noted above, it is understood the tower was fed from the diversion weir on the Werribee River via the main channel and a nearby settling basin.

Figure 2 Detail of the Parish plan of Deutgam – the current 1.203 hectare SR&WSC site was formed from the north-west corner of the 9 acre (3.065 hectares) Armstrong allotment. This plan shows the original Princes Highway boundaries, now retained by the SR&WSC site, but not the sites to the north-east. [Source: National Library of Australia, reproduced from Lovell Chen


Heritage Assessment]

Figure 3 The heritage overlay map from the Wyndham Planning Scheme, the subject site delineated as HO100. This shows a widened road reserve to the north-east. The Larose Place and Haven court subdivisions represent the balance of the original Armstrong allotment, presumably the land separated off by the c. WWI subdivision.

Figure 4 The site shown in detail from the 1936 Argus aerial shown in Figure 11. This shows the tower, the square below ground tank, caretaker’s cottage, administrative office, and a young hedge row along the Princes Highway, which returns down the north-east boundary. [The Argus country towns supplement series reproduced from Biosis report]


Figure 5 1951 aerial (with north rotated about 45 degrees towards the north-west) shows the subject site in a completely intact state, with the Peppercorn hedge row on the old Geelong Road boundary and the short return on the side boundary, 1913 tower, 1926 administrative office, the square below ground tank, caretaker’s cottage, adjoining garage or workshop, 1951 hydraulic research laboratory shed, and other sheds in south east corner [reproduced from Lovell Chen Heritage Assessment]

Figure 6 1984 aerial (oriented to the north) shows the subject site and the Peppercorn hedge row and return, tower, administrative office, the square below ground tank, vacant site of the demolished caretaker’s cottage, adjoining garage or workshop, hydraulic research laboratory shed, and other sheds in south east corner, and a number of additional trees within the site as well as the Cypress trees near the obtuse angle on the boundary [reproduced from Lovell Chen Heritage Assessment]


Figure 7 c.1970s view showing Cypress trees behind the tower (the trees outside the site shown near obtuse boundary angle in Figure 6), and sheds [reproduced from Lovell Chen Heritage Assessment]

Figure 8 c. 2017 aerial shows the subject site and the Peppercorn hedge row, but not the return section (only some stumps), tower, administrative office, vacant site of the square below ground tank, site of the garage or workshop, former hydraulic research laboratory shed, and one remaining shed in south east corner; two large Peppercorn trees inside site [reproduced from Lovell Chen Heritage Assessment]


3.2 Avenue plant ing along the old Geelong Road The history of tree planting along the old Geelong Road, now the Princes Highway, has been an important aspect of the history and appreciation of this route. In pre-European times, the flat plains were largely unrelieved apart from distant views of the You Yangs. For many years the Werribee River crossing, and the main street of Werribee provided a tree lined oasis in this crucial link with Geelong. Coming from Melbourne, traffic proceeded along Cherry Street in then along the main commercial thoroughfare, Watton Street. Werribee was described in c.1910 by the writer E.J Brady in his Picturesque Port Philip, a detailed account of his automobile tour around the settlements and land around Port Phillip Bay in a Berliet.

‘There was still a clear light over the You Yangs when the Automobile slipped softly into the main street of Werribee, the railway centre and market town for a wide area of arable lands. This is a very old settled district, when a small colony of emigrants, mainly Irish, came and took up farms in the early colonial days. It is a district with a charm of its own. In winter the cold winds race across its level miles, so that the settlers have cultivated breakwinds of pines and sugar gums for shelter around their habitations. These clumps of vegetation stand here and there over a wide expanse of plain, which is dotted by hay ricks and marked off into big squares of paddocks by hedges of evergreen box thorn and dark lines of stone walls’.

This book indicates how the smooth paving of the main street contrasted with the unmade gravel road. At that time the roads on these basaltic plains were built with sections of bone shattering bluestone ballast used where it became boggy. The sealing of the Geelong Road by the newly formed Country Roads Board under the founding chairman by William Calder provided an important transformation to the region and the crucial road connection between Geelong and Melbourne. The pine trees referred to by Brady would have also included the Monterey Cypress Cupressus Macrocarpa, and most likely the sub species Horizontalis, the low spreading form. The other important hedge trees for farm houses and other rural enclosures in the period up to the 192os were Peppercorns Schinus molle. They fell out of fashion by the 1940s when native planting became more popular, and are now generally only found as ancient trees around the service areas of older properties, or as feral plantings with seeds spread by birds and foxes. In the 1920s a concerted memorial planting programme augmented the upgraded of Geelong Road as an important road transport route. The history of this programme has been researched in the report prepared by Biosis, dated 6 July 2017- VicRoads Widening Construction Works, Princes Highway, East Werribee, Victoria: Historical Assessment. This has provided much useful background information. The report has not yet resulted in the preparation of a new citation/ inclusion on the Avenue of Honour on the Wyndham HO Schedule, and the Avenue does not yet have any statutory protection. The Statement of Significance in the Biosis report for the memorial planting along the Old Geelong road is as follows:

The Old Geelong Road memorial avenue is historically significant for its association with environmental tree planting programs in the early twentieth century intended to improve the visual and physical environment along main roads, providing shade, shelter and aesthetic improvements to an otherwise treeless plain. These were undertaken by a range of state and local authorities including the Public Works Department, the Geelong branch of the Town Planning Association, the Shire or Werribee, the Country Roads Board.


The western part of the avenue is also significant as a remnant of the Werribee First World War Avenue of Honour, which was planted by local residents to commemorate soldiers from the district who died and served in the war. The eastern part of the avenue is of further significance as a Country Roads Board and Geelong-road Tree-planting Committee undertaking intended both to beautify what was seen as one of the major arterials in Victoria, as well as providing a fitting commemoration for the founding Chairman of the CRB, William Calder, who was recognised as having transformed the Victorian main road network for modern twentieth century motorised transport. The Old Geelong Road memorial avenue is of aesthetic significance for its combination of native and exotic trees designed to provide visual variety along the previously barren road in a form of grand avenue landscaping demonstrative of the style instigated by Hugh Linaker as principle landscape architect and gardener for Victorian government projects in the early twentieth century. It is also of social significance for the on-going relationship with local communities as a reminder of the former Avenue of Honour and historic character of Werribee.

Figure 9 Memorial planting on Werribee approaches: yellow WWI Avenue of Honour, red Calder commemoration avenue planting; note how it deflects along Cherry Street near the subject site [reproduced from the Biosis report]

Figure 10 1951 aerial shows the subject site bottom left, and Avenue of Honour extending from Cherry Street to where the large windbreak of Cypress trees runs into to highway [reproduced from the Biosis report]


Figure 11 1936 oblique aerial of Werribee looking south. This shows how Geelong Road swings around past the water tower Past along Cherry Street, past Kelly Park, then along tree lined Watton Street. [The Argus country towns supplement series reproduced from Biosis report] In the 1960s the Maltby Bypass saw Werribee relieved of the heavy traffic to Geelong, but the old Geelong Road adjoining the site retained the Princes Highway nomenclature.

Figure 12 2018 aerial with south at the top [Google maps]


Figure 13 Recommended planting to reinforce the Werribee WWI Avenue of Honour; note how the Peppercorn trees in the subject site form part of the avenue planting in this scheme [reproduced from the Biosis report] The Avenue of Honour to the south-east of the site is planted in the widened road reserve. It includes Corymbia maculata and other native tree species, as well as several spreading Monterey Cypress Cupressus Macrocarpa Horizontalis. The old Geelong Road boundary of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission depot remained unchanged when this site reverted to Crown Land for the local water board. The development of this site precluded road widening for this section, and this curtailed the WWI avenue planting for this section. The Peppercorn trees within the depot appear to have been planted in the late 1920s, or early 1930s, when the significant features of the SR&WSC site had been developed. They had the effect of extending the WWI Avenue of Honour avenue planting to Tower Road. 3.3 Assessment of s ignif icance The entire site of 1 Tower Road, the former State Rivers and Water Supply Commission depot, is covered by HO100. The site is occupied by four structures: the original SR&WSC office, a small tiled roof structure facing Tower Road and built in 1926, behind which is a transportable single-storey office building, a cylindrical concrete water tower, having a height of 17.8 metres and constructed in 1913, the former hydraulic research laboratory, and a works shed. The water tower is a significant and prominent feature due to its location, visibility and unusual form in its urban context, especially as seen from Cherry Street, the former alignment of the old Geelong Road. Vegetation on the site comprises an avenue planting of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway frontage and, within the site, two large Peppercorn trees, and other trees.

Figure 14 View of water tower from Cherry Street


Figure 15 Offices and tower




Figure 18 Detail of offices As noted in the Lovell Chen report, the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Office building was completed in May 1926. It was not directly related to the tower but was constructed on land held by the SR&WSC. The SR&WSC had previously been accommodated in a room in the Municipal Chambers in Werribee, as reported by The Werribee Shire Banner. The building was constructed on an angle to the old Geelong Road to face Tower Road. It was built with strongly coursed red brick quoins, with bands of clinker brickwork forming the window sills and window heads. Rough-cast render filled the panels adjoin the windows. A pedimented entry was finished with smooth render with pilasters raised lettering ‘STATE RIVERS & WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION’. The hipped roof has wide eaves with glazed terra cotta tiles. The strong effect of contrasting materials has been disguised by the painting of the walls. The entry porch has been infilled with a new glazed entry doorway. A large transportable rear wing has been constructed sometime after 1984. The natural concrete finish of the water tower has been partially obscured with a painted band. The site was still basically intact in 1984, with only the caretakers cottage had been removed. However, since then many major changes have been made. The below ground open tank was filled in, and the collection of smaller sheds removed, with only one small shed being retained at the south-east corner. The hydraulic research laboratory floor was leveled when this building was converted to a storage shed. An analysis of the 1930s to 1984 aerial photographs clearly indicates that the Peppercorn trees along the old Geelong Road boundary date from the late 1920s, or early 1930s. There was a small hedge row planting in c.1936 (Figure 4), that appears to have been between 5 to 10 years old. The trees shown about 15 years later in 1951 are clearly mature Peppercorns, and not Cypress trees as has been suggested. The 1951 Peppercorn trees have a similar appearance to the 1984 aerial 33 years later, and 2017 aerial photographs 65 years later. They can be readily distinguished from Cypress trees along the road to the east. The return planting along the north boundary shown in in 1936, 1951 and 1984 has now removed. Two stumps remain, and they have the same bark as the Peppercorn trees of along the road boundary.


Figure 19 Tower and former hydraulic research laboratory

Figure 20 Tower and offices from within site

Figure 21 Former hydraulic research laboratory


Figure 22 Former hydraulic research laboratory interior

Figure 23 Former hydraulic research laboratory and tower, site of the below ground tank at right

Figure 24 Shed on south-east corner and Peppercorn, and vacant land where sheds were located


Figure 25 External view of site from Princes Highway showing Peppercorn avenue planting

Figure 26 Internal view of site from Princes Highway showing Peppercorn avenue planting

Figure 27 Stumps of Peppercorn planting on side boundary


The two large Peppercorn trees within the site were not visible in 1951, but can be seen 23 years later in 1984. They were presumably self sown from seed spread by birds, foxes, or other animals. These trees within the site have now reached a size that could create the impression that they are older than the trees along the old Geelong Road boundary, probably due to having better growing conditions as single specimens, and with better access to water. An examination of trunks also shows that the row of Peppercorns are older. The all have hollow centres and have coppiced regrowth, indicating a sequence of growth stages. The trees within the site demonstrate continuous growth. The Treetec report states the trees along the boundary have structural problems due to hollows and cavities. However, they appear to be in good health, and the hollows are due to their advanced age, and lack of past maintenance. I have been advised that if Peppercorns look healthy they will continue for many years, despite loosing limbs. They are noted for their ability for coppicing. These trees could be fenced off if public safety is a concern. They could be maintained with interplanting if any do become unhealthy. While they can be safely retained, despite their age and condition, they will need an adequate long term buffer zone to allow for fencing to restrict access in the event of falling limbs, and to protect the root zones from any excavation works. The following argument put by Lovell Chen that they may have been Cypress trees in the 1951 aerial is not accepted:

The site contains a series of mature trees in various locations around the site (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The northern boundary of the site to the Princes Highway frontage features a row of mature peppercorns. These appear on aerials from the 1980s and more recently. The 1951 aerial also shows a mature boundary row planting in this location but the dense canopy in that photograph appears to differ from the presentation of the existing trees, even with reference to the 1984 aerial and may be more characteristic of a cypress row. P14

Based on the preceding assessment of significance and values identified, it is considered that the two elements of heritage significance are the water tower (1913) and the former State Rivers and Water Supply Commission offices (1926). None of the other existing buildings or structures on the site are considered of significance. The trees are not considered of heritage significance. While mature specimens and of long standing on the site, these do not appear to relate to the establishment and early development of the site in the 1910s and 1920s (as related to the buildings), dating from a later phase in the site’s history. The trees do not contribute particularly to a defined setting for the two heritage buildings. Furthermore, they are utilitarian plantings that would be typical of many industrial/institutional sites and not considered of significance in their own right. P17

It well established that Peppercorn trees went out of use for windbreaks in the 1940s era. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that they could date from the post 1951 era. Cypress or native planting took over at that time. As seen above, the preceding aerial photographs indicate the existing Peppercorn trees date from the late 1920s or early 1930s. By contrast, in the 1951 photograph, the two large Peppercorn trees south-east of the office and south of the workshop are not shown, and therefore date from the post 1951 period. It should also be noted that despite their poor appreciation by some people, Peppercorn trees are often listed in many significant tree registers. Significant examples are found elsewhere in Werribee such as Kelly Park nearby, and in the grounds of the 1866 former Shire Offices, now the Masonic Lodge.


4.0 SOUTHERN RURAL WATER SUBMISSIONS 4.1 Signif icance of s ite and extent of Heritage Overlay The key components of cultural heritage significance are the 1926 State Rivers and Water Supply Commission office, the 1913 decommissioned water tower which rises to 17.8 metres, and the avenue of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway boundary. These have been established to form part of surviving significant avenue plantings on the old Geelong Road from the interwar period. The former hydraulic research laboratory and rear shed are of secondary significance, as are the two large Peppercorn trees within the site that date from the post 1951 period. They could be excluded from any conservation controls. The rear addition to the office building is of no significance, as is most of the landscaping other than the trees noted previously. Lovell Chen has submitted that the extent of the Heritage Overlay should be greatly reduced to only include the office building and tower, and excluding the balance of the site, including the avenue of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway:

In this case, it is considered the water tower and former SRWSC offices be included in the HO, with a reduced area of land. The extent of land should be sufficient to manage any potential impacts (on the water tower in particular) from new build. A recommended revised extent of the HO is shown at Figure 18. This extent is shown notionally only but the eastern boundary is aligned to a point in the order of six metres to the east of the rear of the tower. This extent of land has been recommended in the context of the need to protect the landmark qualities of the tower. It is noted that the development could still potentially occur within the revised HO extent, but that heritage would be a consideration in that case.

Figure 28 Lovell Chen Figure 18 The opinion of Lovell Chen is not accepted in this matter. My statement of evidence supports the full retention of the existing extent of Heritage Overlay HO100. This will ensure that the design and development envelope of the whole site takes account of the heritage values of the key components. It is also required to protect the avenue of Peppercorn trees on the Princes Highway boundary. This opinion is supported by a similar recent case. In the Moonee Valley C186 Panel Report, the Panel found that the HO should apply to the whole of the site until a permit for development of the rear of the property is granted. It provides the following case to support this:

As acknowledged by both expert witnesses, PPN1 supports the usual practice of applying the HO to the whole of the property to ensure that any development, including subdivision, does not adversely affect the setting, context or significance of the heritage item. PPN1 cites a suburban dwelling and its allotment as an example. PPN1 sets out


the process for establishing the HO curtilage:

1 Review the heritage study documentation and ask the question ‘What is significant?’. The polygon should capture those elements of the place that are significant. ... 2 In addition to capturing the elements that are significant, it is almost always necessary to include some surrounding land (a “curtilage”) in order to:

-retain the setting or context of the significant building, structure, tree or feature -regulate development (including subdivision) in close proximity to the significant building, tree or feature.

3 Where possible, uncomplicated and easily recognised boundaries (such as a fence line) leave little room for potential dispute ... 4 Use aerial photos where they exist to assist in identifying a reduced curtilage. 5 Where access is possible, ‘ground truthing’ may be of assistance. 6 Explain the basis for the reduced curtilage polygon in the heritage study documentation. 7 Where questions might arise in the future as to the extent of the polygon shown on the planning scheme map, use the entry in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (i.e. column two) to specify the area covered by the polygon.

The Panel has some sympathy with the argument that this could be a case where it could be reasonable to depart from the usual practice, set out in PPN1, that an HO should apply to an entire site. The Panel is conscious that:

- There is agreement that the rear of the site, beyond four metres south of the gutter line on the main roof form (excluding the skillion roof), does not contribute to the heritage significance of the place. - The “burden” of permit requirements under the HO is justified on the basis that the protection of significant heritage values needs to be taken into account in the assessment of development proposals. - The planning permit process for subdivision would allow consideration of the land that should be maintained on the parent lot to retain the setting and context for the house, front garden and fence. - ResCode provisions would limit the scale of development on the rear of the site. - The combination of the HO map and schedule (column 2) would allow clear definition of the part of the site to which the HO applies. This is more specific than applies to various overlays that do not incorporate the whole of property where the planning concerns to be addressed only relate to part of a property (such as environmental hazards or to address specific design issues).

Nevertheless, there is clearly scope for development of the rear of the site and the Panel considers there should be a more nuanced approach to the assessment of development proposals for the rear of the site than may occur solely under ResCode. As Mr Lewis advised, the primary concern in this case would be to avoid excessive scale of new development and the HO would provide for specific consideration of whether the scale of new development would undermine significant heritage values towards the front to the site. As noted at the Hearing, permit requirements after land to the rear is subdivided / developed should be minimised. It may well be appropriate to reduce the extent of the HO concurrently with a development application to align with new lot boundaries through a joint Amendment and permit process. At that time, the specific implications of a subdivision/development proposal for the heritage values of the site, both initially and in the longer term, could be evaluated and addressed. Mechanisms such as a building envelope(s) on the new title(s) could be considered to ensure both:

- potential impacts on significant heritage values are managed; and - unnecessary future permit requirements are avoided.


4.2 Subdiv is ion The proposed subdivision should allow for a suitable curtilage around the significant structures and significant planting. The current proposal by Lovell Chen does not achieve that objective. The proposed site to be retained shown in the plans prepared by Etch Architects A100 provides an acceptable suitable curtilage. The rear boundary is shown to be set back 20.2 metres behind the 1926 section of the office building and approximately 10 metres behind the water tower. This provides an increased rear setback of approximately 4 metres to that proposed by Lovell Chen. 4.3 Impact of rezoning on sight l ines The rezoning of the site has the potential to impact on views from the old Geelong Road, in particular as seen from Cherry Street where it joins the Princes Highway. It is my opinion that a maximum height of 11 metres should be applied to the site, as submitted by Council. This would reflect the maximum allowable height under Rescode (as per adjoining residential land) and would protect views to the heritage place. However, a height of 13.5 metres might be acceptable in certain locations away from significant view lines. However, the view along Cherry Street (Figure 14) and the front view (Figure 15) should not be impacted on by any new buildings. The maximum roof ridge height of the 1926 office building is 5.8 metres. The plans lodged by Etch Architects show a 3 metre rear setback, and if this was matched on the other side there would be room for canopy planting of 11 metres above the office building, similar to the apparent height of the canopy of the Peppercorn behind the office building. The views of any new development from opposite the site in the Princes Highway should also be concealed behind the Peppercorn trees. A height of 13.5 metres could be accommodated if a sightline diagram could be produced for the Heritage Overlay with a Section 173 agreement.

Figure 29 Front view of offices and tower The most sensitive location is the right hand side of the tower as shown in Figure 29. Screen planting and a maximum height of 11 meres would be required to avoid intrusions into this viewshed, and from Cherry Street, as shown in Figure 14.


5..0 CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined in this witness statement, the whole of the site should be retained as HO 100 in the Schedule to Heritage Overlay of the Wyndham Planning Scheme. This could be reviewed when the development of the rear of the property has taken place. A permanent Heritage Overlay should be applied to the rear of the offices to reflect the curtilage proposed by Etch Architecture, and to provide a suitable buffer zone Heritage Overlay to protect the avenue planting of Peppercorn trees along the Princes Highway. Height controls are required to protect the landmark character of the water tower, the backdrop of the 1926 office building, and to prevent views of new buildings being visible above the Peppercorn avenue, as seen from the opposite side of the Princes Highway. A revised citation should be prepared that better reflects the significance of the site. The statement of significance of this revised citation should clearly identify that the site has reduced significance outside an appropriate buffer zone for the north boundary trees, the tower and the 1926 offices. The HO Schedule in 43.01 should be amended to reflect this.


APPENDIX ONE Nigel Lewis Relevant qual i f icat ions and experience I have a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Melbourne, and I am a registered architect and director of Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd, a practice established in 1976 (Architects Registration Board of Victoria - 13076; Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd C50096). In the subsequent period, the practice operated as Jacobs Lewis Vines, Nigel Lewis and Associates and Nigel Lewis Richard Aitken Pty Ltd. Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd is a practice with a specific focus on architectural and conservation projects, as well as assessment and policy studies involving culturally significant buildings, works and areas. Witness statements Since the 1970s, I have provided expert witness evidence at numerous AAT and VCAT hearings, panel hearings, and Heritage Council hearings. In this capacity, I have been retained by municipal councils, project architects, town planners, lawyers, developers and objectors. Cultural heritage assessment and advice When the practice was established, procedures for the identification and management of historic buildings and areas were in their infancy in Victoria. It undertook the first urban conservation studies for a number of areas in the 1970s and 1980s. These provided the basis for the conservation of large parts of Melbourne’s inner suburbs, as well as gold mining towns and cities, including some of the best conserved Victorian era architecture anywhere. These included the initial studies of Parkville, Carlton, Sorrento, Ballarat, Maldon, Prahran, Malvern, North and South Fitzroy, St Kilda, Port Melbourne, and Brunswick, in addition to part of the Melbourne CBD. These studies have contributed to the development of urban conservation implementation and management in this state though policy formulation. They included the development of guidelines that remain in policies for some planning schemes. This pioneering work has played a part in the conservation of many historic buildings, works and complexes, historic landscapes and historic urban areas in Victoria and Tasmania. The firm has undertaken numerous conservation management plans including major institutional, industrial and defence complexes, as well as cultural landscapes and large gardens. These have included conservation management plans for the Abbotsford Convent in 2005 and 2016, the Royal Botanic Gardens in Melbourne in 1992 and 2016, and the buildings and grounds of Government House in Melbourne in 1985 and 2011. In the early 1990s studies in Tasmania studies included the grounds of Government House Hobart, and the cultural landscapes surrounding historic bridges in Tasmania at Richmond, Ross, and Campbelltown. Other garden studies included several historic gardens at Mt Macedon, including Alton, and the Alfred Nicholas Memorial Gardens at Sherbrooke. The firm undertook a survey for the Land Conservation Council of historic mining sites in 1979 for the Central Goldfields surrounding Ballarat and Bendigo that led to the establishment of historic reserves. This covered the most significant areas of the Victorian gold fields, an area of potential world heritage significance. I was appointed the first architectural and heritage advisor in Australia, at Maldon in 1977, following a recommendation of the conservation study. Subsequently I served in this role for many other urban and rural councils. Heritage impact statements Since the 1980s, I have prepared these for architects, private clients, councils, and objectors for Heritage Victoria applications and for town planning applications.


Architecture and conservation The practice has designed and directed conservation and adaptive re-use projects and studies, ranging from very larges sites to others on a smaller scale, as well as new building projects. It has also worked in collaboration with many leading firms of architects and other professions on master planning, building design, conservation procedures and heritage permits. The conservation of significant post 1940s architecture is now a major focus of the practice. I am currently directing the conservation of several important twentieth century houses, flats, commercial buildings and churches. This work has included the restoration of the historic features of Luna Park. More recent projects have included the restoration and adaptive re-use of the Abbotsford Convent as a community arts and education precinct, and the restoration and upgrading of the former Cathedral Hall for the Australian Catholic University.

government land standing advisory committee 26 … · 1.0 introduction 1.1 relevant qualifications...

Documents