objection to pln16-0923 - 205-211 queens parade - the 3068 ... · development, the australian april...

The 3068 Group Objection to PLN16/0923 - 205-211 Queens Parade. P a g e | 1

205-211QueensParade, PLN16/0923,

formerCliftonMotorslaterTru-Mould,

Objection by the 3068 Group Inc.

“While supervising the construction of the hotel, Wardrop was asked to design a new garage on an adjacent site and asked to carry on the distinctive architecture of the hotel.”

[Melbourne Art Deco, Grow, R. 2009, p. 100]

‘The Tru-Mould Tyre Service building is an intact and extraordinary example of an art deco

motor garage and showroom. The decorative, horizontal treatment adopted for the façade and

the dominating finned tower, built in 1938-9 are unique amongst surviving garages of the

period in Victoria. The intact house that remains within the complex is representative of the not

too distant time when proprietors and their families lived on the garage premises. The property

is important for its ability to chart the rise of the motor car through the evolution of its

buildings.’

[Statement of Significance, Butler 1997. This statement was extracted from The Motor Garage & Service Station in Victoria: A Survey, by D Catrice and M Summerton, for

Heritage Victoria, 1997]


Grounds for Objection It’s not about just buying sites where you can maximize yield now, it’s about really

focusing on picking the teeth out of a great site that owner occupiers will actually buy. “If we do

buy sites they will be in areas where I know that (homes) will be bought by the local market and

local owner occupiers as opposed to (investors),” he says.

[Shane Wilkinson, MD, and founder of Melbourne apartment developer Pace Development, The Australian April 30, 2015]

Location and Context

The Applicant (Abraham Pace 1),’s submission that “These (prior) approvals are height and bulk

comparative with the proposal and are indicative of the acceptable built form expectations for

the precinct.” is flawed.

205-211 Queens Parade is in a location that demonstrates the values and character of the

precinct and is of strategic importance in maintaining the values and character.

Whereas

In Lovell Chen, Statement of heritage evidence prepared by Anita Brady for TLC Aged Care Pty Ltd,

Application for Review PLN14/0989, 217-241 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill, August 2015, Lovell Chen

Advice on that site was

The proposed development will not diminish the heritage value and character of the precinct,

being in a location that does not demonstrate the values and character, and is not of strategic

importance in maintaining the values and character.2

and further

Regarding the ’scale and pattern of streetscapes’ in the heritage precinct, again this section of

Queens Parade is distinguished from the remainder of the precinct, being not intact (in the

location/vicinity of the subject property) or of distinctive Art Deco character (in the location of

the two large interwar buildings)3While it is acknowledged that the replacement building will

be large and substantial, and highly visible in the precinct streetscape, its location is not

sensitive in heritage terms, and bears no relationship to the significant heritage character and

buildings elsewhere in the precinct.4

1 Applicant’s Town Planning Report. 2 Lovell Chen, op.cit.,par.52 3 Lovell Chen, op.cit.,par.54 4 Ibid. Chen, op.cit.,par.59


MSS Clause 21.05

Objection is made that the works will remove the last remnant of history of transport and a hub

of motor engineers’ workshops that operated on Heidelberg and Hoddle for over 50 years (refer

Addresses attached) contrary to MSS Clause 21.05. which says The period of development,

predominant land uses,… must be considered when understanding a site’s significance. The

cultural significance of heritage places must not be compromised by new development. 5

Submission

It is submitted that, as a minimum, as well as an unqualified condition for the retention and

restoration of the façade and the central vertical masonry fins and the original “Clifton Motors”

signs.6 No new work should project from behind or above the vertical fins

to protect the significance of the precinct’s Australian Heritage Commission Historic Theme

No.3.7 “Moving Goods and People”.7

“The rise of the automobile transformed the layout and form of cities around the world. Cars had to be serviced, refueled, repaired and stored and a number of new building types, including service stations”8

Height

Objection is made to the proposal’s height due to its adjacency to the former United Kingdom

Hotel, VHR H0684, (1937-38), 199 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill, designed by James H. Wardrop.

The proposal will reduce the historic, aesthetic and cultural significance of the Hotel and its site,

particularly levels proposed to be higher than the existing double storey brick Hotel.

The proposed development is an unacceptable transition to the Heritage Buildings and their

surrounds.

The proposal has excessive height and insufficient setbacks from the streamlined fins of the

former Clifton Motors on the subject site.

The proposal will be unreasonably prominent in the heritage landscape.

5 CLAUSE 21.05 BUILT FORM 6Evidence of ghost signs, "Clifton Motors" in full in brick framed panels of cement render each side of central

vertical fins, Grow, op.cit. p.101,and Lovell Chen, August,2015 op.cit., Figures 15 16, p.14

7 coach-building and wheelwright factories in Collingwood, Allom Lovell & Associates, City of Yarra Heritage

Review;Thematic History, p.35 8 Grow,R, Melbourne Art Deco Ripe Off Press, 2009, pp.99-100


Built Form

The proposal is disrespectful of Yarra’s cultural heritage, and the heritage context it proposes to

modify.

The scale and massing of the development will have a significant impact on the Queens Parade

Heritage Precinct (HO330) and fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 22.02-5.7.2, Specific

Requirements (Industrial, Commercial and Retail Heritage Place or Contributory elements)

“Encourage new upper level additions and works to:

� Respect the scale and form of the existing heritage place or contributory elements

to the heritage place by being set back from the lower built form elements. Each

higher element should be set further back from lower heritage built forms.

� Incorporate treatments which make them less apparent.”

Heritage Conservation

The proposed development is an unacceptable transition to the Heritage Buildings and their

surrounds. refer TLC Aged Care Pty Ltd., vs. Yarra City Council. cl. 55, 58,60, 62. (Attached).

The proposal does not describe conservation or restoration works on the façade. It is submitted

that, as a minimum, an unqualified condition to the retention and restoration of the of the

façade and the central vertical masonry fins and the original” Clifton Motors” signage is

required to protect the significance of the Precinct’s Australian Heritage Commission Historic

Theme No. 3.7 “Moving Goods and People”.

The rise of the automobile transformed the layout and form of cities around the world. Cars had to be

serviced, refueled, repaired and stored and a number of new building types, including service stations 9

Demolition

Objection is made that building multi-storey apartments over the Subject Site will remove the

last remnant of a history of transport and a hub of motor engineers’ workshops that operated on

Heidelberg and Hoddle for over 50 years.

Adaptive reuse of the subject site as a restaurant has been successful in the past and should be

encouraged as best practice in conservation.

The proposed development dominates the original site and the hotel. Only the tip remains.

9 Grow, R. Melbourne Art Deco Ripe Off Press, 2009, pp.99-100


Subject Site

205-211 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill, Clifton Motors

The Clifton Motors Pty Ltd, Motor Engineers, Show Room and Garage, later Bayford Motors

“While supervising the construction of the hotel, Wardrop was asked to design a new garage on an

adjacent site and asked to carry on the distinctive architecture of the hotel.”

[ Melbourne Art Deco, 2009, p. 100.]

The Herald 10/5/1939. Research by Robin Grow. The article identifies the architect as Mr James H

Wardrop of Bourke St City and the builder is Mr R. Hannah of Ivanhoe. Note the connection to the

modern UK Hotel. “Externally an effect [sic]of color and [?] has been obtained by the use of an

harmonious arrangement of glazed tiles of contrasting shades.


205-211 Queens Parade, PLN16/0923, former Clifton Motors later Tru Mould is located

in the triangle block described by Lovell Chen, as

“a component of the precinct which is essentially a triangular block or area of land, separated

from the remainder of the precinct. The triangular block is formed where Queens Parade cranks

to the north-east at the junction with Heidelberg Road.”10

“The land area, bounded by Queens Parade (north side) and Heidelberg Road (south side)

narrows at its western end, where the large and prominent landmark, former United Kingdom

Hotel at 199 Queens Parade is a dominant building. Properties within the triangular block are

individually significant, contributory and not contributory.” 11

“Also located within the triangular block at 205-211 Queens Parade is the individually

significant former Clifton Motor Garage.”12

“The two heritage buildings date from the interwar era giving the triangular block and this area

of Queens Parade and the heritage precinct a distinctive Art Deco character. This distinction or

difference from the majority of the rest of the precinct is also emphasized by the large footprints

of the interwar buildings, and their unusually wide frontages to Queens Parade .13

“This distinction is further differentiated from the precinct by the large footprints and wide

Queens Parade frontages of the interwar heritage buildings, and the expansive width of Queens

Parade which visually and physically separates these buildings from the precinct.”14

10 Lovell Chen, Statement of heritage evidence prepared by Anita Brady for TLC Aged Care Pty Ltd, Application for

Review PLN14/0989, 217-241 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill, August 2015, par.18 11 Lovell Chen, op.cit, par. 19. 12 Lovell Chen, op.cit, par. 21. 13 Lovell Chen, op.cit.,par.23 14 Lovell Chen, op.cit.,par.46


“The former Clifton Motors is double-storey in height, constructed in cream brickwork and

with strong horizontal elements punctuated by a central*'tower" element which soars above the parapet line creating a distinctive and strong central architectural element which is

silhouetted against the skyline.”

– Anthemion Consultancies, 217-241 Queens Parade Heritage Report for review 1531/2013.


6-10 Drummett Crescent, Clifton Hill, Former Clifton Motors and

Tru-mould

The Age, Wednesday 7 April 1954,

page 29


Original United Kingdom Hotel

The Subject Site is portion of the land that was ancillary to the former 1880s United Kingdom Hotel.

The first United Kingdom Hotel at the intersection of Queen’s Parade and Heidelberg Road, built in 1880

or earlier and reputed to have been used as a staging-house for coaches.

Shows the first United Kingdom Hotel at the intersection of Queen's Parade and Heidelberg Road, built in 1880 or earlier and reputed to have been used as a staging-house for coaches. (The building now on this site which has been converted into a MacDonald's was built in the 1930s). It is a substantial cement-rendered two storey building with a slate roof and an elaborate arched verandah. Venetian blinds and lace curtains hang at the windows.

Behind the hotel can be seen E. J. Williams livery stables and there is a horse trough Picture Victoria.

“The former United Kingdom Hotel. The Heidelberg Road overpass is on the right behind the trees.

Behind the camera is a triangular garden which was created at the junction of the former Plenty Road

and Heidelberg Road and which is mentioned in the Statement of Significance for the Queens Parade

heritage precinct. It contains a significant Holm oak (Quercus ilex) in addition to other trees, The

Statement of Significance also states that "The spectacular United Kingdom Hotel situated at the

intersection of the Heidelberg and Plenty Roads, was uniquely positioned to attract trade from all

directions". Ironically this is indicated by the choice of the site by McDonalds which typically occupy

gateway or entry sites, and the prominence of the McDonalds signage which is visible at some distance

from several directions. Any diminution of the prominence and dominance of this heritage building as a


consequence of a loss of; or intrusion on, its setting would result in an adverse effect on the place itself

(H0 92 and VHR H 684) and also on the Queens Parade Heritage Overlay Area (H0 330).”

– Anthemion Consultancies, 217-241 Queens Parade Heritage Report for review 1531/2013.

The Subject Site is portion of the land that was ancillary to the former s United Kingdom Hotel.

The Hotel is shown on the 1885 Map of Collingwood.15

The Hotel was owned by Theodore Sabelberg from 1886-1891.16. Sabelberg held licenses for “The Sir

Walter Scott Hotel (1881), United Kingdom Hotel (1882), (1888).” Woolpack Hotel, Sydney Road, Coburg

(1889).17

Sabelberg was the 1864 grantee of allotments 5, 6, and 7, Section, 16 on the west side of Queens

Parade where it forked into Plenty Road.18

The former United Kingdom Hotel was owned by Theodore Sabelberg from 1886-1891. 19

Frederick D. Boudle owned lots 12-14 of 16, 66 ft. lots of adjoining enclosed land 1886-87 which passed

to Munro & Clarke in 188820. The Hotel was demolished by 1906, and a new hotel was operating by

1910.21

15 Map of the City of Collingwood, 1885, compiled on lithograph, by C. Woodhouse, cnr. Bourke & Queen Streets,

Melbourne. 16 Rate books 17 The Argus, 10 Mar. , 1881. The Argus, 9 Dec , 1882. The Fitzroy Free Press p.2, 28 July, 1883. The Age, 20 Jun.

1889. 18 Allotments in the Boroughs of East Collingwood and Fitzroy, Dept. of Crown Lands and Survey, Noone, 1864 19 Rate books, Research by G. Loughlin 20 Ibid. 21 Allom Lovell & Associates, City of Yarra Heritage Review Overlay Precincts, p.124


View of Raines Reserve, c1912-1917. The view from the United Kingdom Hotel.

The hotel grounds occupied the whole of the corner of Queens Parade and Heidelberg Road, extending to Hoddle Street to the east, refer MMBW Detail Plan No.1219


Curtilage was important to hotels and banks of the era for changes of horses, storage of vehicles and stabling. refer VHR statement of significance.

Detail of MMBW Detail Plan No. 1264 dated December 1903 (Source SLV)


Detail of MMBW Detail Plan No. 1264 dated December 1903 (Source SLV)

1938 Moderne United Kingdom Hotel

199 Queen's Parade, (formerly Heidelberg Road), Clifton Hill

The original hotel was demolished and replaced between 1906 and 1909; re-built 1937/38; additions

facing Queen's Parade 1957-58; additions facing Heidelberg Road 1966

The present Moderne building, designed by J. H. Wardrup, and built by Hanson and Yuncken, was built

in 1937-38. 22

http://collingwoodhs.org.au/view/clifton-hill-hotels-listing/entry/107/

The Former United Kingdom Hotel was built in 1937-38, replacing a hotel of the same name that

occupied the site. This remarkable two storey brick building has cantilevered concrete balconies with

slim metal railings and light cantilevered canopies which accentuate the rounded horizontal mass of the

ground and first floors. Manganese, tapestry and cream bricks provide polychrome and textural

contrast, and the massive vertical fins rising through the centre of the western facade are striking

features.

Photo by David Wadelton 1977

22 Ibid.


United Kingdom Hotel, 199 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill] Fred M. Day. [ca. 1964] SLV


Detail from Vic Roads Library 72-6531 Original lettering matches Clifton Motors

Victorian Heritage Register

Statement of Significance Last updated on - June 28, 1999

What is significant? The Former United Kingdom Hotel was built in 1937-38, replacing a hotel of the

same name that occupied the site. This remarkable two storey brick building has cantilevered concrete

balconies with slim metal railings and light cantilevered canopies which accentuate the rounded

horizontal mass of the ground and first floors. Manganese, tapestry and cream bricks provide

polychrome and textural contrast, and the massive vertical fins rising through the centre of the western

facade are striking features.

How is it significant? The Former United Kingdom Hotel is of architectural and historical significance to

the State of Victoria.

Why is it significant? The Former United Kingdom Hotel is of architectural significance as possibly

Victoria's most exquisite and intact example of the Jazz Moderne style of architecture designed by one

of the most notable proponents of the style, J. H. Wardrop. The building is greatly enhanced by its near-

island siting and is externally and internally almost original, with the exception of post-war rear

additions. It provides an interesting three-dimensional comparison with Wardrop?s slightly earlier Alkira

House in Queen Street, Melbourne. The Former United Kingdom Hotel is of historical significance as an

exemplar of the material culture of the late 1930s and of prevailing social customs. The survival of much

of the hotel’s interior provides important evidence of hotel design and usage in the pre-WW2 period.

Construction dates 1937, Architect/Designer Wardrop, James Hastie,

Extent of Registration

HO684 Plan


AMENDMENT OF REGISTER OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Historic Building No. 684.

United Kingdom Hotel, 199 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill

to the extent of the 1937 structure and the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 5021 Folio 1004188 as

shown on the plan held by the Ministry for Planning and Environment.

[Victoria Government Gazette G32 24 August 1988 p.2562]

United Kingdom Hotel, 199 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill interior, shows first-floor bedroom with twin beds.

http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/309996


Dummett Crescent Precinct

Planning Scheme Overlays

Heritage Overlays

Environmental Audit Overlays

Sites with likely ground contamination.


Motor Engineers’ Hub on Heidelberg and Hoddle

The Subject Site is part of Crown Allotment 2, Section 16A, City of Collingwood, Parish of Jika

Jika, and a Plan of Subdivision of allotments 2-19 Queens Parade and 8-15 Dummett Crescent.

On MMBW Plan No. 219 This land is shown as occupied by the United Kingdom Hotel, a

pitched yard, wood stables, enclosed land, a coach builder’s workshop, and a shoeing forge.

On MMBW Detail Plan 1264 the adjoining allotment to the east is occupied by a timber

building, square on plan abutting a brick building, rectangular on plan.

It is likely that these buildings are the coach builder’s workshop, and the shoeing forge.

On another MMBW Detail Plan, on a further allotment to the east, are buildings identified as

“No. 52”.

It is likely that these buildings comprise “Mac’s Garage”, cnr. Hoddle Street, & Heidelberg

Road, Clifton Hill leased by J Blanchard, Motor Engineer, from Morley Mortley??? on Sept. 1930

in a letter from Gordon D. Langridge, shown in photograph below.

The Tru-Mould Tyre Services Pty Ltd was part of The Clifton Motors Pty Ltd , Motor Engineers,

Show Room and Garage, later Bayford Motors at 205-211 Queens Parade, Clifton Hill

Coachbuilding on MMBW Detail Plan 1219 “the majority of the colonies’ coach and carriage builders were located within Yarra, some of which

operated quite substantial works for example:

• The Phoenix Carriage Works, run by William Hobbs and Co. was located in Brunswick Street,

Fitzroy.

• G. F. pickles & Sons, 32-38 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy.

• There were three establishments in Bridge Road, Richmond: Robert Dickerson, John Gilbert,

and Joseph Harve;

• Seven in east Collingwood: Jesse king, (Otter Street), John Lockhead, (Napoleon Street), C.

Nelder, (South Audley Street) William & Alex Nicholson, (81 Victoria Street);Roberts &

Fergusson, ( cnr 64 Bourke Street west and Hoddle St); Adam Thompson ( Langridge Street); and

M. Williams (Johnston Street).”

Sands and McDougal, Melbourne Directory 1891. quoted from Allom Lovell and Associates, City of Yarra

Heritage Review: Thematic History, Vol.1, p.41.


Horse Trough (2010) in Raines Reserve. This is one of many similarly purchased across Australia from money bequeathed by George Bills, who died in 1927. These provided water for horses and were

common until the 1960s.

Horse troughs are also shown in the MMBW plans for the area.


Addresses

No. 52 On MMBW Detail Plan 1219 the adjoining allotment to the east is occupied by a timber

building, square on plan and an adjoining brick building, rectangular on plan

On another MMBW Detail Plan, these buildings are identified as “No. 52”.

It is likely that these buildings comprise “Mac’s Garage”, cnr. Hoddle Street, & Heidelberg

Road, leased by J. Blanchard, Motor Engineer, from Morley in Sept. 1930.

MMBW Detail Plan 1219

The site is located within the Queens Parade Heritage Overlay and remained in transport use,

occupied by a coach-building workshop.23 c.1904, refer other MMBW detail Plan, later Sage

coach-building, later Laity’s Ampol Service Station.24

23 Coach-building and wheelwright factories in Collingwood, Allom Lovell & Associates, City of Yarra Heritage

Review; Thematic History, p.35 24 Statement of Significance for the building, as well as a Statement of Significance for the Precinct in which it is

located vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/places/show_significance/102732


Clifton Motors

The Herald 10/5/1939. Research by Robin Grow. The article identifies the

architect as Mr James H Wardrop of Bourke St City and the builder is Mr R.

Hannah of Ivanhoe. Note the connection to the modern UK Hotel. “Externally

an effect [sic]of color and [?] has been obtained by the use of an harmonious

arrangement of glazed tiles of contrasting shades.


John W Blanchard (John Snr's dad) garage in Clifton Hill 1935. Photo courtesy of J. Blanchard.

John W Blanchard & Sons. Photo courtesy of J. Blanchard.


201 Queens Parade - former Evan & Willis auto engineers A masonry factory building of matching height and parapet design to No.207 Queens

Parade.

shown over-painted in white.

Refer VicRoads photo 1972

Note adjacent former Clifton Motors building with “Clifton Motors” ghost sign.

72-7351 Vic Roads Library 1972

Detail of 72-7351


Repco, 271 Queens Parade, cnr Hoddle Street, Fitzroy North. “Repco Auto Parts, All Makes & Models.”, automotive engineers,

Ref: VicRoads, photo Roads Library - 1968 68-1192. See also J.W Hicks, 269 Queens Parade.

Repco, is one of Australia’s best known brands.25 Initially named the Replacement Parts Co., Repco was

founded in Collingwood in 1922 by motor mechanic George Russell, who had served as an ambulance

driver in the First World War and then resumed his peace-time trade of motor mechanic. Skilled at

reconditioning engines, Russell also became a capable businessman, alert for chances to sell spare

parts.26 With his new partner of 1926, Bill Ryan, he imported spare parts for all kinds of cars, sometimes

altering parts so that they suited rough Australian roads and driving conditions.27 When American -made

pistons on Ford cars did not suit Australian conditions his firm made new piston rings.28

After the (Second World War), Repco shared in the profits of the boom in motoring. It manufactured

brakes, cables, gaskets, propeller shafts, oil seals, clutch assemblies and a variety of other parts for the

most popular car, the Holden.29 By the 1960s Repco was a name in world motoring. It exported spare

parts to the numerous lands where the Holden was sold, and in England it was a manufacturer of

clutches and wheel balancers. Above all it began to make the engine for a famous racing car. In 1966,

the Repco-Brabham car won the World Championship Grand Prix events in France, Britain, Germany,

and Holland.

VicRoads, photo Roads Library - 1968 68-1192

25 Geoffrey Blainey, Jumping over the Wheel; Pacific Dunlop History, Allen & Unwin, 1993, p.296 26 ibid. 27 ibid. 28 ibid. 29 ibid


Hoddle Street (North), former Brooks Street.

1968, Vic Roads Library

1 Turnbull Street, Cnr Queens Parade

Perfect Front Ends, Steering and Brake Specialists

72-7990 Vic Roads Library


Queens Parade Heritage Precinct The site is located within the Queens Parade Heritage Overlay and remained in transport use,

occupied by a coach-building workshop.30 c.1904, refer other MMBW detail Plan, later Sage

coach-building, later Laity’s Ampol Service Station.31

Why is it significant?

The Queens Parade Precinct is noted for its significance:

� As one of Melbourne‘s early surveyed boulevards (1853) and one of the few associated with the prominent surveyor Robert Hoddle, enhanced by mature street trees (elms) and extensive beautification in the inter-war period in the form of plane trees and rockeries;

� For the contribution of the old government surveyed town of Northcote (part), as a valuable historical depiction of Melbourne‘s early relationship to then nearby country districts, with early extant buildings such as the Terminus Hotel at the Merri Creek bridge (in use since 1854), substantial 1860s row houses and other indications of residential development prior to the government suburban subdivisions and their development in the 1880s Boom era;

� For the late 19th and early 20th century shops, hotels, banks, and public buildings, often with intact street verandahs, lining both sides of a wide boulevard that provides for exceptional vistas to fine commercial rows, and demonstrates the major role of Queens Parade as a commercial, banking, accommodation and public transport nucleus for the district;

� As a good representation of building styles from the mid-19th century to the late 1930s, enhanced by prominent landmarks such as the former banks, St. John‘s Catholic Church complex, and the United Kingdom Hotel, the latter two being primary foci in the precinct

� For fine groups of early 20th century villas, set in gardens, in the residential areas to the west and north-east ends of Queens Parade.

� For the remarkable collection of original street verandahs particularly on the north side of the street;

� For the picturesque shop-row skyline, visible from across Queens Parade, with its gabled or hipped roof forms and many original chimneys; and

� For fine groups of early 20th century villas, set in gardens, in the residential areas to the west and north-east ends of Queens Parade.

30 coach-building and wheelwright factories in Collingwood, Allom Lovell & Associates, City of Yarra Heritage

Review;Thematic History, p.35 31 Statement of Significance for the building, as well as a Statement of Significance for the Precinct in which it is

located. vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/places/show_significance/102732


Precedents

1. Leaper Investments vs. Yarra City Council, 217-241Queens

Parade, 2013

In Leaper Investments vs. Yarra City Council ,217-241Queens Parade, Clifton Hill, VCAT

Reference No. P1531/2013 (17 October 2013)

“17. The second aspect is that the review site is not a contributory element in this heritage

precinct, and does not adjoin any contributory or important elements. In the context of a

location identified for the achievement of significant urban consolidation and where most of

the activity centre is affected by contributory or important heritage elements, that this site is

not affected speaks volumes of the opportunity that the review site presents. As a result of

this policy analysis we find that a development of some scale is supported by policy, and

that a building of eight storeys in height as is before us is an appropriate response to that

policy guidance.

“24. There are two nearby important heritage buildings. The closest is the former Clifton Motors site at 205-211 Queens Parade, and is a moderne (art deco) facade added to an earlier building. The facade was designed by J H Wardrop, a noted architect of this style of building. It presents to the streetscape with a two storey facade and a centrally positioned iconic art deco finned tower. “25. The second nearby heritage building, and clearly the most important of the two, is the former United Kingdom Hotel at 199 Queens Parade. It is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and within its own site specific heritage overlay under the Yarra Planning Scheme. In its Statement of Significance, and during the course of the hearing, the former United Kingdom Hotel was described as ‘spectacular,’ ‘remarkable’ and ‘possibly Victoria’s most exquisite and intact example of the Jazz Moderne style of architecture.’ It was also designed by J H Wardrop. Despite its location further away from the review site, at a distance of some 60 metres, it was the impact of the proposed development as a backdrop to views to the United Kingdom Hotel which most concerned those parties opposing the proposed development.

“30. Thirdly, this is not the first approval for a taller building in this precinct. We note that the site at 6-12 Dummett Crescent has been granted a permit for a four or five storey development.[ We are still confused as to whether a four or five storey building has been approved at 6-12 Dummett Crescent. The permit clearly refers to five storeys, but the unendorsed plans provided to us by Council depicts a four storey building.] We consider that this scale of building, immediately behind the Clifton Motors building, is an indicator that buildings of higher scale can reasonably be expected in this precinct. The review site’s


separation from a heritage building provides an opportunity for a further increase in height over that nearby approval.

“34. Lastly, the building is sufficiently separated from the important heritage assets so as to not impact upon their setting or appreciation. In relation to the Clifton Motors building, we are satisfied that the art deco finned tower will continue to be a recognisable and striking element in this streetscape, and will not be ‘lost’ amongst the tall buildings proposed here and expected on other sites further to the north-east.

Precedence 2 TLC Aged Care Pty Ltd vs Yarra CC., 217-241

Queens Parade, 2015

In TLC Aged Care Pty Ltd vs Yarra CC., 217-241 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, VCAT Ref.P971/2015

(6 October 2015) pars. 30-38, 39-48, 49-68- 69-98-97.

What is the Tribunal’s assessment?

30 The previous Tribunal found that the part of the heritage place on the northeast side of Queens Parade is far from intact. It found that the lack of intactness allows a robust development on the site. 31. However, the review site is part of a significant heritage place with many contributory and significant places. While the site is separate, the approved and the proposed building will be very visible in views along Queens Parade. It will change the precinct and we think caution is required. 32. We think podium and tower typology makes the lower and middle parts of the proposed development recessive and respectful. The two storey podium is consistent with the significant buildings and it forms a horizontal visual connection to the nearby buildings and the heritage place as a whole. The use of bluestone and the clay louvers is also respectful of the materials seen in the heritage place. The building does not rely on replication or mimicry to create connections to the heritage place, rather its architecture is modern and distinct and it would stand in its own right. 33. In most views, the fin of the Clifton Motors Garage and the prominent United Kingdom Hotel façade stand alone and would be separate from the building. There would be sky and vegetation behind the profile of the buildings, enabling their special features to be clearly seen and to remain distinct. 34. However, in some views from the southwest, the proposed building would form a large backdrop behind the Clifton Motors Garage façade. We agree with Ms Brady that the prominent fin and façade are sufficiently robust to stand apart and would continue to be prominent even with a large backdrop. 35 We are concerned that the cap of the building would be unduly dominant and draw attention from the heritage buildings. We consider the overall height and the bulk of the


levels above eight storeys is not well managed and it needs to be more recessive in views from the southwest. There needs to be a clearer step from the low-rise heritage built form on one side of Dummett Crescent to the far greater height on the other side. We think the proposal before us is excessively tall and that height and bulk on the southwest side would detract from the heritage place. A more tempered response is needed. We turn to this in more detail below.

Is the scale of the proposed development consistent with the built form policy

and its physical contexts?

54. The key issue in this review is whether the height and scale of this proposed development is appropriate in its context, having regard to the guidance provided by policy. We concur with the experts and residents that while a form greater than the prevailing form is warranted, deciding how much greater has not been a simple task. This assessment is counter balanced by factors that temper the design response for this site. While distant from the review site, we consider that the nearby heritage buildings form an important part of the surrounding context. We adopt the findings in the previous Tribunal that a building of eight storeys would not diminish or overwhelm the heritage significance of the nearby buildings or the heritage place. We consider the podium and tower typology in the previous development, with its evident break at the second level, and lower height cap, is respectful of the prevailing heritage streetscape. 58. We think that the sub-precinct beyond Dummett Crescent is likely to remain relatively low scale as development would be likely to be well setback behind the frontages of the two heritage buildings. Their heights would be very modest. This means that the proposal before us is likely to remain highly prominent in short medium and long range views from the east and south for many years to come 59. In particular, the southwest façade would be an unduly abrupt edge to the low-rise adjoining precinct and the “cap” of the building would be unduly dominant. It would comprise height and massing that would be inconsistent with the position that this neighbourhood activity centre has in the surrounding activity centre hierarchy. We find the height and massing of the building to be unacceptable. We do not want to prescribe an acceptable building height as another proposal for this site must be acceptable as its own design rather than claiming to be a correcting repeat appeal that responds to a few comments of this Tribunal. However, we acknowledge that all the parties would appreciate the Tribunal’s guidance. We do not intend the following comments to be prescriptive as any new proposal has to demonstrate that it responds to the opportunities and the factors that temper the design response for this site.

We consider the ground level podium and the central tower to eight storeys are generally acceptable. It is the building’s upper level “cap” that is problematic and overbearing. We think that the overall height of the building needs to be reduced and the cap be made more recessive in the views from the northeast and northwest. We particularly think there should be a notable setback to Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent above seven or eight storeys, and the large water towers and parapet removed.


We agree with Mr McPherson and Council officers that a building in the order of 10 storeys could be acceptable, provided the storeys generally comprise industry standard floor to ceiling heights. Any roof-plant and rooftop garden above the top floor would need to be recessed from Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent. The previous Tribunal found that the part of the heritage place on the northeast side of Queens Parade is far from intact. It found that the lack of intactness allows a robust development on the site. Par.56 We also give some weight to the policy at Clause 21.05-2 that encourages scale of five to six storeys in height on strategic redevelopment sites. We consider this policy guidance to reflect the preferred difference of three to four storeys between the low scale form and the pockets of higher development. While the policy contemplates higher built form above five to six stories in height, it should comprise design and environmental excellence, including setbacks to the primary street frontages and it should meet social housing needs. We note that past Tribunal decisions have approved taller buildings as they have provided setbacks, comprised design excellence or been located where the additional height has not been prominent.

57. Balancing the above considerations, we find that the adjoining property to the northeast sets a benchmark for this precinct, and development on the review site should provide a transition to the low-rise heritage precinct to the southwest. In our view the proposed built form, at essentially 13/14 storeys in height, would contrast unduly with the current and likely future built form in 60. We consider the ground level podium and the central tower to eight storeys are generally acceptable. It is the building’s upper level “cap” that is problematic and overbearing. We think that the overall height of the building needs to be reduced and the cap be made more recessive in the views from the northeast and northwest. We particularly think there should be a notable setback to Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent above seven or eight storeys, and the large water towers and parapet removed. 61. We agree with Mr McPherson and Council officers that a building in the order of 10 storeys could be acceptable, provided the storeys generally comprise industry standard floor to ceiling heights. Any roof-plant and rooftop garden above the top floor would need to be recessed from Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent. 62. Given the high level of visibility of the northwest side of the building, and its evident and abrupt contrast to the lower rise built form to the southwest, we think there needs to be an evident step in the southwest façade of the building from the middle tower to a recessive cap. This can be done in multiple ways. One approach is to generally adopt Mr McPheron’s recommendations for an evident transition in built form at the southwest corner. Another option would be to match the 5 metres setback to Queens Parade with a similar or greater setback on the Dummett Crescent interface. The perception of a recessive cap could also be emphasised by a further transition in materials as well as built form.


Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic

movements?

87. The proposed use and development would provide 51 car parking spaces

in three basements. All these spaces would be allocated to staff of the aged care

facility, the medical centre and the café. No parking would be provided for

visitors to the aged care facility or for customers of the medical centre. The car

parking spaces would be accessed from Dummett Crescent. The existing

crossover to the land in Queens Parade would be reinstated.

88. Clause 52.06 requires the provision of 58 car parking spaces, comprising

36 spaces for the aged care facility, 17 spaces for the medical centre, three

spaces for the café and two spaces for the pharmacy (shop). The proposed uses

seek a waiver of seven car parking spaces.

89. Ms Zeitz disagrees and says the reliance on the on-street parking would

create unacceptable congestion. She says the traffic volumes would make the

area unsafe for elderly residents and emergency vehicles would have difficulty

accessing the facility.

90. The responsible authority had no objection to the proposed waiver of car

parking spaces. It says the public car parking spaces that are available on

Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent can accommodate the visitor and

customer car parking likely to be generated by the proposal.

91. VicRoads is a referral authority with regard to the proposal to alter

access to Queens Parade. It has no objection to the proposal subject to

conditions being included on any permit.

92. Mr Hunt reviewed the car parking generated by a TLC facility in

Donvale. Adjusting the findings from the Donvale facility for the proposed

facility and its inner city location, he says staff in the proposed facility would

generate a maximum demand for 44 car parking spaces. He says the maximum

visitor demand of 33 spaces would occur on Saturday afternoons and 21 spaces

on weekday afternoons.

93. Mr Hunt says the car parking provided in the basements meets the

demand generated by its staff. He says surveys of on-street car parking

available in Queens Parade and Dummett Crescent show there are at least 40

spaces vacant at the busiest time, and up to 66 spaces available at the

weekends. He says there is adequate on-street parking available to meet the

likely demand for visitor car parking.

94. We consider Mr Hunt’s assessment to include conservative assumptions

in respect of staff numbers, car use, and number of visitor trips. His assessment

includes empirical information about a comparable aged care facility that

provides a sound basis for his conclusions. We accept Mr Hunt’s evidence and

note that the Council’s traffic engineers had no objection to the development on

parking grounds. We would have supported the proposed reduction in the

number of car parking spaces.


95. We were advised that emergency vehicles would attend via the front

entry to Queens Parade as this provides ramp access to the lifts, facilitating the

movement of people in beds or wheelchairs to the emergency vehicle, and we

have no difficulty with the proposed arrangement.

96. We have no difficulty with the safety of the aged residents in the Queens

Parade precinct. The footpaths in front of the review site are wide, and people

can cross Queens Parade and access the bus and tram stops via nearby

signalised crossings. We think most elderly residents would walk to and from

the facility accompanied by relatives or friends. We also think the facility

would manage very frail residents and those with limited cognitive abilities to

ensure they would leave the facility accompanied by someone responsible for

their safety.

Conclusion

97. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that while the facility is

needed, would provide very generous internal amenity, and its interface to the

adjoining dwellings is well managed, we think the building is too tall and

imposing. It has not responded appropriately to the prevailing low rise built

form, including the heritage buildings. We think the base and “tower”

component is generally acceptable, but consider the “cap” needs substantial

change to make it more recessive. We are unable to condition the changes

needed to make the proposed use and development acceptable.

98. The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is to be

granted.

objection to pln16-0923 - 205-211 queens parade - the 3068 ... · development, the australian april...

Documents