hillside conservation area - ashfield · 1 ashfield heritage study 1993, ... 3 brief description...

HILLSIDE CONSERVATION AREA

Above: A view in Leopold Street, from near the Ashfield boundary, showing two of the main architectural styles evident here: No 21 (left) is Victorian Italianate; next door, No 19, is Queen Anne; beyond that are Inter-War houses. Below: This detail from the Ashfield Planning Scheme map shows the Hillside Conservation Area and some of its context, including the Goodlet Conservation Area

HILLSIDE CONSERVATION AREA

1 Boundary

This Conservation Area comprises 26 properties in Leopold Street, Croydon Park, from Georges River Road to the Ashfield municipal boundary, as well as the properties facing Georges River Road that were originally part of the same land parcel, viz Nos 18 to 40 .

2 Historical notes

The first white owner of the land in this corner of Ashfield was Lieutenant James Lucas, who received a grant of 100 acres in 1794. By 1820 this grant, like many other early ones, had been absorbed into Robert Campbell’s very large Canterbury Park Estate.1 When the break-up of that estate occurred, John Hay Goodlet, one of Ashfield’s best-known personalities, acquired several parcels in the area south of Georges River Road. His famous Canterbury House and garden were created just south of the Ashfield boundary, adjacent to his Ashfield holdings. This Ashfield land was later gradually subdivided for residential development, some of the streets bearing names associated with Goodlet, including Hay and Forbes. Later, the alignment of Watson Avenue was influenced by one of the carriage drives leading from Milton Road to Canterbury House.

Above: A detail from the Higinbotham & Robinson map of 1883

Hillside was the first of these Goodlet holdings to be subdivided. It appeared with that name in Ashfield’s first municipal map, prepared by Higinbotham & Robinson (shown above).2 Leopold Street, one chain (66 feet) wide, leading south from Georges River Road, was created to provide access to 42 residential allotments, all of them serviced also by 20-foot wide rear rights-of-way. There were also ten allotments facing Georges River Road.

The lots were offered for sale by auction in June 1882, by Watkin & Watkin, the real estate firm that appears to have been the first in Ashfield. Their subdivision plan described it as ‘Hillside, Ashfield Heights’. The terms of sale included a deposit of £5 per lot, a five-percent discount for payment in full within a month, no interest if paid for within six months, and five percent interest if paid for over a period at £2 ten shillings per month per lot. 1 Ashfield Heritage Study 1993, vol 1, pp 32, 36.2 Copies of the marvellous Higinbotham & Robinson map of 1883 are held in Ashfield Council Archives and in the collection of the Ashfield & District Historical Society.

............................................................................................................................................. Hillside Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Like the other north-south streets nearby, Leopold Street was extended, a little out of alignment, across the municipal boundary into Canterbury following the break-up of Goodlet’s Canterbury House property.

On a later map of Ashfield (see page 5), the properties facing Georges River Road in this and nearby subdivisions were shown outside the area described as Residential District No 6. Within the ‘residential districts’ it was prohibited to erect buildings for trade, industry, public amusement or residential flats.3 The corollary was that the Georges River Road properties might be so used. These properties in the Hillside subdivision are, however, still zoned Residential 2(a), though some are used for other purposes. On the other hand, some are liable to resumption for road widening.

Re-subdivisions occurred after the initial sales. For example the houses at Nos 1 and 3 were built by James Wilson in 1908, on three allotments divided into two. No 5 was built across two allotments in 1910. No 19, built in 1907 by Walter Greenfield

Above: A reduced copy of the 1882 Watkin & Watkin and named ‘Arun’, also occupies twosubdivision plan of ‘Hillside, Ashfield Heights’ allotments; at the rear of the site,

accessed by the right-of-way, it has a stable building, now a rare thing in Ashfield.4 These four properties were recognised as heritage items by the Council in 1993. No 14 also occupies two allotments, while Nos 18, 20 and 22 occupy sites that were widened by re-subdivision from four allotments. Even though the first allotments were sold in 1882, only two houses were built during those early years. They are numbers 21 and 30, at the south end of Leopold Street. Most of the houses were built in the Federation or Inter-War period.

3 Brief description and summary of streetscape character

The Hillside Estate lies on land that rises gently southwards from Georges River Road to the Ashfield boundary, where the street curves into a new alignment in Canterbury municipality. The layout is unusual in that every allotment, including those in Georges River Road, has access to ‘dunny’ lanes leading from Leopold Street. These lanes have facilitated the building of rear garages, thereby reducing the number of vehicles that are parked in the street. At the rear of No 19 an early 20th-century stable building survives.

3 This restriction was eventually enshrined in the Government Gazette of 16 February 1939, i e long before land zoning became the norm.4 Ashfield Heritage Study 1993, vol 2, reference No 161.


Above: This photograph shows Nos 2, 4, 6 and 8 Leopold Street, which were built as a suite of matching houses. No 2 (left) has been restored. This view suggests the pleasing character of the streetscape. Note the eucalypt planted at the edge of the road pavement

The street as an entity is visually pleasing, with concrete paths and channels and grassed nature strips on each side. Several kinds of street trees punctuate the streetscape. Mature Brush Box and Eucalypt are planted at the edge of the road pavement towards the Georges River Road end, and smaller species grow in the nature strips. Many of the front gardens have interesting plantings including examples of mature palms, Cupressus and Araucaria.

The houses vary in size, style and extent of modification; almost all are modestly single-storeyed in scale, generally appearing to be well-kept, and some appear to be in very original condition. Thus the architectural scene, though varied, is yet unified. Some houses were obviously built as suites: Nos 1 and 3 form a similar pair, apparently erected by the same builder, while Nos 2, 4, 6 and 8 were originally identical in design, no doubt also by the one builder. So too were Nos 18 and 20. The two oldest houses were built before 1890; they are Nos 21 and 26, on opposite sides of the street near the south end.5 Both have been modified; No 21 is still discernibly Victorian Italianate in style, but No 26 has been made over so that there is little evidence of its past other than the steep roof.

Among the many changes that have been made to the traditional street scene (some of which are illustrated in this report) two are worth mentioning here. The first is at No 14, where a new substantial two-storey building has replaced an earier house. Designed carefully in a mock Arts-&-Crafts style, it displays disproportionate streetscape scale. The second is at No 15, where an asymmetrical upper-storey extension sits clumsily atop an original Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts house, also disturbing the scale of the street.

4 Planning issues

The first imperative is to retain the pleasing streetscape harmony: unity yet diversity of style, modesty of scale, essentially traditional forms. The smallness of scale is especially important, as the over-scaled examples in Leopold Street testify.

5 These are shown on the Water Board Detail Series plan, surveyed in 1890.


It is almost equally important to encourage owners to appreciate the history, the visual interest and great aesthetic potential of the Leopold Street scene, and, as well, to embrace the ideal of raising every building presently ranked ‘2’ or worse to a level of ‘1’ or better. In other words, to ensure that each can eventually make the maximum possible contribution to the pleasing character of the area.

While architectural harmony is most important, it is worth commenting on the matter of front fence design. In Leopold Street it would be good to encourage the replacement of the inadequate or inappropriate front fences (as and when they need to be rebuilt, of course) by designs that are appropriate to the architecture of the buildings. Front fences, more often than not, were originally built of brick with plain or slightly decorative copings, but if the type of original fence is not known, designs such as the following would be appropriate, as they were in common domestic use in the Inter-War years—

i. Brick-and-render; ii. brick piers with timber or metal railings or panels, including pipe rails, between

them; iii. timber posts with timber top rails and woven wire mesh or low paling panels

between;iv. Gates typically either matched the fence or were ‘Cyclone’ wire mesh on light pipe

frames.

Cast iron palisades and timber pickets were somewhat out of date in the Inter-War period, while sandstone fences were uncommon at this time. Palisades and pickets were more characteristic of the Victorian and Federation periods. High fences are generally inappropriate. Welded steel mesh was typically a post-World War II material, though woven wire or rivetted metal was used. The book Getting the Details Right illustrates Federation-period designs, but books such as Peter Cuffley’s Australian Houses of the ‘20s & ‘30s (Five Mile Press, 1989) show pictures of fences of the Inter-War period. The Ashfield & District Historical Society’s collection also includes illustrations indicating good examples. Just as for buildings, the most important streetscape values for fences are visual sympathy and modest scale.

Above: This is a detail from the H E C Robinson map of Ashfield, compiled in about 1912 and revised later. The dark outlines enclose ‘residential districts’. Georges River Road is between two such districts, indicating the expectation that it would become essentially a non-residential area


Above: This picture shows No 30 Leopold Street on the right. No 26, the second house from that, is one of the two oldest in the street, now much altered. Next on the left is No 24, a Medeterranean design which would be appropriate enough except that, like the other houses that have been rendered, it is painted in unsympathetic colours. Its front fence is highly distinctive but likewise not very sympathetic

5 Conservation area ranking

The ranking used in the table below corresponds essentially with that adopted in the 1993 Ashfield Heritage Study. As shown in the Key, the ranking figures measure intactness as an indicator of significance relative to the character of the area as a whole.

Key to ranking:-

* A building already included as an item of the heritage of Ashfield

* * A building now recommended for listing as an individual item of the heritage of Ashfield. See separate inventory forms for details

1 A building with a high degree of intactness which contributes importantly to the character of the area in the terms given in the definition of a Conservation Area

2 A building which contributes to the character of the area but whose significance has been reduced by the loss of original material or detail, unsympathetic additions or inappropriate decorative treatment. An item so ranked is considered to possess the potential to achieve a higher ranking

3 A building whose impact on the heritage character of the area is neutral

4 A building which has an adverse impact upon the character of the area because of its scale, design, assertiveness, materials or the like, or because its original qualities have been mutilated or removed.

The Schedule begins on the next page


House No Architectural Ranking Commentsstyle

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leopold Street

West side, from Georges River Road end—

Side boundary of No 32 Georges River Road

Right of way to rear lane

1 QueenAnne/Arts-&-Crafts, 2* ‘Woongarra’modified Many interesting details

3 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1*

5 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1* ‘Levondale’Set back on wide block

7 Arts-&-Crafts/Art Deco 1

9 Indeterminate, modified 2/3 Fence, 4

11 Federation indeterminate, 2 Rendered. Fence, 4modified

13 Queen Anne (?), modified 2 On wide blockUnsympathetic fence

15 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1 Upper storey added, 4

17 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts, 2modified

19 Queen Anne, sympathetically 1* On wide blockmodified

21 Victorian Italianate, modified 2 Fence, 4


Here Leopold Street bends and goes into Canterbury Municipality

East side, from Georges River Road end—

Side boundary of No 30 Georges River Road (which is also 2A-2B Leopold Street)


2 Arts-&-Crafts/California 1 Well restoredBungalow

4 Arts-&-Crafts/California 2 Renderedmodified


6 Arts-&-Crafts/California 1Bungalow

8 Arts-&-Crafts/California 1Bungalow

10 Queen Anne, modified 2

12 California Bungalow 1 Pleasing narrow house

14 Mock ‘Federation’ 4 Wide block. Large two-under construction storeyed house

16 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1 Fence, 4

18 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1 ‘Newmills’

20 Sydney Bungalow 1 Has side driveway

22 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1

24 Mediterranean 1/4? Rendered and painted inunsympathetic colours

26 Victorian (?) indeterminate, 2 Renderedmodified

28 California Bungalow, 2modified

30 Victorian (?) indeterminate, 2 Renderedmodified


Here the bend in Leopold Street and continuation into Canterbury Municipality.

Georges River Road

South side, from east—

18 Arts-&-Crafts 1 Nos 18-32 are likely to be affected by road widening proposals

20 Arts-&-Crafts 1

22-24 Indeterminate 4 Defunct shop

26 Indeterminate 4 Workshop

There is no number 28

30 Simplified Art Deco 1 This is also 2A-2B Leopold Street


Here Leopold Street

32 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts 1

34 Queen Anne/Arts-&-Crafts, 1

36 Arts-&-Crafts, 2modified



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 Statement of Significance

The cultural significance of this Conservation Area derives from the following factors—

(a) The noteworthy history of the area including its association with John Hay Goodlet, and its present arrangement which demonstrates significant phases of the story of Ashfield over a period of more than 100 years

(b) The buildings and streetscape of Leopold Street make a very diverse yet surprisingly unified and attractive whole. Within this harmonious area a wide range of architectural styles and details is evident

(c) The gentleness of residential scale is notable.

(d) Despite modifications the buildings generally evidence much originality and intactness.

Above: Nos 1 and 3 Leopold Street are a similar but not identical pair of recognised heritage items


These two photographs show houses in Leopold Street which, despite being well built, are quite unsympathetic to this conservative streetscape. Above, No 15 has an obtrusive and lopsided upper-storey sheet-clad addition. Below, No 14 is a new house occupying a wide block where there was formerly a smaller house. It affects the Arts-&-Crafts style and displays some careful detailing, but the building is immodestly overscaled and features roof forms that are unconvincingly low-pitched


Above: A view of the Georges River Road frontage of the Hillside CA, most of which is likely to be affected by proposed road widening. The building with the footpath awning (left) is a defunct shop. To its left there are two houses similar in character to those in Leopold Street. To its right is an automobile workshop, and next, at the corner of Leopold Street, is a house with some Art Deco features. On the near side of Leopold Street (out of this view to the right) there are five residences, also similar in style to those in Leopold Street


hillside conservation area - ashfield · 1 ashfield heritage study 1993, ... 3 brief description...

Documents