Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177 Heritage Overlay ‐Surrey Hills South 28 July 2016 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177 Heritage Overlay ‐ Surrey Hills South 28 July 2016 Cathie McRobert, Chair Dr Timothy Hubbard, Member Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Contents Page Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Panel recommendation ........................................................................................... 8 1.3 Background .............................................................................................................. 9 1.4 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 9 2 Planning context ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 15 2.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 15 3 Overarching issues .................................................................................................... 16 3.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 16 3.2 Should property owners be able to ‘opt in or out’ of a Heritage Overlay? ........... 17 3.3 Economic and financial impacts ............................................................................ 17 3.4 Future development opportunities and alterations ............................................. 18 3.5 The rigour of the Study, assessments and exhibited citations ............................. 20 3.6 Precinct boundaries and thresholds ..................................................................... 21 3.7 Protection of significant trees ............................................................................... 24 3.8 Panel recommendations ....................................................................................... 25 4 Precinct and place specific issues .............................................................................. 26 4.1 The English Counties Residential Precinct (HO633) .............................................. 26 4.2 Panel recommendations ....................................................................................... 44 4.3 Union Road South Residential Precinct (proposed HO635) .................................. 44 4.4 Panel recommendation ......................................................................................... 50 4.5 Redvers Street Residential Precinct (proposed HO634) ....................................... 51 4.6 Panel recommendation ......................................................................................... 54 4.7 Individually significant places (not in a precinct) .................................................. 54 4.8 Panel recommendation ......................................................................................... 60 Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment Appendix B Document list Page 1 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 List of Tables Table 1 Changes supported by Council after preliminary consultation and after exhibition ........................................................................................................ 7 List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed changes to the English Counties Residential Precinct .......................... 27 Figure 2 Union Road South Residential Precinct (with post‐exhibition changes supported by Council) ............................................................................. 46 Figure 3 Redvers Street Residential Precinct (with post‐exhibition changes supported by Council) ........................................................................................... 52 List of Abbreviations DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning HO Heritage Overlay IPO Interim Protection Order MSS Municipal Strategic Statement NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone PPN01 Planning Practice Note 01: Applying the Heritage Overlay, July 2015 The Study Surrey Hills South Residential Precincts Heritage Study 2014 VHR Victorian Heritage Register VPP Victoria Planning Provisions Page 2 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Overview Amendment Summary The Amendment Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177 Common Name Heritage Overlay (Surrey Hills South) The Proponent Boroondara City Council Planning Authority Boroondara City Council What is proposed? To introduce a Heritage Overlay (HO) to three precincts and 10 individual places based on the Surrey Hills South Residential Precincts Heritage Study (the ‘Study’) Exhibition 29 October to 4 December 2015 Submissions Number of Submissions: 36 plus three late submissions Opposed: 33 Panel Process The Panel Cathie McRobert, Chair and Timothy Hubbard Directions Hearing Planning Panels Victoria, 19 May 2016 Panel Hearing Planning Panels Victoria, 7 – 9 June 2016 Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 8 and 9 June 2016 Appearances  Boroondara City Council represented by Anna Booth and Shiranthi Widan of Boroondara City Council who called evidence from Natica Schmeder of Context Pty Ltd (Heritage)  Rohan Potter  Stephen Downes and Eliza Morgans  Silvija Freiverts represented by Karl Freiverts  Jo Anne and Richard Eager represented by Richard Eager  Tom and Valerie Mortyn  Paul Salathiel  Catherine and Paul O’Malley represented by Nick Sutton of Planning and Property Partners who called evidence from: - John Briggs of John Briggs Architects Pty Ltd (Architecture) - Bryce Raworth, conservation consultant and architectural historian (Heritage)  Arthur Rappos represented by Andromahi Christou  Chris Lloyd Note: Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. was listed to present but provided an additional written submission as Mr Williams was unable to attend. Date of this Report 28 July 2016 Page 3 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Executive summary The Amendment Amendment C177 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme proposes to introduce a Heritage Overlay (HO) to three precincts and 10 individual properties in Surrey Hills, based on the Surrey Hills South Residential Precincts Heritage Study (the Study). Exhibition of the Amendment (from 29 October to 4 December 2015) resulted in 39 submissions with 33 objecting or seeking changes to the Amendment. Submissions raised broad objections to the additional control over development under the HO and challenged whether specific properties should be included in the overlay. The English Counties Residential Precinct was particularly contentious. Overarching issues Many submissions objecting to the proposed HO expressed broadly based opposition to the additional regulation of development of their properties, with the associated burden of permit requirements, and perceived impacts on the value of their property and ongoing maintenance costs. It is accepted practice in Victoria for planning schemes to regulate development to benefit the broader community by protecting heritage values. Like other planning provisions intended to achieve a community benefit, an ‘opt in or out’ model should not apply to the introduction of the HO. The obligations associated with the HO are recognised and this requires justification that the level of significance of a property or precinct warrants protection, and this is the focus of the Panel’s assessment of the Amendment. The Panel believes there is scope for exemptions from permit requirements for categories of proposals that pose little risk to heritage values, particularly for alterations to non‐
contributory places and works to contributory places that are not visible from the public realm. This would minimise the demands on both landowners and Council; it would focus effort on development that could compromise significant heritage values. The Panel encourages Council and DELWP to investigate this potential to avoid unnecessary permit applications. Submissions and evidence argued that the significant revisions to assessments call into question the assessments of significance, delineation of precincts and the integrity of the English Counties Residential Precinct in particular. The Panel considers the Study was undertaken by recognised experts and adhered generally to established protocols. Advancing the proposed thematic study of significant private gardens, trees and landscape features in Boroondara and protection of these heritage assets will address a significant gap. The extent of changes to the original Lovell Chen assessments is partly explained by the delay in achieving protection, refinement as a result of consultation and review process, and taking on board the views from the Amendment C150 (and other) Panels. The extensive changes to the English Counties Residential Precinct have gone some way to consolidating the precinct. Page 4 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Nevertheless, the Panel shares the concerns in submissions about the strength of the case for the significance of the English Counties Residential Precinct. In some parts of this precinct, the proportion of places contributing to the significance of the precinct is low and the gaps in heritage fabric overwhelm the places that contribute to significance. In two parts of the precinct, the Panel considers the understanding of heritage values is compromised to an extent where these areas should be excluded from the HO (see discussion in chapters 4.1.2 and 4.1.6). The Panel has also recommended that Council consider excluding two further areas that were not directly the subject of submissions. A tighter statement of significance for the English Counties Residential precinct would provide better guidance for the administration of the overlay. The level of heritage significance of places now proposed and post‐exhibition changes to the Amendment and the Study (which includes citations) are generally endorsed but, as discussed above, with significant reservations relating to parts of the English Counties Residential Precinct. Exceptions are the Panel’s preliminary views that:  Kylemore Flats at 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills: the designation as an individually significant place and the exhibited HO629 should be retained  93 Union Road, Surrey Hills still meets the criteria for local heritage significance as a ‘contributory’ place. The Panel indicated at the Directions Hearing that it would provide relevant submitters with an opportunity to present their views at a reconvened panel hearing if consideration of the Amendment raises concerns relating to the changes identified in the 18 April 2016 report to Council. Therefore, submitters who raised concerns about the exhibited Amendment provisions relating to 52 and 93 Union Road, Surrey Hills and who may have decided not to present to the Panel on the basis that the changes supported by Council would be endorsed by the Panel, should have an opportunity to be heard by the Panel or to make a further written submissions. (i)
Panel recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following: 1. Except where inconsistent with subsequent Panel recommendations, make the post‐exhibition changes to: a) the Amendment as set out in Table 1 of this report b) the Surrey Hills South Residential Precincts Heritage Study, which is a reference document, as set out in attachment 4 to the 18 April 2016 report to Council. 2. Review the statement of significance for the English Counties Residential Precinct (HO633) to provide a tighter basis for decisions under the Heritage Overlay. 3. Remove the following properties from the English Counties Residential Precinct: a) 64, 66 and 66A, 68 and 68A, 70 and 72 Durham Road, Surrey Hills b) The southern‐eastern side of Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills. 4. Review the following areas within the English Counties Residential Precinct for further consideration by Council: a) 14‐24 Kent Street and south of 15 Norfolk Street, Surrey Hills Page 5 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 b) 5‐13 Albion Street, Surrey Hills. 5. Amend the name of the Redvers Street Residential Precinct (HO634) to the Redvers ‐ Kennealy Street Residential Precinct. 6. Advise the relevant objecting submitters that: a) The Panel has formed preliminary views that: a. the Heritage Overlay should apply to Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills and the associated citation should be updated to include the information newly obtained from Council’s building permit archives b. the grading of 93 Union Road, Surrey Hills should remain as a ‘contributory’ place and the property should remain in the Union Road South Residential Precinct. b) The Panel will reconvene the hearing if they wish to amplify their original written submission. These submitters should advise Council within 14 days of receiving this advice if they wish to be heard by the Panel. c) If these submitters do not wish to be heard by the Panel, its preliminary view will stand. Other Panel recommendations to Council In addition to the primary recommendations relating to the Amendment, the Panel makes the following recommendations: 7. Council advance the proposed study to identify significant trees and gardens across the municipality with a view to amending the Planning Scheme to protect trees and gardens found to be significant. 8. Council and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning consider the potential for a planning scheme amendment(s) to introduce exemptions from permit requirements under the Heritage Overlay, in particular for alterations to non‐contributory places and works to contributory places that are not visible from the public realm. Page 6 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 1
Introduction 1.1
The Amendment The exhibited Amendment The exhibited Amendment sought to introduce a HO to individual places and precincts in Surrey Hills identified as being of local cultural heritage significance to the City of Boroondara in the Study. The individual places and precincts are:  Surrey Hills English Counties Residential Precinct (306 places)  Surrey Hills Redvers Street Residential Precinct (50 places)  Union Road South Residential Precinct (40 places)  Surrey Gardens, 88‐90 Union Road  Former Surrey College, 17‐19A Barton Street  Former St Joseph’s Boys Home, 1 Kent Road/19 Middlesex Road  Holy Redeemer Church Parish Hall, 305‐307 Mont Albert Road  1 Montrose Street  Wyclif Congregational Church, 2‐4 Norfolk Road  Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road  26 Weybridge Street  627 Whitehorse Road  Le Mascotte, 5 Windsor Crescent. Post‐exhibition changes to the Amendment After considering submissions received, the Urban Planning sub‐committee of Council resolved to support the changes to the Amendment set out in Table 1 and Figures 1‐3 of this report. Review of the precinct boundaries by Council’s heritage consultant led to a number of recommended changes, the majority of which were in direct response to submissions. Some updates were also supported as a result of the further review of the exhibited Study that were triggered by submissions raising concerns about the currency of the Amendment. Table 1 Changes supported by Council after preliminary consultation and after exhibition Change after Change after exhibition preliminary consultation Change Precinct Remove entire precinct War Service Homes Precinct excluded Remove place from the precinct English Counties 45, 47 and 49 Durham Road 1, 1A and 3 Anderson Street, 28 Kent Road, 2, 3, 4, 5, 50 and 52 Essex Road, 2, 4, 6 and 8 Suffolk Road, 316 and 332 Canterbury Road, 1 Middlesex Road Page 7 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Change Change after Change after exhibition preliminary consultation Precinct Remove Not applicable significant place HO Add to precinct English Counties 41 Suffolk Road 1 as ‘contributory’ Union Road South 1/2 & 2/2 Bona Vista Avenue, 6‐8 Bona Vista Avenue, 64 ‐ 74 Union Road, 1 Warwick Avenue 52 Union Road Upgrade ‘non‐
contributory’ to ‘contributory’ English Counties 1A Anderson Street, 38 Suffolk Road Redvers Street 17, 24, 36 Redvers Street Regrade ‘significant’ to ‘contributory’ English Counties 8 Kent Road Union Road South 12 The Avenue English Counties Regrade ‘contributory’ to ‘non‐
contributory’ 11 Arundel Crescent, 26‐28 Kent Road, 14 Norfolk Road, 8 Suffolk Road, 2 Thames Street 22B Essex Road, 9 Albion Street, 1 Arundel Street, 29, 39, 66, 66a, 70 and 72 Durham Road, 2/59 Middlesex Road, 19 Norfolk Road Council supported a variety of corrections and updates to the Study (including citations for precincts and places) as a result of further research, inspections and information provided by the submission process. These changes were included as attachment 4 to the 18 April 2016 report to Council. The Panel notes the extent of these changes and, unless subsequent chapters of this report adopt an alternative view, they are endorsed. 1.2
Panel recommendation Except where inconsistent with subsequent Panel recommendations, make the post‐exhibition changes to: a) the Amendment as set out in Table 1 of this report b) the Surrey Hills South Residential Precincts Heritage Study, which is a reference document, as set out in attachment 4 to the 18 April 2016 report to Council. 1
The properties added to the English Counties and Union Road South Residential Precincts were the subject of the secondary preliminary consultation. Page 8 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 1.3
Background The Study is a component of a broader Surrey Hills and Canterbury Hill Estate Heritage Study, which has been implemented in the following stages:  Stage 1A: Union Road Commercial Heritage Precinct (HO532) ‐ Amendment C148 was gazetted in November 2012  Stage 1B: Union Road Residential Precinct (HO534), Surrey Hills North Precinct (HO535) and Canterbury Hill Estate Precinct (HO536) ‐ Amendment C150 was gazetted in November 2012  Stage 2: Surrey Hills South Residential Precinct Heritage Study‐ implementation is proposed through the Amendment. The Panel has summarised key milestones before exhibition of the Amendment as follows:  early 2011 ‐ Council engaged heritage consultants, Lovell Chen Pty Ltd, to prepare a suburb wide heritage assessment of Surrey Hills  June ‐ July and October ‐ November 2014 ‐ preliminary consultation:2 Key issues raised included concerns on financial and development impacts, objections to properties and precincts being included, and questions about details in the draft citations. Review after consultations by Council’s new heritage consultant (Context Pty Ltd) recommended a number of significant changes to the draft Study (see Table 1). Notably, the War Service Homes Residential Precinct was removed and the citations for the three remaining precincts and three individual places were updated  February 2015: Council resolves to adopt stage 2 of the Study and seek authorisation to exhibit the Amendment. Interim heritage controls to protect the individual properties and precincts was requested (through Amendment C218)  September 2015: Interim controls were approved for 93 Union Road and 64 Durham Road3 on the basis that both properties were under imminent threat of demolition  29 October to 4 December 2015 ‐ Public exhibition of the Amendment C177  March 2016 ‐ interim heritage protection granted for 75 Union Road on the basis it was considered to be under imminent threat of demolition. 1.4
Issues dealt with in this report The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the precincts and specific sites. The Panel addresses the issues raised in submissions as follows:  planning context  overarching issues including: - Should property owners should be able to ‘opt in or out’ of a Heritage Overlay? 2
A total of 44 submissions were received as a result of preliminary consultation which involved: Letters to directly affected and adjoining property owners and occupiers: letter to relevant community groups and the National Trust of Australia (Victoria): notice in the Progress Leader: public display of amendment documentation at Council’s planning counter and Camberwell and Balwyn libraries: and a project webpage provided documents available for download. 3
Interim protection expires 31 August 2016. Page 9 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 
- economic and financial impacts - future development opportunities and alterations - the rigour of the Study, assessments and exhibited citations - precinct boundaries and thresholds - protection of significant trees. precinct and place specific issues. Page 10 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 2
Planning context Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant policies, strategies and controls. 2.1
Policy framework (i)
Plan Melbourne Council submitted that the Amendment supports Plan Melbourne, Direction 4.7 ‐ Respect our heritage as we build for the future and in particular, Initiative 4.7.1 ‐ Value heritage when managing growth and change, which states ‘Plan Melbourne aims to protect the city’s heritage and improve heritage management processes within the Victorian planning system.’ (ii)
State Planning Policy Framework The objectives for planning in Victoria in the Act include ‘to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.’4 This intent is reaffirmed and amplified in the following state planning policies:  Clause 11.04‐4 Liveable communities and neighbourhoods5  Clause 11.06‐9 (Cultural heritage and landscapes), which highlights the importance of cultural heritage and landscapes as economic and community assets.  Clause 15.03‐1 (Heritage conservation), which aims ‘To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance’ through strategies that include: Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage significance as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme. … Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value. Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations. Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place. Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements. 4
Section 4(d) of the Act, Objective of Planning in Victoria and restated in Clause 10.02, which sets out the goals of the State Planning Policy Framework. 5
This strategy reinforces Plan Melbourne, Direction 4.7 ‐ Respect our heritage as we build for the future and in particular, Initiative 4.7.1 ‐ Value Heritage when managing growth and change, states ‘Plan Melbourne aims to protect the city’s heritage and improve heritage management processes within the Victorian planning system.’ Page 11 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced. Support adaptive reuse of heritage buildings whose use has become redundant.’ Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework, in particular Clause 15.03 (Heritage) and implements the policy by including places which have been identified and assessed as having local cultural heritage significance in the Schedule to the HO. (iii)
Local Planning Policy Framework Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework, particularly the objectives, strategies and actions of Clauses 21.05 (Heritage, Landscapes and Urban Character) and Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy). Clauses 21.05 (Heritage, Landscapes and Urban Character), includes:  To identify and protect all individual places, objects and precincts of cultural heritage, aboriginal, townscape and landscape significance.  Conserve and enhance individual heritage places and heritage precincts and aboriginal or cultural features within the City.  Applying the Heritage Overlay to protect all identified heritage precincts and individual heritage places of cultural, natural, and aboriginal heritage significance.  Undertaking study to further identify places of cultural, natural and aboriginal heritage value, and prepare strategies for their protection. Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy) aims include to ‘... To encourage the retention and conservation of all ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the Heritage Overlay.’ The Policy provides guidance for a range of matters, including for subdivision, demolition, alterations, additions, new buildings, fences, car parking structures and archaeological sites. It indicates that the most recent statement of significance for a heritage place is to be when making decisions about proposed buildings and works associated with that place. Where an individual heritage place is within a heritage precinct, the statement of significance for both the individual place and the precinct must be considered. This policy includes the following definitions: ‘Significant’ heritage places are places of state, municipal or local cultural heritage significance that are individually important in their own right. When in a precinct, they may also contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the precinct. 'Significant' graded places within a precinct are of the same cultural heritage value as places listed individually in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. ‘Contributory’ heritage places are places that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of a precinct. They are not considered to be individually important places of state, municipal or local cultural heritage significance, however when combined with other ‘significant’ and/or ‘contributory’ heritage Page 12 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 places, they play an integral role in demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of a precinct. ‘Non‐contributory’ places are places within a heritage precinct that have no identifiable cultural heritage significance. They are included within a Heritage Overlay because any development of the place may impact on the cultural heritage significance of the precinct or adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places. Council highlighted that Amendment C229 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme, which proposes a new Local Planning Policy Framework, included replacing the existing Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy with a revised Clause 22.03 Heritage Policy. Council submitted that the revised Heritage Policy generally retains the adopted policy positions. (iv)
Ministerial directions and practice notes Ministerial Directions: Council submitted that the amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Directions:  Ministerial Direction No 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments  The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5)of the Act)  Ministerial Direction No 9 Metropolitan Planning Strategy, which requires amendments to have regard to Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy. In particular, it was submitted the amendment is consistent with Initiative 4.7.1 Value Heritage, where it states ‘Plan Melbourne aims to protect the city’s heritage and improve heritage management processes within the Victorian planning system.’ Planning Practice Notes: Planning Practice Note 01: Applying the Heritage Overlay (PPN01). The Practice Note identifies that the HO should apply to places listed on the Australian Heritage Commission’s Register of the National Estate and recommended for planning scheme protection by the Heritage Council. Justification of the significance should be provided for the inclusion of places listed on the National Trust Register and identified in a local heritage study in the HO. PPN01 notes that all places ‘should be documented in a manner that clearly substantiates their scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest or other special cultural or natural values’ and that ‘the documentation for each place should include a statement of significance that clearly establishes the importance of the place.’ Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant provisions of PPN01 and the citations for the places affected by the Amendment comply with the requirements for writing statements of significance. (v)
Other planning strategies or policies used in formulating the Amendment Boroondara Heritage Action Plan (2012 and 2016) Council adopted the Heritage Action Plan (HAP) in September 2012 to provide greater strategic guidance for the assessment and protection of local cultural heritage. The HAP 2012 identified as a ‘very high’ priority action, completion of Stage 2 of the suburb‐wide heritage study of Surrey Hills and Canterbury Hill Estate (the subject of the Amendment). Page 13 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 An updated HAP (2 May 2016) identified the following action relevant to Surrey Hills:  VH1 (very high priority) ‐ complete the second stage of the Surrey Hills and Canterbury Hill Estate Heritage Study, currently underway ‐ ie assessment of places of potential individual heritage significance and additional heritage precincts south of Canterbury Road. The Surrey Hills South Residential Precinct Heritage Study (The Study) The Surrey Hills South Residential Precinct Heritage Study, Lovell Chen Pty Ltd, is a component of a broader Surrey Hills and Canterbury Hill Estate Heritage Study, which Council has implemented in the following stages:  Stage 1A: Union Road Commercial Heritage Precinct (HO532) ‐ Amendment C148 was gazetted in November 2012.  Stage 1B: Union Road Residential Precinct (HO534), Surrey Hills North Precinct (HO535) and Canterbury Hill Estate Precinct (HO536) ‐ Amendment C150 was gazetted in November 2012.  Stage 2: Surrey Hills South Residential Precinct Heritage Study‐ implementation is proposed through the Amendment. The Study initially recommended for heritage protection for the following ten individual properties and four precincts (including a mix of ‘significant’, ‘contributory’ and ‘non‐
contributory’ properties):  Surrey Gardens, 88‐90 Union Road (individually significant)  Former Surrey College, 17‐19A Barton Street (individually significant)  Former St Joseph’s Boys Home, 1 Kent Road/19 Middlesex Road (individually significant)  Holy Redeemer Church Parish Hall, 305‐307 Mont Albert Road (individually significant)  1 Montrose Street (individually significant)  Wyclif Congregational Church, 2‐4 Norfolk Road (individually significant)  Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road (individually significant)  26 Weybridge Street (individually significant)  627 Whitehorse Road (individually significant)  Le Mascotte, 5 Windsor Crescent (individually significant)  Surrey Hills English Counties Residential Precinct  Surrey Hills Redvers Street Residential Precinct  Union Road South Residential Precinct  Surrey Hills War Service Homes Residential Precinct. The draft Study underwent preliminary consultation in June 2014 and October to November 2014, resulting in 44 responses. Key issues raised included concerns on financial and development impacts, objections to properties and precincts being included, and details in the draft citations. Following the preliminary consultations, Council’s new heritage consultant (Context Pty Ltd) reviewed the feedback received and recommended a number of changes to the draft Study as outlined in the Table 1. Page 14 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 2.2
Planning scheme provisions Land affected by the Amendment, and adjoining residential areas outside the proposed HO are within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 (NRZ3). Relevant NRZ purposes include:  To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development  To limit opportunities for increased residential development  To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics  To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines (Panel emphasis). The NRZ3 limits development to a maximum of two dwellings on a lot and a mandatory height limit (8 metres) applies. The NRZ does not require a permit for demolition of existing buildings or the development of a house on a lot with an area greater than 500 square metres. Council noted that the neighbourhood character guidelines applicable to the Amendment area require consideration of the implications of development proposals for heritage values. ResCode (clauses 54 and 55) establishes objectives and standards for residential development, which, amongst other things, address neighbourhood character and residential amenity. 2.3
Discussion The Panel’s review of the policy context of the Amendment endorses Council’s assessment in the Explanatory Report and submission at the Hearing. The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. There is clear state and local and policy support for the protection of places of heritage significance. The Panel also notes that the area affected by the Amendment is in the NRZ3 and this, combined with local character guidelines, addresses issues such as the scale of development, the location of garages or car parks and the like. While the zoning of the land provides a level of control of the scale, form and intensity of development in the Amendment area, it does not control demolition or the development of large houses on large lots and these can have significant implications where heritage significance has been established. The Panel concludes that the Amendment is well founded and is strategically justified subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions, as discussed in the following chapters of this report. Page 15 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 3
Overarching issues 3.1
The issues One submission, from the Surrey Hills Progress Association, welcomed the protection afforded by the proposed HO. The Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. (SHPA) written submission in support of the whole of Amendment C177 pointed out how the incorporation of HO532, HO534 and HO535 will ‘contribute to the vast richness of heritage precincts and places throughout the City of Boroondara’ and is a positive answer to residents’ calls for heritage protection beyond the limited protection of neighbourhood character through Neighbourhood Residential Zones. It was submitted: ‘The Surrey Hills Progress Association fully endorses the introduction of Heritage Overlays to the Southern portion of Surrey Hills, including Wyclif Church, Surrey Gardens, St Josephs, and the precincts of Surrey Hills English Counties Residential, Surrey Hills, Redvers Street Residential, and Union Road South Residential.’ Mr Williams, the president of the Surrey Hills Progress Association, as a resident of the English Counties Residential Precinct, “also fully support[s] the proposed overlays”. The Panel also notes that the owner of 22A Essex Street endorsed the inclusion of the property in the HO and it designation as contributory. This submission highlighted that the alterations and extensions were respectful, even replicating traditional detailing, and noted the critical location of the property at “the heart of the English Counties [Residential] Precinct”. Other submissions in support of the Amendment or the inclusion of specific properties in the HO related to 342 Canterbury Road, 62 Durham Road, 6 and 18 Norfolk Road. However, most submissions objected to the proposed HO and many raised broad issues relating to the implications of the additional controls imposed by the overlay and the justification of the places identified for inclusion in it, particularly in the English Counties Residential Precinct. Submissions raised a number of overarching issues relating to the HO and the implications of the HO for multiple properties. These relate to:  whether property owners be able to ‘opt in or out’ of a HO  economic and financial impacts  future development opportunities and alterations  the rigour of the heritage study, assessments and exhibited citations  precinct boundaries and thresholds  protection of significant trees. Page 16 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 3.2
Should property owners be able to ‘opt in or out’ of a Heritage Overlay? (i)
Evidence and Submissions Submissions6 requested the ability to ‘opt in or out’ of the HO, that is property owners should have the right to choose whether or not the overlay applies to their property. Council responded that it is directed by Section 4 (1) (d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to ‘conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.’ The introduction of heritage controls is based on the merits of the heritage assessment undertaken in accordance with PPN01. (ii)
Discussion The HO, like many other planning provisions, is directed at protecting the public interest, with the ultimate test being whether the Amendment would result in a net community benefit. While it is entirely appropriate for those affected to present their views on the implications of the HO, both specifically in relation to their own property and more broadly, whether a HO is justified is not a matter for determination by the property owner. The planning system does not operate on an ‘opt in or out’ model. The limitations on how people develop their property if the HO applies reinforce the need for sound justification to introduce new controls. Panel conclusion Like other planning provisions intended to achieve a community benefit, an ‘opt in or out’ model should not apply to the introduction of the HO. 3.3
Economic and financial impacts Submissions7 raised concerns about the potential impact of heritage controls on the value and maintenance costs of individual properties. It was Council’s view that the financial or maintenance implications of applying heritage controls are not relevant considerations in the assessment of appropriate heritage controls. Council referred to recent Panel reports for similar heritage amendments, such as Melbourne C207 and Moreland C149, which considered that private economic effects, including impacts upon land values or the individual financial circumstances of the landowner, are outside the scope for consideration. Council also noted that PPN01 identifies the criteria for assessing the heritage significance of a heritage place and only refers to matters of a heritage nature. 6
7
Submissions 7, 9, 11, 16, 28 and 31 For example, submissions 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 25, 34, 36 and 37 Page 17 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (i)
Discussion As noted at the Directions Hearing by the Panel, the focus at the Amendment stage is on whether the level of significance of the heritage place warrants protection in the planning scheme. While section 12(2) of the Act was amended to provide that a planning authority must take social effects and economic effects into account when it prepares a planning scheme, these impacts relate to broader community impacts, rather than personal financial implications. Panel conclusion 
The Panel’s assessment of the Amendment focuses on whether the level of significance of the heritage place warrants protection, not personal financial implications of the additional level of control under the proposed HO. 3.4
Future development opportunities and alterations (i)
Submissions Many submissions8 expressed concern about the constraint imposed by the HO on an owner’s ability to develop and alter a dwelling into the future. Council responded to these concerns: … the Heritage Overlay does not preclude development. Instead it introduces a requirement for demolition (part or full), dwelling extensions and infill development to be assessed against Council’s local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.05 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme through the planning permit approval process. 3.8. Council’s Heritage Policy generally allows the demolition of ‘non‐
contributory’ buildings, subject to approval of a suitable replacement building or development. The full demolition of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ buildings is not normally allowed and in fact, discouraged. However, partial demolition for a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ building may be permitted if the additions do not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place, and the proposed addition is in accordance with the Heritage Policy provisions. 3.9. Further, an objective of Council’s Heritage Policy is to ensure that works, including conservation, alterations, additions and new development, respect the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place. 3.10. Additions or alterations that are not considered intrusive or dominating of the original structure or fabric of the building are considered to be acceptable within a Heritage Overlay. These details are assessed at the planning permit stage, with expert input received from Council’s heritage advisor. 8
For example, submissions 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 31 and 36 Page 18 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (ii)
Discussion Some of the concerns raised about the infringement of property rights, and the financial or administrative burden associated with inclusion in the HO appear to be:  largely ideological objections to limits on an owners’ entitlement to do what they want with their property  linked to a view that their property was not of sufficient heritage significance to warrant the level of control imposed by the HO. This issue is addressed in chapter 4. Panels have highlighted that it is accepted practice in Victoria for planning schemes to regulate land use and development. Like other planning scheme controls, any financial or administrative ‘burden’ on property owners due to the HO applying to a property is justified to realise a net benefit to the community from protecting significant heritage values. For example, the Stonnington C150 Panel commented: While the burden and cost of applying for permits is an issue is often raised by submitters, it is not relevant to the Panel’s assessment of heritage values. This approach has been adopted in heritage panel reports for many years. There are many planning overlays that trigger the need for a permit for a variety of reasons, all of which are consistent with the objectives and policies for planning in Victoria. When viewed at the level of net community benefit as required under Clause 10.01 of the planning scheme, the Panel considers that there is overwhelming support for applying the Heritage Overlay. The Council and many residents acknowledge the importance of heritage in the identity of the Boroondara municipality. This identity is founded on the identification and protection of heritage places. The Panel also notes that Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy provides extensive guidance as to what may be permitted under the Heritage Overlay. It covers matters such as subdivision, demolition, alterations and additions, approaches to non‐contributory places, garages and outbuildings and fences. Residents therefore can gain a clear idea of how their application will be assessed before preparing their plans. The Council also advised the Panel that permit applications for minor changes in heritage precincts may be relatively quick to resolve. and While individual owners are subject to planning restrictions on the use and development of their property, they are, at the same time, benefited by restrictions on the use and development of land by others. The opposition by some submitters to the application of the Heritage Overlay to their properties was in some cases countered by views at the Panel hearing that unregulated developments on other properties have been inappropriate. This Panel adopts these views but also considers it is sound planning to minimise the demands on both landowners and Council by focusing effort on development that is likely to compromise significant heritage values to be protected and avoid unnecessary applications Page 19 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 for permits. This is particularly relevant to alterations to non‐contributory places and works to contributory places that are not visible from the public realm. While ‘streamlined’ permit processes advanced by the VicSmart planning provisions make a positive contribution to cutting red tape, there appears to be scope for exemptions from permit requirements for categories of proposals that pose little risk to heritage values. The Panel notes that exemptions that distinguish permit requirements under the HO based on the significance of places have been introduced in the Yarra Planning Scheme through an incorporated document. The Panel considers a state‐wide response (led by DELWP) would be preferable, but encourages Council to consider the potential for an amendment to the Boroondara Planning Scheme to introduce exemptions from permit requirements under the HO. Panel conclusions 

3.5
It is accepted practice in Victoria for planning schemes to regulate development to achieve a community benefit of protecting heritage values The Panel encourages Council and DELWP to consider the potential for a planning scheme amendment(s) to introduce exemptions from permit requirements under the HO, in particular for alterations to non‐contributory places and works to contributory places that are not visible from the public realm. The rigour of the Study, assessments and exhibited citations (i) Evidence and submissions Submissions9 raised concerns about inconsistencies, errors and the currency of the exhibited citations. For example, a number of properties have been modified or demolished since the Amendment’s exhibition. This has led to a perception of inequity. After review by its heritage consultant, Council supported a number of changes to the exhibited citations to ensure they reflect the current condition of the precincts and properties, and the level of significance required for inclusion in the HO. (ii) Discussion The Study was undertaken by recognised experts and adhered generally to established protocols. It used the HERCON criteria and the standard ‘What’, ‘How’ and ‘Why’ format for statements of significance. The Panel acknowledges that the authors of the various iterations of the Study, and the subsequent Amendment documents, sought to make their methodology transparent, for example, by documenting the nature of the significance of individual places and precincts and criteria relating to the continuity in precincts of contributory places. The Panel recognises that assessment of heritage significance is not a precise science. It relies on the objective professional judgment that draws on specialist knowledge and a capacity for comparisons based on experience. While it is entirely appropriate for these assessments and refinement of citations to draw on the wealth of information in the 9
Submissions 6, 7, 9, 11 and 26 Page 20 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 community and specific information about properties, expert assessment is very different from a subjective lay view, which, in some cases, may be influenced by a pecuniary interest. The extent of changes to the original Lovell Chen assessments (see Table 1) as a result of the submission and review processes led to challenges to the rigour of that work. These changes extend to removing a whole precinct and various areas on the periphery of precincts from the Amendment and regrading 17 places to ‘non‐contributory’. The Panel acknowledges that the changes are partly due to delay in achieving protection and the consultation and review processes invariably refine information (and this is appropriate). Further, since the original assessment, the Council has had feedback from the Amendment C150 (and other) Panels and has taken relevant views on board, such as in relation to the effect of intrusive ‘pop‐ups’ on buildings of heritage significance. The Panel’s consideration of the submissions challenging the heritage significance attributed to places has generally endorsed the view expressed by Council’s expert witness at the Hearing. This has involved significant revisions to the original and exhibited assessments, which call into question the delineation of precincts and the integrity of the English Counties Residential Precinct (HO633) in particular. The delineation of precincts generally and in relation to the English Counties Residential Precinct are discussed in chapters 3 and 4 respectively of this report. The Panel’s queries regarding the apparent lack of identification and analysis of significant trees and gardens are discussed in chapter 3.7. Panel conclusions 
The Study was undertaken by recognised experts and adhered generally to established protocols. The Panel has generally endorsed the level of heritage significance of places now proposed and the view expressed by Council’s expert witness at the Hearing. The extent of changes to the original Lovell Chen assessments is partly explained the delay in achieving protection, refinement as a result of consultation and review process, and taking on board the views from the Amendment C150 (and other) Panels. The significant revisions to assessments calls into question the delineation of precincts and the integrity of the English Counties Residential Precinct in particular. 


3.6
Precinct boundaries and thresholds (i)
Submissions Several submissions10 challenged the boundaries and the integrity of the proposed heritage precincts, in particular for the English Counties Residential Precinct due to its irregular shape, the diversity of significant and contributory buildings and the gaps within the precinct. There was little or no concern in submissions about the proposed boundaries of the Redvers Street Residential Precinct and the Union Road South Residential Precinct. Council received no submissions about the proposed War Service Homes Precinct because it abandoned the precinct. 10
Submissions 1, 7, 9, 11, 22, 23, 29 and 39 Page 21 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Council highlighted that the review of the HO areas by its heritage consultant resulted in various changes being recommended, noting that the majority of changes responded to submissions received. Council submitted that the recommended removal of visually or physically isolated places that do not contribute to the precinct in any way would address concerns about the precinct boundaries and provide a more cohesive precinct. Council adopted the views expressed in Ms Schmeder’s written evidence. (ii)
Evidence In Section 2 of her written evidence, Ms Schmeder outlined how she conducted the two stages of the Context review. She agreed with and adhered to the Lovell Chen methodology in her reviews and wanted to retain that Study’s ‘voice’. Ms Schmeder acknowledged that, at first, the irregularity of the proposed boundaries of the English Counties Residential Precinct had surprised her. After re‐visiting the precinct and checking claims in submissions, she recommended certain changes, which together strengthened the precinct’s core. These changes were: to regrade many properties and upgrade a few; to tighten the boundaries; and to remove some outlying sections. Ms Schmeder explained why she recommended that Council should abandon the War Service Homes Precinct. Mr Briggs’s verbal evidence addressing principles that should apply in delineating precincts was useful to the Panel. He argued that the HO has an important role to enhance the public understanding of the heritage of an area and should provide a readily understandable explanation of why a place or precinct is important to identity, culture and history; this involves judgments about what the public will perceive. The integrity of a precinct relies on a reasonable level of continuity, homogeneity and intact fabric to maintain heritage presence in the street with a cohesive heritage character and fabric predominating, rather than other disruptive forms. Mr Briggs emphasised that perceptions from the public domain are critical and in precincts (as distinct from individually significant places) the focus should be on controlling what is visible from streets. Mr Briggs presented the view that a ‘notion of place’ is important in defining precincts and suggests a cohesive entity that is bound together from a heritage perspective; it is more than some older fabric contributing to character. He highlighted the need to be conscious of distinctions between different concentrations of heritage fabric, extending from:  individual properties and buildings  groups, rows and clusters of heritage places (with a distinction drawn between contributory places and those that are in keeping or respectful but do not add to heritage values)  streetscapes that are generally able to be recognised (or not)  broader precincts (with consideration of controlling development at the edges to achieve a buffer). He highlighted that issues relating to thresholds for inclusion in the HO become more contested where the heritage significance is more marginal. This requires rigorous, transparent, verifiable process, comparative analysis and ‘tests’ to provide public comfort that the precinct and its boundaries have a sound basis and are not simply a personal view of an assessor. Mr Briggs acknowledged that the Lovell Chen criteria for exclusion from the HO precinct of three or more adjoining non‐contributory properties served this purpose, Page 22 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 although he suggested a rationale of 3 ‐ 5 buildings of heritage buildings comprising about a 75 degree arc is a good indicator of a cluster or section of heritage streetscape, unless a positive/negative exemplar reinforces/overwhelms the presence of heritage values. It was his view there was limited comparative analysis of the precincts proposed in the Amendment. (iii)
Discussion The Panel is conscious that the obligations on property owners associated with the HO are justified on the basis that the benefit to the community from protecting our heritage and this influences the thresholds that should apply for inclusion in the overlay. In addition, the Panel’s assessment recognises the risk that according protection to areas that are marginal in terms of meeting thresholds of heritage significance can undermine the credibility of HO precincts with greater integrity. The Lovell Chen Study11 discusses the methodology it used to determine precinct boundaries, what was included and excluded, how properties of different gradings were mapped and, importantly, the problem of authenticity. Its approach is the standard and is longstanding. The Panel accepts that both stages of the Context review adhered to established practice. As the recent Yarra C173 Part 2 Panel noted, “A precinct should be able to show a consistency or built form which can be discerned on the ground and able to be precisely described in a statement of significance”. That Panel also addressed the intactness precincts, questioning the inclusion in a precinct where the precinct is difficult to recognise on the ground due to the low proportion buildings that contribute to historic or architectural significance. The Panel has considered the threshold and delineation of proposed precincts based on whether they can be understood as a distinguishable, cohesive unit that illustrates the significant heritage values described in the relevant statement of significance. Hence, the assessment of the integrity of a precinct relates directly to the significance identified in the precinct citation. There needs to be a sense of a cohesive precinct. This takes account of the significance of places, their relationship to other places contributing to that heritage significance and the presence of contributing heritage places in the street. As suggested by Mr Briggs, a precinct should be distinctive and where there is no discernible entry, it also raises questions. The delineation of a heritage precinct should be more than a formulaic cartographic or number crunching exercise. Nevertheless, the Lovell Chen criteria provide a level of transparency and the Panel has used the criteria to identify areas that may be marginal in terms of their contribution to a cohesive precinct and warrant closer examination. This further examination involves consideration of whether specific parts of precincts have a concentration and presence of heritage fabric remaining that adds to the heritage values identified in the Statement of Significance. The presence of gaps in heritage places is a starting point, with further consideration of the prominence of places that either contribute 11
Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 Page 23 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 to or undermine the heritage values, the effect of topography, and the location of the heritage places within the precinct. Panel conclusions 
The Panel assesses the threshold and delineation of proposed precincts based on whether they can be understood as a distinguishable, cohesive unit that illustrates the significant heritage values described in the relevant statement of significance. The presence of and gaps in heritage places is a starting point for assessment of precinct integrity, with further consideration of the prominence of places that either contribute to or undermine the heritage values, the effect of topography, and the location of the heritage places in the precinct. 
3.7
Protection of significant trees (i)
Submissions Council advised that ‘there are no places where significant trees are recommended to be protected in Part 2 of the Surrey Hills and Canterbury Hill Estate Study‘. The Panel queried the absence of tree controls even for Surrey Park. After checking with the Council’s parks and gardens staff, Council stated that the municipality relied on its significant tree register and local laws. Council has identified two species of trees in Surrey Park, Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum or Eucalyptus Citriodora) and Ulmus procera (English Elm) under Local Law 1F. Council considers this adequate protection for significant trees in Boroondara. (ii)
Discussion The Panel is surprised that trees and gardens were not included in the original Lovell Chen Study and that the Context reviews did not recommend their examination. No tree controls are proposed in either the public or the private realm in a municipality renowned for its trees and gardens. Council’s recently adopted Boroondara Heritage Action Plan, May 2016, states as one of its achievements the “Identification and protection of historic and culturally significant trees through Local Law 1F and the implementation of the City of Boroondara Significant Tree Study 2001” and as one of its challenges “Ensuring significant public and private gardens are identified and protected where relevant”. Of some 600 permanent places in the HO in Boroondara, only four12 have tree controls. Two of these have incorporated plans, which may have triggered the controls. During inspections, the Panel noticed many times how much trees and gardens contributed to the character of places, at least, if not to their heritage significance. Most significant houses are set in mature gardens and many original plantings seem to survive. Trees are important in public parks, streets and private gardens. Importantly, street trees (as well as street infrastructure) tend to unite precincts that include diverse built elements. The identification of street trees in precincts might have strengthened the case for inclusion in 12
Other places that are included in the Victorian Heritage Register may have tree controls under the Heritage Act (1995) administered by Heritage Victoria. Page 24 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 the HO. For example, the Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) street trees in Kennealy Street are mature, relatively consistent and comparatively rare. The Panel believes that if trees and gardens have heritage significance, Council should use the Planning Scheme to identify and protect them. Local laws have a different purpose. The Boroondara Heritage Action Plan does include the following proposal: Prepare a thematic study of significant private gardens, trees and landscape features in the City, including a review of historic trees in the schedule to the Significant Tree Study. Implement the Study by adding newly identified historically significant trees to the Significant Tree Study schedule and/or applying the "tree controls" provision of the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay where relevant (e.g. to historic gardens and other landscape features) The Panel notes, however, the proposal is only at the third level of urgency, that is, ‘ongoing/as required’. Panel conclusion 
3.8
The proposed thematic study of significant private gardens, trees and landscape features in Boroondara and protection of these heritage assets through the HO will address a significant gap and should be advanced. Panel recommendations Council advance the proposed study to identify significant trees and gardens across the municipality with a view to amending the Planning Scheme to protect trees and gardens found to be significant. Council and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning consider the potential for a planning scheme amendment(s) to introduce exemptions from permit requirements under the Heritage Overlay, in particular for alterations to non‐contributory places and works to contributory places that are not visible from the public realm. Page 25 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 4
Precinct and place specific issues 4.1
The English Counties Residential Precinct (HO633) (i)
The Precinct The Heritage Study identified the significance of the English Counties Residential precinct as follows: Why is it Significant Surrey Hills English Counties Residential Precinct is of historical significance, as an expansive and long‐standing residential area in Boroondara which demonstrates aspects of the growth and consolidation of Surrey Hills in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Popularly known as the ‘English Counties’ area, the precinct evolved after the railway was extended to Surrey Hills in the 1880s, encouraged by developers and estate agents who promoted the suburban lifestyle of the area and used street names which evoked English counties and places. Names such as Middlesex, Norfolk, Durham, Suffolk, Essex and Kent helped give a sense of establishment to the new area, and attracted the aspiring middle classes. Although there were land sales in the precinct in the 1880s, the majority of sites remained undeveloped until the early twentieth century, largely due to the 1890s depression. Houses were then built in the 1900s and 1910s, with development again slowed by World War One, followed by a post‐war burst with numerous houses in the precinct built from the 1920s through to c.1940. This stop‐start nature of development is reflective of a common pattern in Boroondara, and elsewhere in Melbourne, where development was impacted by economic downturns and world wars. The expansive and irregular precinct is also of aesthetic/architectural significance. It comprises ‘significant’ and ‘contributory’ dwellings from the 1890s through to c.1940, and has a comparatively high level of intactness. It demonstrates two main periods of development, albeit with some intervening bursts of building activity, including late Victorian and Federation dwellings through to interwar houses. Dwellings with Victorian Italianate styling display transverse and bracketed hip roofs with a projecting wing or canted bay; corniced chimneys in stucco or exposed red face brick; some block front or ashlar detailing to resemble stone; and a variety of verandah forms. Federation houses in the precinct have hipped roofs with a single projecting gable or two projecting gables set at right angles, reflecting Federation diagonal planning; half‐timbered projecting gabled wings; some Art Nouveau detailing; and chimneys with criss‐cross strapwork or raised courses, and corbelled stack crowns. For the interwar dwellings, there are bungalow variants of the 1920s, often with a horizontal emphasis and conspicuous transverse roofs with gable ends; and forward‐sloping roofs linked with (integrated) front verandahs which in turn are enclosed by medium‐height walls with square‐plan timber columns or solid piers. Later interwar houses in Page 26 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 the precinct have Art Deco detailing and some referencing of ‘past’ styles such as Tudor Revival, conveyed in clinker or tapestry brick. Figure 1 shows the proposed English Counties Residential Precinct (and post‐exhibition changes supported by Council). Figure 1 (ii)
Proposed changes to the English Counties Residential Precinct Submissions As with the other precincts, the Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. made a general written submission in support of the Amendment and proposed English Counties Residential Precinct HO as a positive answer to residents’ calls for heritage protection. Various submissions objecting to the inclusion of their property in the HO also challenged the integrity of the precinct. Page 27 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder’s evidence is summarised in her Tables 1 and 4.13 Council asked Ms Schmeder to consider the proposed English Counties Residential Precinct as a whole, in response to a number of submissions that criticised it for its ‘fragmented’ boundaries. She explained that: For this work, I walked all the streets of the precinct and recommended the following types of changes:  Removal from the precinct of outlying areas, with poor visual links to the rest of the precinct and with average or sub‐average building stock.  Including two individual places within the precinct area (the former St Joseph’s Boys Home and former Wyclif Congregational Church) as Significant elements of the precinct, due to their development during the period of time defined as significant for the precinct (1880s to WWII).  Downgrading more Contributory houses found to have large and visually intrusive upper level additions. I checked building permit records where the extent of alterations was unclear. This was done to ensure a consistency of approach within the precinct, and consistency with the grading recommendations of the Amendment C150 panel (which generally rejected houses with an addition that was large and highly visible from the street particular if built forward of the roof ridge). Ms Schmeder referred to Amendment C150 recommendation that 58 Guilford Road, Surrey Hills should be regraded in her response to Submissions 11 and 38 about 22B Essex Road (opposite 8 Kent Road). Ms Schmeder recommended the excision of some sections, which will make the Precinct more consistent and cohesive. She detailed the extensive list of places that were not included in the Precinct and addressed the reason for each omission. Two properties, 43 and 45 Suffolk Street, have been recommended for ‘review in the future as potential precinct extensions’. The HO is the only planning tool that will protect existing built fabric, that is, through demolition and development controls. Mr Briggs acknowledged there are sections of streetscape that retain a cohesive and prevailing sense of heritage character within the proposed English Counties Precinct HO. However, it was his view that:  The history of the development of the proposed English Counties Precinct is not distinctive from that of numerous other areas of Boroondara or in demonstrating any particular aspects of the development of the City. Nor has the subdivision name been shown to have meaning ‘beyond real‐estate spin and the naming of the roads’.  The streetscapes of Kent and Essex Roads near the 8 Kent Road, which he described in some detail, do not amount to heritage streetscapes or a heritage place and so should not be included in the HO. 13
See Schmeder’s evidence statement Sections 2.4 (p. 12) and 3.2 (p. 23) and Table 1 – Changes made to English Counties Residential Precinct following preliminary consultation and Table 4 – Changes recommended for English Counties Residential Precinct following C177 exhibition. Page 28 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 It was Mr Briggs’ view that the English Counties precinct does not satisfy the threshold for heritage protection through the HO. He considers it is the most fragmented HO precinct he knows of – here it is the ‘holes rather than the cheese’ that prevail, making the precinct unintelligible to the community. Mr Briggs stated: It is not evident that the “large and irregular” area of the proposed precinct has any clear sense of identity as an entity. Rather the extent of the proposed precinct is generally an area of land, known in 1885 as the Surrey Reserve, that was subdivided into residential allotments, as where many places made accessible by the railway line. It is not shown that the streets are ”comparatively” intact, or have a “comparatively high level of intactness.” To the contrary it is my experience of the streets in the area that only some “sections” of streetscape present integrity of heritage character. None of the roads have largely undisrupted heritage presence along their length through the proposed precinct. The post war development in Kent Road establishes the presently prevailing character of that street with the remnant heritage houses playing the lesser role. It is my assessment that there are three clear periods of development and I do not understand the conflation, in the precinct Citation, of the Victorian and Edwardian periods into one period. The experience of the heritage presence in the area is in my view fragmented. Although the area has a general concentration of remnant period homes that may be greater than that found in many places outside the existing heritage precincts of Boroondara, it is my view that heritage significance is not demonstrated on a comparative basis for this area. There is a case that in groups of three to five, period houses may, depending on their setting, have sufficient heritage presence, to be considered a section of heritage streetscape. This approach would lead to the application of the Heritage Overlay to many such fragments of period streetscape beyond this proposed area. At issue for this area is whether there is a sense of a larger entity that provides amplification of the heritage significance of the fragments of period presence by grouping them as an archipelago of similar streetscapes. Islands of heritage streetscape fragmented and isolated from each other by more modern development. Is there a sense of continuity of place? In my view this continuity does not exist to the level expected for a heritage precinct. If the ‘archipelago’ was in theory to be seen to be the entity of significance, it then follows that the fragmenting properties should also be included within the heritage overlay. However such an approach would be problematic given the extent of fragmentation. Mr Raworth had similar concerns about the irregularity of the Precinct’s boundaries and the gaps it included. He expressed very serious concern that ‘The mapping of the precinct makes a profound departure from convention’. His written evidence stated: Page 29 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 The boundaries to the proposed precinct have been drawn to largely exclude buildings of non‐contributory character – not all non‐contributory buildings, but most. While this is an exercise that is appropriate if only necessary to a limited degree, it is illustrative of a poorly conceived precinct if it is used to a very substantial extent. An important principle in relation to the identification of precincts is that a precinct should be a ‘definable heritage place’. However, if the boundaries were drawn in a more conventional ‘blanket’ form for this precinct, the proportion of contributory to non‐contributory buildings would change radically, and render the proposal untenable. Mr Raworth argued that it would be wrong to include such a much‐altered house as 8 Kent Road when other runs of non‐contributory and new buildings were excluded as gaps. The weakness of the proposed Precinct is demonstrated by the numerous regradings and exclusions resulting from the exhibition of the Amendment. His evidence suggested that there will be social disunity because of a perception of planning inequity. He concludes: ... the proposed heritage precinct is not warranted. While including a range of buildings of contributory and, in some instances, significant interest, the proposed precinct does not have visually logical boundaries, and lacks clarity and visual cohesion of an extent that would warrant the introduction of a heritage overlay control. (iv)
Discussion The statement of significance As noted in the precinct statement of significance, the ‘expansive and irregular precinct’ demonstrates two main periods of development, albeit with some intervening bursts of building activity, including late Victorian and Federation dwellings through to interwar houses. The breadth of the period identified as significant ‐ from the 1890s through to c.1940 ‐ is intended to illustrate development of the suburb. This also presents challenges in terms of understanding the precinct as a cohesive unit and, as raised in submissions and evidence, in distinguishing the precinct from other parts of suburban Melbourne. The statement of significance should provide the basis for decisions under the HO, however, the Panel is also concerned that the discursive nature of the statement of significance adds to the challenge presented by a precinct illustrating an extended period and diverse styles of buildings. The Panel also notes that it fails to explain the spread of development away from Surrey Hills station and from the desirable high points down to the lower points. As the statement of significance currently indicates that development occurred over an extended period and describes some housing styles, it begs the questions:  What is to be protected?  Is development control simply to preserve the existing built form interface with the street, with recessive development of non‐contributory places and car parking? A tighter statement of significance for the precinct would be more helpful, in understanding and delineating the precinct and in guiding the administration of the overlay. Page 30 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Precinct intactness and boundaries The Panel understands the challenge, in the evidence and submissions, to the citation’s suggestion that the precinct has a comparatively high level of intactness. While the Panel recognises that the review process has removed some parts of the English Counties Residential Precinct that were originally identified, it shares the concerns about the strength of the case for the significance of the precinct. It should have a level of cohesion to be understood but the Panel agrees with Mr Briggs that it is difficult to discern entry to the precinct and this raises questions about whether this is a discernible precinct. The Panel acknowledges the difficulty of being consistent when applying thresholds of significance, especially in an area with buildings from several periods, like the English Counties Residential Precinct. There are different styles in each period and there is a range of scale both chronologically and geographically. Much change has occurred since the Second World War, including the construction of many villa‐unit sub‐divisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the advent of ‘pop‐up’ extensions in the 1990s of varying success and especially the recent construction of so‐called ‘McMansions’. There are also replica Victorian and Edwardian houses so well detailed that they can even fool experts. It is not surprising that understanding and applying the abstract HERCON criteria might be challenge. While there is significant fabric surviving in humble, middling and grand houses over a range of periods, in some parts of the precinct, the proportion of places contributing to the significance of the precinct is low and the gaps in heritage fabric overwhelm the places that contribute to significance. The Panel noticed that often the street outside significant and contributory buildings was not included in the English Counties Residential Precinct. This occurs at the northern ends of Middlesex Road and Norfolk Road, the southern end of Essex Road, and the eastern and western end of Kent Road. During inspections, the Panel observed a continuity of infrastructure, materials and planting which supported and united the sense of place within the precinct. Similarly, the established private gardens in places of all grades contribute to the precinct’s sense of place. The public realm does unify this part of Surrey Hills and is important to the character of the locality. While Council submissions noted that consistent streetscapes can provide a visual link in what is acknowledged as a fragmented precinct, the Panel considers that link relates more to character than the understanding of the precinct’s heritage values. The consideration of submissions in subsequent sections of this chapter includes whether specific areas should be included in the precinct. In two cases, the Panel considers the understanding of heritage values is compromised to an extent where an area should be excluded from the HO (see discussion in chapters 4.1.2 and 4). This is because the dispersed heritage fabric that exists is subservient to more prominent, non‐contributory properties. It is not the Panel’s role to undertake a full assessment of the heritage values of proposed precincts; however, the following areas are also identified for further consideration by Council:  14‐24 Kent Street and south of 15 Norfolk Street Page 31 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 
5‐13 Albion Street (it is noted that the existing HO precincts to the west should be taken into account). The Panel notes that the Mary McKillop Reserve in Middlesex Road was the playground of the Former St Joseph’s Boys Home. It is disappointing that the proposed precinct does not recognise the historical association between the individually identified orphanage and the reserve named after the Josephites’ founder. The long row of mature Pinus radiata (Radiata of Monterey Pines) on the west side of the reserve certainly contributes to the character of Middlesex Road. With regard to Ms Schmeder’s review of 43 and 45 Suffolk Street, in the future as ‘potential precinct extensions’, the Panel notes that the merits of such an extension would be evaluated as part of a subsequent process, when those who may be affected have an opportunity to present their views. Panel conclusions A tighter statement of significance for the English Counties Residential precinct would provide better guidance for the administration of the overlay, with more descriptive content being relocated to the ‘description and integrity’ section (if necessary) Although it is acknowledged that changes have consolidated the precinct, the Panel shares the concerns in submissions about the strength of the case for the significance of the Precinct. In some parts of the precinct in particular, the proportion of places contributing to the significance of the precinct is low and the gaps in heritage fabric overwhelm the places that contribute to significance In two parts of the English Counties Residential precinct, the Panel considers the understanding of heritage values is compromised to an extent where these areas should be excluded from the HO (see discussion in chapters 4.1.2 and 4.1.6). Council also identifies two other areas for further review and consideration. 4.1.2
20 Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills (Submission 2) (i)
The property This modest c1940 timber bungalow is graded as ‘contributory’. It is located at the centre of the south‐east section of the English Counties Residential Precinct. (ii)
Submissions Tom and Valerie Mortyn read their submission and spoke to it at the Hearing. Mrs Mortyn explained how the whole process has distressed her to the point that she does not feel like the house is her home anymore. Mr Mortyn elaborated on his understanding of the early history of the house when a war‐widow and her sons occupied it. He provided interesting information on his family’s involvement in the timber industry, especially timber imported from Tasmania, and maintained that the house was built in the post‐war era (approximately 1953). He also mentioned concerns about the building’s condition. Page 32 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder set out the further research undertaken to clarify the date of construction, including documents supplied by the owners such as the title and the original MMBW property service plan. She states ‘All of this documentation unequivocally indicates that the house was built in 1940‐41.’ The fabric of the house, including the weatherboards, roof tiles, cement columns and pressed red bricks, matches the date. The interiors may have been changed but internal controls are not proposed. (iv)
Discussion The Panel concurs that the documentation presented and the physical fabric of the place are support the documentation. The house (and its garden) may not be grand and sophisticated but it does demonstrate the straightened times of its construction and is an example of what Robin Boyd described as the ‘Austerity’ style in his seminal book, Australia’s Home.14 It retains a high degree of integrity and is intact, including as a comparative example. However, as a contributory place, rather than individually significant place, the threshold for protection is if it ‘plays an integral role in combination with other heritage places’, that is, when viewed in combination with other heritage places that form a discernible, coherent precinct. The Panel inspections of this side of Arundel Street reinforced the fragmentation of contributory places that is apparent on the map. In addition to interspersed contributory and non‐contributory places on the southern side of Arundel Crescent, the topography and the scale of the contributory places combine to mean the recent much larger non‐
contributory houses dominate the streetscape and severely undermine the ‘legibility’ of this part of the proposed precinct. Panel conclusions 
While 20 Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills retains a high degree of integrity and is an intact example of an inter‐war house, it does not meet the threshold for protection under the HO as an individually significant place. The south‐eastern side of Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills does not meet the threshold for protection as part of a discernible heritage precinct. 
(v)
Panel recommendation Remove the south‐eastern side of Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills from the English Counties Residential Precinct (HO 633) 14
Boyd, Robin, Australia’s Home: its origins, builders and occupiers, Melbourne University Press, 1952. Page 33 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 4.1.3
7 Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills (Submission 7) (i)
The property This c1925 timber bungalow is graded as ‘contributory’. There is a new detached carport erected in the mature front garden. (ii)
Submissions Paul Salathiel’s submission included extensive photographs showing the new carport and a new bay window, carefully detailed to match the house, on the side elevation that replaced a chimney breast and two bijou windows. He made some comparisons with other houses, including 1 Arundel Crescent, to show that the grading of houses was inconsistent. Mr Salathiel cannot see the heritage streetscape and he made the broader point that the proposed Precinct is not cohesive. He submitted it is hard to accept the level of inconsistency following the number of demolitions and extensions and suspected the Council’s motive was to limit or prevent more roof space extensions. Mr Salathiel also outlined his family’s circumstances. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder stated that the alterations to the house, mostly at the rear, had not detracted from its significance. She agreed that there have been developments, including demolitions, in the English Counties Residential Precinct, even recently. As noted in chapter 3.6 Ms Schmeder has recommended the excision of some sections, which will make the precinct more consistent and cohesive. (iv)
Discussion The Panel does not think that the recent changes to the building’s fabric have compromised its integrity and intactness sufficiently to prevent its inclusion in the HO. The Panel notes the sensitivity with which the changes have been made. Unlike the south‐eastern side of Arundel Crescent, there is greater continuity in contributory heritage places on this side of the street and 7 Arundel Crescent plays a role in combination with the other heritage places (see chapter 4.1 of this report for discussion of the consistency of gradings and the cohesion of the Precinct). Panel conclusion 
7 Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hill meets the criteria for local heritage significance as a ‘contributory’ place. 4.1.4
29 Durham Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 19) (i)
Nature of property The property is a new two‐storey brick residence. The previous dwelling, a c1925 bungalow now demolished, was graded ‘contributory’. Page 34 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (ii)
Submissions Eliza Morgans and Stephen Downes submitted that the original house, graded as ‘contributory’ was demolished and the new house should, at least, be graded ‘non‐
contributory’. Furthermore, using the Lovell Chen criterion of omitting three consecutive non‐contributory properties, this property and its neighbours should not be included in the Precinct. The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone should provide adequate protection. They referred to an annotated version of Council’s Map 3: Proposed Changes to the English Counties Residential Precinct to show their suggestion for realigning the Precinct boundaries (in yellow) and similar omissions (in blue). Mr Downes also mentioned three other clusters not shaded blue on the annotated map. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder views relating to 29 Durham Road were that she:  concurred that the new house should be graded ‘non‐contributory  supported retention in the English Counties Residential Precinct HO for two reasons: - the three properties do not face the same streets - two of them, 11 Kent Road and 27 Durham Road are particularly sensitive corner sites (The Panel notes that submissions were not received concerning the adjoining non‐contributory places at 11 Kent Road and 27 Durham Road). (iv)
Discussion
The Panel acknowledges the demolition of the original house and the construction of a new house that does not contribute to the heritage significance of the precinct. Being central to the precinct, this cluster of three continuous non‐contributory properties is different from the peripheral properties proposed for omission. Furthermore, the north‐
west corner of the intersection is an individually significant place. Removing the property (and presumably its neighbours) from the precinct could weaken the management of development in the Precinct at an important intersection. As discussed in chapter 3 the Panel has suggested that Council consider amending the planning scheme to provide exemptions from permit requirements for alterations and additions (and demolition of non‐contributory places) that would rarely pose a threat to heritage values. Such an approach would avoid unnecessary costs and administrative burden for both property owners and Council, particularly in relation to non‐contributory places. Panel conclusion 
29 Durham Road, Surrey Hills no longer meets the criteria for as a ‘contributory’ place and should be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’ but that it should be retained within the proposed Precinct boundaries. Page 35 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 4.1.5
8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 29) (i)
The property The house at 8 Kent Road began as a Victorian brick villa set on one of the larger allotments in the Precinct at the top of the hill at the northern centre of the Precinct. It was much altered and extended in the early twentieth century in the Arts and Crafts style and altered further in minor ways in the mid‐twentieth century. It was much altered and extended again in recent years, which partially demolished the house but also rebuilt it reinforcing and sometimes replicating its Arts and Crafts character. A mature garden surrounds the house. The Lovell Chen Study graded the property as ‘significant’ but this was downgraded to ‘contributory’ in the Context Review because of the recent works. (ii)
Submissions Submissions made on behalf of Paul and Catherine O’Malley, the owners of 8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills adopted written and verbal evidence from John Briggs and Bryce Raworth, with the former focused on the context of the property and the latter focused on the history, fabric and evolution of the building. (iii)
Evidence In addition to broader criticism of the significance of English Counties Residential Precinct overall discussed in chapter 4, Mr Briggs addressed 8 Kent Road with a focus on the significance of the property within the context of surrounding properties. He concluded: As the subject house no longer has authenticity and integrity of detail to be considered an individually significant building and as it is not in a group, row or streetscape of related heritage presence it is my assessment that the Heritage Overlay should not be applied to the property. Mr Raworth clarified the history of the property, tabling copies of various primary documents and a chronological summary of Sands & McDougall Directory entries. He confirmed that there was a brick villa on the site by 1888, probably called Glen Arthur, and owned by Henry Howard Morrison, a clerk. Within a year, the property was mortgaged to the Australasian Freehold Banking Corporation Ltd and within five months, the property had been transferred to Thomas Leach, the manager of the same Bank. He was the occupant from at least 1891 until at least 1910. For some time Arthur T Leach, solicitor was listed as an occupant, presumably William’s son. The title was transferred to Louisa Leach, married woman (not widow) in 1914. Una Beatrice Porter, married woman, of ‘Kawarau’ purchased the property in 1949. Mr Raworth did not expand on these historical connections. Mr Raworth turned to the recent changes to the building and tabled photographs and copies of the architect’s drawings to illustrate the works. He set out a dozen ways in which it had been altered, some major, others not and some internal changes that are not relevant as the proposed HO does not propose internal controls (Mr Briggs provided more photographs in his evidence). The new and better understanding of the history of the property further informed his exposition of the works. Mr Raworth emphasised that the recent works had Page 36 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 been sympathetic generally with the Edwardian character of the house. Nonetheless, the house is now much altered, if not largely rebuilt. Mr Raworth then addressed the context of the property. He described it as ‘a relatively heterogeneous environment of heritage buildings and non‐heritage buildings’. He provided photographs of seven examples: five new residences and two interwar buildings. Quoting extensively from the Lovell Chen Study and its revisions, Mr Raworth made two main observations. Firstly, he noted that the proposed Precinct ‘adopts an irregular and selective boundary’ to exclude non‐contributory and intrusive post‐war buildings. Secondly, he notes that the brief mention of 8 Kent Road has been deleted in the revised citation for the Precinct as a result of the owners’ submission. He agreed with the owners’ submission that, because of the extensive recent alterations, the building was no longer significant and probably not even contributory. Mr Raworth subsequently argued that, if the mapping had been more conventional and inclusive there would be too few significant and contributory buildings. The regrading of buildings has further weakened the integrity of the Precinct. In her written evidence, Ms Schmeder said that she was asked in 2013 to comment on a building permit application for partial demolition to the house. At that time, she made the following assessment of the impact of the plans (both demolition and subsequent alterations) on the heritage significance of the house: If the first two, 'most objectionable' works (demolition of north chimney and replacement of front dormer), I would expect the house to lose its 'individual significance'. If these two changes are made, as well the remaining 'objectionable' works, I would expect it to still be 'contributory' to the proposed precinct. In particular, while the proposed rear mega‐dormer appears to be poorly designed and will detract from views to the house from Essex Road (as well as demolishing significant fabric such as the chimney and original dormers), what are really the main views to the house (through the front garden) will not be impacted. She re‐inspected the house in early 2016 and confirmed that the works had diminished the intactness of the house. However, she believed that it is still one of the most substantial houses in the English Counties Residential Precinct; it retains one of the best front gardens, and is still clearly legible as an Arts & Crafts attic‐storey bungalow of the early 20th century. For these reasons, she was still confident that it contributes to the significance of the precinct. She recommended that 8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills should be regraded from significant to contributory and the English Counties Residential Precinct citation should be reworded accordingly. (iv)
Discussion ‘Kawaru’, formerly ‘Glen Arthur’ at 8 Kent Road was included as one of eleven significant residences in the English Countries Residential Precinct citation. The residences are older and larger than those graded as ‘contributory’ and the paragraphs, for the most part, are brief architectural descriptions without historical content. They are illustrated in Figures 114 to 124. Kawaru, both text and photograph, was removed in the Context Revision and two other places, the Former St Joseph’s Boys Home and the Wyclif Congregational Church, were Page 37 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 included. The latter have full citations with statements of significance because the Lovell Chen Study proposed them for individual HOs. A further reference to Kawaru under ‘Gradings’ was also removed in the Context Revision. Reading the precinct citation more broadly, Kawaru could represent Criterion A – Importance to the course, or pattern, of the City of Boroondara’s cultural or natural history, for at least two periods, the Victorian and the Edwardian. It is one of the oldest and no other, it seems, changed so dramatically a generation later. It is clear that Kawaru has a mostly steady and distinguished history with changes to reflect the chapters in its history. Unfortunately, little information has emerged about its genesis but soon after it was built two generations of the Leach family owned and occupied it for 70 years and then the Porter family for at least 35 years. However, the Lovell Chen Study does not claim Criterion H – Special association with the life or works of a person, or groups of persons, of importance in the City of Boroondara’s history to be applicable to the Precinct’s significance. A basic search15 shows that:  Henry Howard Morrison, the first owner16 was: - part of a distinguished, well‐connected family, being the son of the principal of Scotch College where he went to school; the nephew of George Morrison, principal of the Geelong College; and first cousin of George Ernest ‘Chinese’ Morrison - declared bankrupt in 1889, which must have been a scandal for his family.17  Dr Una Beatrice Porter was the daughter of F J Cato, the founder of the grocery chain Moran and Cato.18 ‘Kawarau’ was the name of the Cato mansion in Malvern.19 Dr Porter was a psychiatrist, philanthropist and author. She became the senior psychiatrist at the Queen Victoria Hospital in 1949, the year after she bought 8 Kent Road. She was elected World President of the YWCA in 1963 and Woman of the Year in 1964. She was appointed OBE (1961) and CBE (1968) in recognition of her services to the community. She moved to 10 Kent Road in 1983. It should be noted that the Porters’ ownership of the property falls outside the notional period of significance claimed for the Precinct. The Leach family is less easily found in the usual sources. Thomas Leach appealed successfully against his council rate valuations in 1901 for several vacant allotments, not 8 Kent Road.20 He retired from banking in 1903 after 14 or 15 years as head of the Bourke Street branch of the Commercial Bank, described as ‘very popular with clients of the bank, owing to the geniality of his disposition and the absence of the starchiness and red‐tape’.21 Arthur T Leach was active locally as a lawyer as part of the partnership, Leach and Thompson including for his father. 15
Using the online Australian Dictionary of Biography and Trove. It is not clear if Morrison was responsible for the Victorian house. 17
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/6279832?searchTerm=Henry+Howard+Morrison&searchLimits=l‐
state=Victoria|||l‐title=13|||l‐category=Article. 18
http://gallery.its.unimelb.edu.au/imu/imu.php?request=multimedia&irn=5193, accessed 28/6/16, biographical notes of Dr Una Beatrice Porter. http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/AWE1157b.htm, accessed 4/7/16. 19
The spelling ‘Kawaru’ for the property at 8 Kent Road is used in in the Lovell Chen Study but without any source given. 20
The Box Hill Reporter, 20 Dec 1901, p 2, ‘Surrey Hills Rate Appeal’. 21
Geelong Advertiser, 3 Aug 1903, p 1, ‘Banking Circles’. 16
Page 38 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 There is no doubt that the building is much worked over. Nothing physically seems to survive from its earliest period except the footprint. It is not known if any of the mature trees from this period still survive. Much does survive which demonstrates the second period, the successful transformation of the conventional Victorian villa into an Arts and Crafts house. The garden is more representative of this period. The recent works have deliberately retained and even recreated the character of the place from the early twentieth century. The existing house does contribute to the precinct and is critical for its location at the heart of the northern section. The open space of the garden also contributes to the streetscape and character of the precinct. The historical associations with the Leach and subsequently the Porter families endure. Panel conclusions 

There have been substantial changes that have occurred to the building fabric at 8 Kent Road, however, it: - retains its form, scale and Arts and Crafts style, more or less - retains its mature garden setting - remains at the heart of the Precinct - is one of the oldest places in the Precinct - has historical associations which are specific to the place but also reflective of the Precinct generally 8 Kent Road should be retained as a contributory place in the English Counties Precinct as proposed in Council’s post exhibition changes (see Table 1 of this report). 4.1.6
64 Durham Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 39) (i)
The Property This modest c1941 timber bungalow is graded ‘contributory’. It is located on the northern edge of the southern section of the proposed Precinct. The Minister issued an Interim Heritage Overlay (HO633) as a result of an application for demolition by the owner. (ii)
Submissions Andromahi Christou appeared for the owner, Arthur Rappos, who objected to the inclusion of 64 Durham Road in the Precinct, and argued the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 3 and ResCode provisions would be adequate and more certain in providing appropriate planning controls. A schedule, photographs of surrounding buildings and two videos of the Precinct amplified the written submission. As well as arguing against the merits of grading the property as a ‘contributory’ building and the validity of the Precinct, Ms Christou raised concerns with due process, the inequity of how precinct boundaries are drawn, unequal compliance and the need for a transparent community benefit. Ms Christou also mentioned the tension between neighbours generated by the Amendment and that the irregular boundaries and many gaps within the Precinct exacerbate a sense of benefit without responsibility. Further, the lack of an Interim Heritage Overlay over the whole of the proposed Precinct has allowed inappropriate development. Page 39 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder acknowledged that the property is on an edge of the Precinct and that its neighbours, two duplexes at 66‐66A and 70‐70A Durham Road,22 were so compromised recently that they should be downgraded to ‘non‐contributory’. However, she argued that the house at 64 Durham Road is intact and stands at the beginning of a long run of interwar housing to the south on both sides of the street so it should be not be excluded from the precinct. (iv)
Discussion The Panel paid particular attention to this submission because it raised serious concerns about the validity of the proposed Precinct and the consequences of the Amendment passing. The Panel inspected the property and, importantly, saw its context. It is a classic example of Robin Boyd’s ‘Austerity’ style. In another context, 64 Durham Road would meet the threshold for local heritage protection as a contributory place. The neighbouring duplexes, examples of an important interwar building type, are some of the few surviving in the Precinct. It can be argued that even modest dwellings contribute towards an understanding of a precinct by providing a comparative balance, especially in a context that is mixed. However, the combination of gaps in contributory places and prominent recent development in the immediate area have seriously compromised the integrity and intactness of this section of the Precinct. Panel conclusion 
The part of the English Counties Residential Precinct comprising 64, 66 and 66A, 68 and 68A, 70 and 72 Durham Road does not meet the threshold of coherent precinct and should be excluded from the Precinct. 4.1.7
1A Anderson Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 9) (i)
The property The house is an Edwardian bungalow, formerly weatherboard but recently veneered with red brick. Other changes have also occurred. Council now proposes to remove the property from the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the building is much altered and should be downgraded to ‘non‐
contributory’ and, presumably, that it should be omitted from the Precinct. (iii)
Evidence After inspecting the property, Ms Schmeder acknowledged the changes made considered the contributory classification is warranted. However, in view of the context of the property, 22
It is noted that submissions were not received concerning the status of the adjoining non‐contributory places at 66 and 66A, 70 and 72 Durham Road or the adjoining contributory places at 68 and 68A Durham Road. Page 40 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 she has recommended its removal from the precinct, together with others on the eastern side of the street. (iv)
Discussion The Panel is concerned about the cohesion of the English Counties Residential Precinct and agrees that the omission of the properties at 1, 1A and 3 Anderson Road and 20 Kent Road would help to improve its cohesion. The Panel makes no comment on the changes to the building. Panel conclusion 1A Anderson Road, Surrey Hills should not be retained in the proposed English Counties Residential Precinct. 4.1.8
22B Essex Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 10) (i)
The property The house is an interwar brick bungalow with substantial recent additions including a large dormer window at the front and a large two‐storey extension at the rear. It is located on a corner at the centre of the northern section of the Precinct (and faces Kawaru, 8 Kent Road). (ii)
Submissions In addition to broad objections addressed in chapter 3, the owner of 22B Essex Street submitted that the building is altered and extended so that, presumably, it should be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder acknowledged the changes made but disagrees that they do not warrant the building being regraded. She drew a parallel with the house at 58 Guildford Road, Surrey Hills, which the C150 Amendment Panel recommended, should be regraded. In that case, the changes were less, with the roofline extended backwards but without a new front dormer. (iv)
Discussion The Panel believes first floor or roof extensions to be one of the most vexing issues in determining the validity of the proposed English Counties Residential Precinct HO. It is clear that some extensions succeed better than others. Scale and form must be two factors in their relative success. Attention to detail and the sensible use of materials are other factors. The more picturesque styles of architecture may be more accommodating. Humble houses can rarely accommodate an extra storey while an extra gable sensitively detailed on a large Federation style house might go unnoticed. Visibility in three dimensions is a critical factor. The house at 22B Essex Road presents a further problem because it is on a corner and that intersection is crucial to the Precinct’s cohesion. The Panel agrees with the findings of its predecessor, the Panel which considered Amendment C150, that there is a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the addition “dominates, Page 41 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 confuses, conflates or obscures” the original building.23 More objectively, the changes do not meet the requirements in Council’s current Heritage Policy at Clause 22.05‐3 of the Planning Scheme. Conclusion The extent and type of changes made to 22B Essex Road, Surrey Hills justify regrading it to non‐contributory but retaining it within the Precinct. 4.1.9
34 Essex Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 23) (i)
The property The single‐storey house is a replica of a Victorian style villa. It is located towards the centre of the Precinct but opposite a gap in the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the new, replica Victorian villa (built in 1992) has no significance. As its neighbours have little merit and should be re‐developed, all the land should be excluded from the English Counties Residential Precinct. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder conceded the date of construction was 1992 and agreed that the house was ‘non‐contributory’ but argued, based on the Lovell Chen methodology and the contributory status of the neighbours, that the land should be retained within the Precinct. (iv)
Discussion This is one of several replica Victorian villas, including another example at 41 Kent Road, within the English Counties Residential Precinct. In some ways, the ‘replica’ model is the least intrusive type of new development yet the most confusing. The property is central to the Precinct. The houses at 32 and 36 Essex Road are contributory and 38 Essex is significant (The owners of these properties did not make submissions). The single non‐contributory property fails the Lovell Chen criterion of needing ‘three in a row’. The Panel believes that the land should be retained. Panel conclusion 
As a new building, 34 Essex Street, Surrey Hills should be regraded to non‐contributory but retained within the proposed Precinct boundaries. 23
See especially Sec. 3.1(iii) Defining when extensions detract from heritage value. These are the words of the expert witness, Ms Anita Brady of Lovell Chen, which the Panel noted. They went further to quote at length the more objective’ requirements ... set out in the Council’s current Heritage Policy at Clause 22.05‐3 as potentially useful in guiding the assessment of the effects upon properties’ heritage values of existing extensions’. The Panel suggested seven places for reassessment including 58 Guildford Road, Surrey Hills. Page 42 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 4.1.10 15‐17 Suffolk Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 36) (i)
The property The property includes a single‐storey timber Edwardian house and, on its south side, a vacant allotment used as a garden. It is located in north‐east section of the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the house is altered, is in poor condition, is of limited interest and is not easily seen from the street. The garden to the side (at 17 Suffolk Street) was not associated with the house. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder detailed the changes made to house but argued that it retained reasonable intactness and that other works were appropriate. She noted that the date of construction was 1915 rather than c1925. Ms Schmeder agreed that dense planting impedes views to the house but that this was not a factor in determining its significance. The condition of a place, if it were poor, could be taken into account at the permit stage. As well as revisions to the Precinct Schedule, the grading and the date of construction, Ms Schmeder recommended that the house and land at 15 Suffolk Road should be retained within the Precinct as contributory and that the land at 17 Suffolk Road should be retained as non‐contributory. (iv)
Discussion The Panel agrees that the house is contributory and, as the side garden is not associated with the house historically, it is therefore not of significance. Regrading the land at 17 Suffolk Street to non‐contributory, as is its neighbour at 19 Suffolk Street, would not create a row of three sites triggering the Lovell Chen threshold for exclusion. Panel conclusions 

The house at 15 Suffolk Street, Surrey Hills should be retained as contributory and retained within the proposed Precinct. The garden at 17 Suffolk Street is non‐contributory but the land should be retained within the proposed Precinct. 4.1.11 53 Middlesex Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 37) (i)
The property The property is an Interwar bungalow, recently modified but with an early attic extension. It is located at the centre of the western section of the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner made a late submission that the house should be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’ as it has been altered, is in poor condition and maintenance is difficult because of the new external cladding. The fabric of the house might contain asbestos. Page 43 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder detailed the changes made to house, including the likely 1930s date of the attic storey and that many details had been lost, but argued that it retains reasonable intactness. In fact, many period details do survive. Its form and detailing contribute to the understanding of the Precinct’s development. The condition of a place, if it were poor and includes asbestos, could be taken into account at the permit stage. (iv)
Discussion The Panel agrees that the form and surviving detailing of the house do make it contributory. Its present condition is not a factor in determining its significance and may be taken into account at the permit stage. Panel conclusion 
4.2
The house at 53 Middlesex Road, Surrey Hills should be retained as contributory and retained within the proposed Precinct. Panel recommendations Review the statement of significance for the English Counties Residential Precinct (HO633) to provide a tighter basis for decisions under the Heritage Overlay. Remove the following properties from the English Counties Residential Precinct. a) 64, 66 and 66A, 68 and 68A, 70 and 72 Durham Road b) The southern side of Arundel Crescent. Review the following areas within the English Counties Residential Precinct for further consideration by Council: a) 14‐24 Kent Street and south of 15 Norfolk Street b) 5‐13 Albion Street. 4.3
Union Road South Residential Precinct (proposed HO635) (i)
The Precinct The Heritage Study identified the significance of the Union Road South Residential Precinct as follows: Why is it Significant The Union Road South Residential Precinct is of historical significance, as a long‐standing residential area in Union Road, Surrey Hills, which demonstrates aspects of the growth and consolidation of Surrey Hills from the latter decades of the nineteenth century through to the later interwar period. Development generally commenced in the 1880s after extension of the railway line to Lilydale and the construction of the railway station in 1882. However, as with other areas of Surrey Hills, the 1890s economic Depression stymied development, which then picked up again after the extension of the Riversdale Road tramway through to Wattle Park in 1916 and the cessation of World War I, with development intensifying and consolidating in the interwar period. Land in the precinct was promoted in early estate subdivisions as being Page 44 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 especially ‘picturesque’, a result of the topography of the precinct, and the elevated siting of the east side of Union Road in particular. The precinct is also notable for a concentration of larger scaled houses on generous allotments in the northern section, which in turn reflects a pattern which is common in Boroondara, of establishing substantial properties on main or principal roads. Union Road South Residential Precinct is also of aesthetic/architectural significance. Victorian houses are generally in the Italianate manner with L‐
shaped plans; iron verandah friezes; verandah roofs separated from the main hipped and slate‐clad roofs; corniced chimneys; and some timber ashlar fronts on weatherboard examples. Federation architecture is represented in houses at the north end of Union Road and in The Avenue, and displays some typical characteristics of the genre including a dominant main roof often with an integral verandah roof; diagonal planning; return verandahs; and an accentuated corner bay or tower bracketed by two or more wings projecting at right angles. More numerous in the precinct are Bungalow designs and later interwar housing, which also display typical characteristics such as horizontal proportions; square plans with a corner ‘cut outs’ to provide for a porch‐verandah; side entries set well back on the site; and main transverse gable roofs, sometimes with a gabled wing to the front. Later interwar houses in the precinct have simplified Tudor elements in clinker and tapestry brick, with some cement render; brick gable fronts with boxed eaves; steeper roof pitches than seen with the Bungalows; slender chimneys with no pots and often without verandahs. A demolition application was lodged in March 2015, after Council had resolved to initiate Amendment C177. As a result, the Minister for Planning applied an interim Heritage Overlay (HO635) to the property. Page 45 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Figure 2 (ii)
Union Road South Residential Precinct (with post‐exhibition changes supported by Council) Submissions As with the other precincts, the Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. made a general written submission in support of the Amendment and proposed Union Road South Residential Precinct HO as a positive answer to residents’ calls for heritage protection. Submissions objecting to the inclusion of their property in the HO also challenged the integrity of the precinct. Page 46 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder’s24 review recommended the regrading of certain properties and some changes to the proposed Union Road South Residential Precinct boundaries to create a more cohesive precinct. She recommended the removal of one area which was completely separate and the addition of another which was adjacent, albeit across Union Road. At the Hearing Ms Schmeder confirmed her earlier recommendations, other than the relatively minor changes to individual submissions mentioned below. (iv)
Discussion The overall intactness and integrity of the Union Road South Residential Precinct impressed the Panel during its inspection. It believes that the precinct provides a good representation of periods of development, which make it significant. The revised boundaries of the precinct are reasonable, including the extension of the precinct across Union Road (The submission concerning 74 Union Road is considered below). It is noted there are five existing HOs nearby and the proposed HO for Surrey Gardens. Panel conclusion 
The proposed Union Road South Residential Precinct does meet the necessary threshold for local significance, the boundaries are appropriate and the HO should apply. 4.3.2
93 Union Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 3) (i)
The property The property is a red brick interwar bungalow with an unusual projecting front room. It is situated on a corner at the northern end of the proposed Precinct, adjacent to a building graded ‘significant’ at 91 Union Road, partly contiguous with HO409, a large Italianate mansion at 89 Union Road, and opposite Surrey Gardens. The Lovell Chen Study graded the property as ‘contributory’. The land is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the property, cannot be seen from the street, does not match certain descriptions in the statement of significance, and has been much altered. The loss of integrity has been confirmed by an independent heritage review which concluded that the house no longer meets the threshold for inclusion in the proposed Precinct. (iii)
Evidence While Ms Schmeder agreed with the details of the independent review, she disagreed with its conclusion that the property should be removed from the proposed Precinct. Instead, she recommended that it should be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’ but retained within the precinct. 24
Ms Schmeder’s written evidence is found at Sections 2.3 (p. 8), 2.4 (p. 12) and 3.3 (p. 37) of her Expert Statement and is summarised in her Tables 2 and 5. Page 47 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iv)
Discussion It is true that the house has been altered and that may have reduced the contribution to the significance of the Precinct. However, the house retains its form, scale, setbacks and traditional garden. The roofs and other elements are intact. The high brick fence is unsympathetic but it was present when Lovell Chen made its assessment. The Panel believes that the house and its setting still have a presence in the streetscape that does not undermine the integrity of the precinct. The property is at a critical entrance to the Precinct and the existing NRZ3 may not provide sufficient control to ensure compatibility with heritage objectives, for example for development of a single house. Panel conclusion 
93 Union Road, Surrey Hills still meets the criteria for local heritage significance as a ‘contributory’ place and should be retained within the proposed Union Road South Residential Precinct boundaries. 4.3.3
‘Leumascot’, 5 Windsor Crescent, Surrey Hills (Submission 26) (i)
The Property The property is a large, single‐storey Federation style house. It is situated on a prominent corner facing the Surrey Hills station. The Lovell Chen Study graded the property as ‘significant’. (ii)
Submissions and evidence The owners, who have researched the property, submitted corrections to the name of the house and to the genealogy of the family that had a long association with the house. The owners did not oppose the inclusion of Leumascot in the HO. Ms Schmeder agreed concurred with the proposed changes and recommended correcting the citation. (iii)
Panel conclusion  The Panel concurs with the corrections to the name and historical details in the citation for ‘Leumascot’, 5 Windsor Crescent, Surrey Hills. 4.3.4
85 Union Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 13) (i)
The property The property is a c1920 single‐storey brick residence unusually sited on the block. It is graded ‘contributory’ and is towards the northern end of the Precinct, opposite Surrey Park and adjacent to HO409, Kirklands, 89 Union Road, Surrey Hills. (ii)
Submissions The owner requested that the property be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’ or removed from the Precinct. The building is much altered, having been converted into three flats in the 1950s and extended at the western ends. The owner argues that no reason has been given for the grading ‘contributory’, nor are the alterations acknowledged. Rather, the property is consistent with the description of non‐contributory buildings. Page 48 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder acknowledged the alterations to part of the building. She confirmed the outline history. She suspects certain alterations were done in the 1920s. The 1957 works were done illegally. The alterations and extensions to the western end of the building are largely reversible. The rest of the house is generally intact. She pointed out that contributory buildings are not usually mentioned in detail, if at all. She concluded that the house still contributes to the Precinct and should remain as ‘contributory’. (iv)
Discussion The Panel inspected the property. The Panel agrees with Ms Schmeder that the more recent alterations, while unattractive, do not seriously compromise the building. The siting is unusual and of interest and the building is important for its surroundings. It easily meets the threshold for local significance. The Panel agrees with the revision of the construction date in the citation. The Panel notes the Cupressus hedge, which almost certainly dates from the 1920s. Panel conclusion 
The house at 85 Union Road, Surrey Hills should be retained as contributory to the proposed Precinct and that its construction date should be revised. 4.3.5
74 Union Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 17) (i)
The property The property is a c1920 single‐storey red brick Californian bungalow. The Lovell Chen Study did not extend the Precinct across Union Road. In the Context Review, the property was graded ‘contributory’ and is now located at the north‐west end of the larger Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the properties at 66 to 74 Union Road are the same as and no more significant than many hundreds of others in Boroondara. The Study says little to distinguish these above others except that they are on rising ground. His property is different because it is not itself elevated. Only the house at 66 Union Road had been identified previously. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder, quoting the methodology of the Lovell Chen Study (and longstanding practice), made the point that contributory buildings do not have to have special value. However, together they contribute to a precinct. Furthermore, the understanding of what contributes to the heritage of a locality has matured. It is standard procedure and necessary to review previous studies. She recommended that the house at 74 Union Road should remain as ‘contributory’. Page 49 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iv)
Discussion The Panel inspected the property. It agrees with Ms Schmeder that the building easily meets the threshold for local significance. It is part of a similar group, intact and retains a high degree of integrity. Panel conclusion 
The house at 74 Union Road, Surrey Hills should be retained as contributory to the proposed Precinct. 4.3.6
4 Warwick Avenue, Surrey Hills (Submission 25) (i)
The property The property is a substantial, single‐storey, timber house built c1908. It is a pair with its neighbour at 2 Warwick Avenue. The property was graded ‘contributory’ and is located in the south‐east of the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner made a submission, which differentiated the house from grander, Edwardian and Victorian homes. It was submitted that the house has been renovated recently and has no original period features. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder agreed that the house is not as grand as others but that these examples represented only a small number of heritage places in Boroondara. The house is, in fact, very intact and typical of its era. It complies with the accepted threshold and Heritage Study definition of local significance as a contributory building. Ms Schmeder disputed the absence of original period features, and listed what survives. Internal alterations do not do apply. She concluded that the house at 4 Warwick Avenue, Surrey Hills clearly contributes to the Precinct. (iv)
Panel conclusions  The Panel agrees with Ms Schmeder’s assessment that 4 Warwick Street, Surrey Hills meets the threshold for contributing to the Precinct and should be retained as contributory to the proposed Precinct. 4.4
Panel recommendation Advise submitters who objected to the grading of 93 Union Road, Surrey Hills that: a) The Panel has formed a preliminary view that the grading of 93 Union Road, Surrey Hills should remain as a ‘contributory’ place and the property should remain in the Union Road South Residential Precinct. b) The Panel will reconvene the hearing if they wish to amplify their original written submission. These submitters should advise Council within 14 days of receiving this advice if they wish to be heard by the Panel. Page 50 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 c) If the submitters do not wish to be heard by the Panel, its preliminary view will stand. 4.5
Redvers Street Residential Precinct (proposed HO634) (i)
The Precinct The Heritage Study identified the significance of the Redvers Street Residential Precinct as follows: Why is it Significant Redvers Street Residential Precinct is of historical significance, as a long‐
standing residential area in Boroondara which demonstrates aspects of the growth and consolidation of Surrey Hills in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The precinct was substantially developed in two main stages from the late 1880s and from the mid‐1920s, with the subdivision that created Redvers Street undertaken in early 1889. Kennealy Street is named for the Kennealy family, who resided on a large property, with dairy, fronting Canterbury Road from c.1891. This property was subdivided in 1914, creating Kennealy Street, although development largely stalled until the 1920s. The stop‐start nature of development in the precinct is reflective of a common pattern in Boroondara, as elsewhere in Melbourne: initial development of the late nineteenth century, in this case spurred on by the arrival of the Surrey Hills railway station in 1883; this halted with the 1890s depression; development picked up again in the 1900s only to be arrested once more by World War One; then a postwar burst which also stuttered with the depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Unusually, the two parallel streets of the precinct strongly reflect the two main periods of residential development. The precinct is also of aesthetic/architectural significance, and has a comparatively high level of intactness with contributory dwellings dating from the 1890s through to 1940. Redvers Street is notable for its late Victorian and Federation houses, mostly of timber construction, including several Victorian Italianate houses. The latter have bracketed and hipped roofing, some with block front detailing to resemble stone, and corniced chimneys. Federation dwellings in the precinct are marked by hipped roofs played off against a single projecting gable, or two projecting gables set at right angles, or more commonly simple L‐shaped plans with a single projecting gable. The interwar period of the 1920s and 1930s is also represented in Redvers Street, as it is in Kennealy Street, where brick houses are more common, including use of red face brick, decorative tapestry and clinker brick finishes, and rendered brick. Bungalow houses in the precinct, particularly of the 1920s, are generally Bungalow variants, influenced by contemporary American Bungalows. Wider housing blocks to Kennealy Street have also enabled the construction of several triple‐fronted residences in popular interwar Tudor Revival and Spanish Mission styles. Page 51 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Figure 3 shows the proposed Redvers Street Residential Precinct (and post‐exhibition changes supported by Council). Figure 3 (ii)
Redvers Street Residential Precinct (with post‐exhibition changes supported by Council) Submissions As with the other precincts, the Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. made a general written submission in support of the Amendment and proposed Redvers Street Residential Precinct HO as a positive answer to residents’ calls for heritage protection. The owner of one property at 13 Kennealy Street made a general submission that 17 houses in Kennealy Street should not be included in the Precinct. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder25 argued that the precinct reflects neatly, in its halves, two major phases of Surrey Hills’ development. It would be possible to propose two smaller precincts but Kennealy Street would still qualify. Other than the relatively minor changes to individual submissions mentioned below, Ms Schmeder confirmed her earlier recommendations. 25
Ms Schmeder’s written evidence is found at Sections 2.3 (p. 8), 2.4 (p. 12), 3.3 (p. 27) and 4.3 p. 60 of her Expert Statement and is summarised in her Table 3. Page 52 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iv)
Discussion The overall intactness and integrity of Kennealy Street impressed the Panel during its inspection. The Panel walked through the passage between the two streets and believes that the precinct provides a good comparison of two periods of development. The association with the Kennealy family is relevant, especially if they lived in Redvers Street. A change of name to, say, Redvers and Kennealy Streets Residential Precinct could better represent its significance. The Panel wonders if some of the houses could be standard War Service Homes, including 13 Kennealy Street, which would add another dimension to the development and therefore the significance of the precinct. Additionally, the Study and the Review might have claimed more about its significance because of the street planting and infrastructure. The boundaries of the precinct are reasonable. Panel conclusion 
The proposed Redvers Street Residential Precinct does meet the necessary threshold of local heritage significance under the Heritage Overlay and the proposed precinct boundaries are appropriate. 4.5.2
13 and 19 Kennealy Street, Surrey Hills (Submissions 9 and 16) (i)
The properties The houses at 13 and 19 Kennealy Street are conventional single‐storey timber Californian bungalow (c1928 and c1930 respectively). They are graded ‘contributory’ and are located at the centre of the Precinct. (ii)
Submissions The owner of 13 Kennealy Street argued against the inclusion of any part of Kennealy Street in the Redvers Street Residential Precinct. It was submitted that: nothing survives from the Kennealy family’s ownership of the land; Kennealy Street is less historic and intact than Redvers Street; the houses are altered and only three fences are wire from the Interwar period; and the two streets are not related visually or physically. The owner of 19 Kennealy Street submitted that the house is ill‐designed and dark. It needs to be completely rebuilt. It cannot comply reasonably with modern standards. The house at 23 Redvers Street26, which was completely rebuilt in 1988, has been included as ‘contributory’ in the Precinct. (iii)
Evidence It was Ms Schmeder view that both 13 and Kennealy Street are typical of the period, intact and clearly ‘contributory’. She pointed out that no claim is made for significance from the Kennealy family’s association. Only one house in Kennealy Street within the proposed precinct boundaries is new and several of the fences date from the interwar period. Ms Schmeder noted that places in the HO can be upgraded so long as the works respect the level of heritage significance. She has checked building permits for the house at 23 Redvers 26
It is noted that the owner of 23 Redvers Street did not make a submission. Page 53 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Street, checked other documentation and inspected the house. She agrees that it has been rebuilt and that it should downgraded to ‘non‐contributory’. (iv)
Discussion The Panel agrees that the houses at 13 and 19 Kennealy Street are typical of the period, retain a high degree of integrity and are intact. They meet the usual threshold to be ‘contributory’ places. The Panel comments on the submission to remove Kennealy Street from the Precinct are given above. The planning scheme allows appropriate alterations to occur with due process for the applicant. How the place might be altered is not a matter for the Panel to decide and would be addressed via the planning permit process. The Panel supports the regrading of 23 Redvers Street to ‘non‐contributory’. Panel conclusions 

The houses at 13 and 19 Kennealy Street, Surrey Hills should be retained as contributory to the proposed Redvers Street Residential Precinct. The house at 23 Redvers Street should be regraded to non‐contributory. 4.6
Panel recommendation Amend the name of the Redvers Street Residential Precinct (HO634) to the Redvers ‐ Kennealy Street Residential Precinct. 4.7
Individually significant places (not in a precinct) 4.7.1
26 Weybridge Street, Surrey Hills (Submission 6) (i)
The property The house, which is outside any Precinct, began as a Victorian brick villa in the conventional Italianate style. It was altered and extended in the early twentieth century using Edwardian materials and detailing. It was altered again in recent years in a generally sympathetic way. (ii)
Submissions Mr Eager submitted that:  26 Weybridge Street is not an intact example of the ‘Victorian Italianate’ style and does not compare well with other better examples  It has been significantly altered by additions in the early twentieth century  He has altered the house more recently including partial demolition  The Parer family was not significant in Boroondara  The citation contains extraneous and inaccurate material, and is not in accordance with PPN01. The citation states, ‘the rear wing of the house was reconfigured in a sympathetic manner by the renowned architectural practice of Edmond & Corrigan’. Mr Eager pointed out that he and his wife had not followed Maggie Edmond’s advice as closely as they might (and now regretted it). Mr Eager also raised concerns about natural justice and procedural fairness. Page 54 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder confirmed her opinion that the extended Parer family was significant to Surrey Hills, the threshold required by the PPN01. She acknowledged the changes to the property, both alterations and extensions, made in the early twentieth century. She then explained that because they reflected the long association of the Parer family with the house, they added to, rather than detracted from, its significance. Ms Schmeder also acknowledged mistakes in the citation and that it did not follow the PPN01 standard for referencing HERCON criteria. She accepted the Lovell Chen style but recommended that the mistakes in the citation should be corrected, as shown in the already revised the citation. (iv)
Discussion The Panel agrees that the extended Parer family is significant across several generations and to Boroondara. The very long association between the family and the house at 26 Weybridge Street impressed the Panel. The alterations and extensions made by Francisca and Juan Parer and by subsequent members of the family do add to its significance. The Panel also agrees that the architecture of the house, both the original Italianate style and the subsequent Edwardian ‘improvements’ are of aesthetic significance, reflecting the taste of a successful middle class family. The involvement of Edmond & Corrigan is also of architectural interest. The more recent changes, such as the landscaping and front fence, are not detrimental. Panel conclusion 
26 Weybridge Street meets the criteria for local historical, aesthetic, and architectural heritage significance. The latest amendments to the citation are appropriate. 4.7.2
17‐19A Barton Street, Surrey Hills (Submission 32) (i)
The property This large two‐storey, late‐Victorian brick building was constructed in two major stages. Formerly a school, it was converted into and used as a hospital and then as a nursing home throughout the twentieth century. More recently, a consortium of new owners converted it into three residences. It is graded as ‘individually significant’ and is outside any Precinct. Some early plantings may survive. (ii)
Submissions Mr Freiverts confirmed that he represented all three owners of the place. He submitted that:  Lovell Chen’s assessment of 17‐19A Barton Street over‐stated the significance of the property  he concurs with the facts mentioned in the citation but the western view is now blocked by new development, which has spoilt any chance to appreciate the main facade  the loss of so much land has compromised the integrity of the place  it would be difficult to develop the property any further, especially at the upper level Page 55 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 



the previous heritage status [‘C’ in the City of Camberwell Heritage Study] when it was purchased by the present owners enabled them to sub‐divide and develop the building was unoccupied, vandalised and effectively ruinous the building is much altered especially by the loss of the ‘long gone’ west verandah, windows, doors and fascias during the Director of Housing’s ownership requiring their replacement rather than their repair the building was painted white, possibly in the 1970s, and even if the paint were removed, that would expose the second‐hand bricks used to fill modern openings. Mr Freiverts handed the Panel building permit drawings that showed the recent alterations. He made a final point that better comparative examples of Italianate houses exist. He concluded with a plea calling on Boroondara City Council to address other more important planning concerns. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder confirmed her opinion that, even though no architect or builder had been identified for either major phase of construction, because of its styles and scale, the building was significant aesthetically. It was significant at least to Surrey Hills, the threshold required by the PPN01. She acknowledged past alterations and extensions, even noting that and the more recent changes are ‘generally sympathetic ... and that they do not disrupt or confuse its original design’. The demolition of the ablution block and the enclosure of the front porch are minor. On a comparative basis, this property stands out historically and aesthetically. She saw no reason to revise the citation. (iv)
Discussion The Panel was disappointed that neither Lovell Chen nor Context had discovered an architect and builder for such a substantial building. It also thinks that the discussion of style could have been nuanced with the second phase more appropriately described as more Italianate than Gothic, notwithstanding the tower’s detailing. Nonetheless, the Panel concurs with Ms Schmeder (and Lovell Chen) that the building is of aesthetic significance. No party led evidence to dispute the obvious historical significance of the place, which it thinks is substantial and the Panel accepts the facts in the citation. It does not think that the changes made to the building’s fabric at different times have compromised its integrity and intactness sufficiently to prevent its inclusion in the HO, rather that they demonstrate a sequence of development. Panel conclusion 
17‐19A Barton Street, Surrey Hill meets the criteria for local heritage significance as an ‘individually significant’ place and the Panel concurs with the present version of the citation. Page 56 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 4.7.3
627 Whitehorse Road, Surrey Hills (i)
The property The property is a large, two‐storey Arts and Crafts style attic bungalow. It was built as a doctor’s residence and surgery. It is situated on a prominent corner. The Lovell Chen Study graded the property as ‘significant’. (ii)
Submissions The owner submitted that the property had no historical significance (Criterion A) because running a business from home is insufficient reason. Other places nearby which had dual purposes are not proposed for heritage control. The building does not now show that it had a dual purpose. There is no discernible separate entrance off Whitehorse Road. The special features claimed for the aesthetic significance are typical and found on many places not proposed for heritage control. Similarly, it was submitted, the siting and location are not rare. The house has been altered and the garage is a replacement but still proposed for control even though it does not comply with any Criterion. (iii)
Evidence Ms Schmeder disagreed with the submission, stating that the two separate entrances did manifest the special dual use of the place as a doctor’s surgery and residence. The surgery entrance, conventionally smaller and more discrete than the residential entrance, is still discernible as a porch and through the surviving front fence. She agreed that the separate entrances are not linked with the aesthetic significance of the house. Ms Schmeder disagreed with other claims in the submissions, saying that heritage citations often recognise siting, location and landmark value. (iv)
Discussion The Panel accepts that a succession of doctors occupied the house over a long time including one for more than 40 years, until 1990. Even if the doctors were not significant individually, their continuous occupation of the combined residence and surgery, as a building type, is historically significant. The house is a late version of the Arts and Craft style, rather larger than most in its vicinity, as befits its dual uses. The Panel agrees that the location, siting, form, scale and surviving detailing of the house do demonstrate its dual uses as a doctor’s surgery and residence and those make it significant architecturally. The new garage is not significant. During its site inspection, the Panel noted that the traditional layout, planting and mature trees of the front and side gardens complimented the significance of the property. The ‘What is Significant’ section of the Statement of Significance ends with the sentence ‘Plantings include hedges, grassed areas and mature trees.’ The ‘Why is it Significant’ section is, however, silent. The three mature trees and especially the Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum or Eucalyptus Citriodora) could be included under the tree controls of the Heritage Schedule. Page 57 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Panel conclusion 
The former doctor’s residence and surgery at 627 Whitehorse Road, Surrey Hills should be retained as ‘Significant’ and identified under an individual HO. 4.7.4
Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills (Submission 35) (i)
The property Kylemore Flats is a block of seven, single storey, cream brick units with basement garages on a long, narrow allotment. Importantly, the flats are built at an angle of 30 and 60 degrees, creating a stepped plan, which also allows them to be set at varying levels. The Lovell Chen Study found Kylemore Flats to be of local historical and aesthetic significance. (ii)
Submissions Four unit owners made a joint written submission arguing against the inclusion of Kylemore Flats in the HO. They argued that the architect is unknown, the materials are ‘run of the mill’ and that post‐war buildings are not part of the significance of the area. Other examples are located elsewhere in Melbourne. (iii)
Evidence Not having specific expertise in later 20th century architecture, Ms Schmeder referred the submission to her colleague, Ms Louise Honman (The Panel knows Ms Honman and accepts her credentials). She did not try to discover the architect responsible for the design and agreed with the owners that the flats are “run of the mill”, that is, typical of the period for their form, materials and stepped layout. She stated that the flats were not innovative. Ms Honman corrected the submitters’ claim that post‐war buildings are not part of the significance of Surrey Hills, pointing out that a place need only meet the threshold of significance for its immediate locality, although relevance to the municipality would generally be a stronger claim. She dismissed the claim that Kylemore Flats is a comparatively early example of own‐your‐own flats. Ms Honman concluded that, as the case for significance is not strong enough to meet the threshold for local significance, the place should be regraded to ‘non‐contributory’ and removed from the HO. (iv)
Discussion Ms Honman was not available for questioning at the Hearing. The Panel was uncomfortable with the recommendation that Kylemore Flats should not be included in the HO. In order to determine who the architect was, the Panel requested the City of Boroondara to search for a building permit. Ms Booth subsequently provided a copy of the plans and elevations,27 which showed that the developer was Glengarriff Heights Pty Ltd and confirmed the date of construction (1961). It also indicated that the architect was Kurt Popper. The Strata Titles Act passed in 1967 so the land was subdivided either as company share titles or, more likely, as stratum titles. In any case, Kylemore Flats represent the end of the 27
Building Permit No 27834, dated 27/9/60. Page 58 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 old and the beginning of the new systems and must be seen as one of the earliest examples, at least in Boroondara, of own‐your‐own flats. Compared with the frequent incidence in Surrey Hills of villa units and barrack style blocks of flats in Hawthorn (or ‘six‐packs’ as they were known in St Kilda), the stepped layout is rare. No others are included in the HO, either individually or as contributory buildings in a precinct. Kurt Popper, born in Vienna in 1910 was a well‐regarded, Austrian‐trained, émigré architect who arrived in Adelaide in 1939.28 He worked for the Housing Commission of Victoria until 1945 when he established his own largely domestic practice. He designed more than 70 blocks of flats as well as 30 houses. In the 1960s, he was one of Melbourne’s most prolific flat designers. While not in the same league as Harry Seidler or Frederick Romberg, who are of national significance, it seems clear that Popper was one of the more important architects practising in Melbourne immediately after World War 2, especially for his involvement with flats. Frederick Romberg (and Mary Turner Shaw) pioneered the stepped layout Popper used at Kylemore Flats at Newburn, 30 Queens Road, Melbourne, which was completed in 1941. Newburn is a high‐rise block in a very different context. It is still fair to say that the stepped layout was innovative for a development in Surrey Hills. It provided extra privacy not only at the front but also at the rear of each flat. The stepped layout takes advantage of the variable slope of the site and allows irregular differences in levels between flats. Furthermore, it allows the easier entry of cars into the basement garages, perhaps a reason for aligning the flats to the south rather than the north. The balcony of one flat hides the garage of the next. The provision of discrete, enclosed garaging was almost as innovative as the stepped layout. It also reduces the perception of bulk. The Lovell Chen Statement of Significance notes the intactness and surviving integrity of the building fabric. This impressed the Panel when it inspected Kylemore Flats (Incidentally, the building is in very good condition). The Panel disagrees that the materials should be dismissed as ‘run of the mill’. The materials and detailing: the cream bricks, black wrought iron, pergolas, flat roofs and picture windows may be typical but they are to be expected. That so much original fabric survives, such as the letterboxes, is an important part of Kylemore Flats’ aesthetic significance. Even the hard and soft landscaping appears to be intact but neither the Study nor the Review mentions this. The Panel preliminary view concurs with the Lovell Chen finding that Kylemore Flats is of local historical and aesthetic significance. In the letter accompanying the Panel directions and timetable (24 May 2016), the Panel advised: The Panel advised that:  It has been appointed to consider the exhibited Amendment. 28
Several architectural historians have researched Popper. See Harriet Edquist, Kurt Popper: From Vienna to Melbourne Architecture 1939‐1975, School of Architecture and Design, RMIT, 2002. Its ‘Selected List of Works’ does not include Kylemore Flats. Page 59 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016  While it is recognised that Council has supported changes that address issues raised by some submitters, the Panel has not formed a view on these changes.  If the Panel’s consideration of the Amendment raises concerns relating to the changes identified in the 18 April 2016 report to Council, it will provide relevant submitters with an opportunity to present their views at a reconvened panel hearing. At the Directions Hearing, Council indicated the above approach was reasonable. It was noted, if a reconvened hearing proves necessary, that sufficient notice of the reconvened hearing would be required. Panel’s preliminary conclusions 

4.8
The Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills are individually significant and should be retained in the HO (as exhibited). The Statement of Significance should be amended to include the information newly obtained from Council’s building permit archives. Panel recommendation Advise submitters who objected to the inclusion of Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills in the Heritage Overlay that: a) The Panel has formed a preliminary view that the Heritage Overlay should apply to Kylemore Flats, 52 Union Road, Surrey Hills and the associated citation should be updated to include the information newly obtained from Council’s building permit archives. b) The Panel will reconvene the Hearing if they wish to amplify their original written submission. These submitters should advise Council within 14 days of receiving this advice if they wish to be heard by the Panel. c) If these submitters do not wish to be heard by the Panel, its preliminary view will stand. Page 60 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment No. Submitter 1 Sivakumar Balasundaram 2 Tom and Valerie Mortyn 3 Leo Tang and Jianjun Ying 4 Michelle Brelaz Jean‐Luc Brelaz, Stephanie Brelaz, Tom Tolliday, Anton Telehin, Catherine Rousell 5 Beth Knight and Philip Ginnane 6 Jo Anne and Richard Eager 7 Paul Salathiel 8 William Pitt 9 Peter Bond 10 John O’Brien 11 Peter Dobney 12 Judy Aiton 13 David and Glenyce Alexander 14 Anne Briggs 15 Adam Eberbach 16 Alan Goode 17 Chris Lloyd 18 Patricia and John Wyeth 19 Stephen Downes and Eliza Morgans 20 Fan‐Ying Kong 21 Cliff and Dorothy Williams 22 Dennis Hakme 23 Qing Dong Liu 24 Sharon Reeve 25 Gary and Deborah Austin 26 Heather May 27 Justin Begg 28 Jinbo Yang 29 Catherine and Paul O’Malley Page 61 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 30 Robert Metzke 31 Rohan Potter 32 Silvija Freiverts 33 Surrey Hills Progress Association 34 Asako Murray 35 Tess Wearing, Cate Dever, Justin Tongue, Jan Waltham 36 Michael Wang 37 Christine Bing 38 Ian Garratt 39 Arthur Rappos Page 62 of 63 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C177  Panel Report  28 July 2016 Appendix B Document list No. Description Presented by 1 Email chain between Council and expert witnesses for 8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills Anna Booth from Boroondara City Council 2 Submission by City of Boroondara Anna Booth from Boroondara City Council 3 City of Camberwell Building Permit No. 81323 dated 1986 and Architects’ drawings dated 10 May 1996 for works at 17‐19A Barton Street, Surrey Hills Natica Schmeder from Context Pty Ltd 4 Extracts from Sands and McDougall Directory dated 1905, 1910, 1915 and 1920 for 8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills Natica Schmeder from Context Pty Ltd 5 Proposed redrawing of boundaries for English Counties Residential Precinct (including sections proposed to be removed) Anna Booth from Boroondara City Council 6 Submission by Karl Freiverts, representing Silvija Freiverts, Henry and Ineses Pacers and Linda Drezins for 17‐19A Barton Street, Surrey Hills Karl Freiverts 7 Submission by Richard Eager, representing himself and Jo Anne Eager for 26 Weybridge Street, Surrey Hills Richard Eager 8 Submission by Cliff Williams, representing the Surrey Hills Progress Association as President Cliff Williams from SHPA 9 Submission by Paul Salathiel for 7 Arundel Crescent, Surrey Hills Paul Salathiel 10 Submission by Nick Sutton representing Paul and Catherine O’Malley for 8 Kent Road, Surrey Hills Nick Sutton from Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd 11 Extract from The Age, 10 Oct 1889, p 2; Certificate of Title, vol 2055 fol 410969; Extract from Sands and McDougall Directory dated 1892; Summary of entries from Sands and McDougall Directory dated between 1887 and 1974 Bryce Raworth, conservation consultant and architectural historian 12 City of Boroondara, Precinct Statements for Precincts 46, 47 and 48 Nick Sutton from Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd 13 Heritage Issues: Summaries from recent Panel Reports, Monash L51 Panel Report; Bayside C37 and C38 Panel Report Nick Sutton from Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd 14 Submission by Andromahi Christou representing Arthur Rappos for 64 Durham Road, Surrey Hills Andromahi Christou Page 63 of 63