1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. australia and new zealand

2-30
2.
Identifying what is to be controlled
A key issue in developing and administering heritage conservation planning provisions is how to identify places and items of potential heritage value and to undertake the assessment of the significance of those items and places. This component of heritage conservation planning includes the undertaking of heritage studies, the identification and application of criteria and thresholds, preparation of statements of significance, documentation of heritage places and their values and maintaining and making available heritage documentation. 2.1
Appropriate criteria to assess significance at the local level
2.1.1
Scope of issue
In the Consultation Paper we commented that the development, scope and use of criteria for assessing the heritage value of places has been an area of considerable professional and community discussion over at least the last 20 years. The choice of criteria to use to identify and assess places for inclusion in the HO is an on‐going issue for planning authorities, the community and the profession and is a key element of the concern about ‘consistency’ in relation to the application of the HO throughout Victoria. There is currently no requirement to use any specified criteria in assessing the heritage value of places for potential inclusion in the HO. However, the VPP Practice Note ‐ Applying the Heritage Overlay suggests the possible use of the former Australian Heritage Commission’s (AHC) Criteria for the Register of the National Estate (AHC Criteria); Heritage Victoria’s criteria (adopted by the Heritage Council on 6 March 1997 pursuant to sections 8 (c) and 8 (2) of the Heritage Act); and those set out in the 1991 Local Government Heritage Guidelines. Heritage Victoria’s current standard study brief for heritage studies includes the following explanatory note: Heritage Victoria is currently [in 2006] undertaking a review of the heritage values and criteria to be used by consultants when undertaking heritage studies2. In the past, most heritage studies have been undertaken with the consultants using the heritage criteria prepared by the Australian Heritage Commission in the assessment of places of significance. However, some heritage studies have been undertaken with the consultants referring to the values nominated in Section 4(1) (d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This brief proposes the use of the heritage values in the Planning and Environment Act but does not preclude consultants from applying the Australian Heritage Commission criteria. Given the 2006 review of heritage values and criteria, consultants using this brief should expect that at the time when Stage Two is commenced, they will be required to adopt either the heritage values specified in the Planning and 2
We understand this to be a reference to the Review of Criteria and Thresholds.
REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-31
Environment Act 1987 or the Australian Heritage Commission criteria depending upon the outcome of the current review. (Emphasis added) The continuing debate about which criteria to use to assess the heritage worth of places was given added impetus by the publication in early 2004 of the then Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage’s (DEH) National Heritage List Criteria. These criteria (which evolved with minimal amendment from the AHC criteria for inclusion of places on the Register of the National Estate) were developed to identify places of outstanding natural, Indigenous or historic heritage value to the nation and which would be considered for inclusion in the National Heritage List complied pursuant to the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Key questions are whether the National Heritage List criteria – if they were to be adopted ‐ can be used (with or without amendment) to identify places of local heritage significance for inclusion under the HO and whether they can effectively be used to assess the full range of places or elements (including buildings, streetscapes, gardens, landscapes, historical archaeology sites, Indigenous sites, industrial sites and non‐built elements of historical or cultural interest) that may be of heritage value. This issue of finding appropriate criteria to assess significance at the local level and identifying thresholds of significance which local heritage places must achieve before being suitable for inclusion in the HO is discussed in some depth in the Panel report on Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C37 and C38, as well as in the recent Review of Criteria and Thresholds. The Bayside C37 and C38 Panel seemed to accept that the AHC criteria could and should be adapted for use at the local level but was more circumspect about the prospect of practical guidance becoming available about local level thresholds to distinguish places of mere heritage interest from those of heritage significance. The Panel had this to say about thresholds: The Local Government Heritage Guidelines acknowledges the importance of the threshold level of local significance: “It is, however, neither possible nor desirable to conserve every building, work place or object. Some measures must be applied to places, buildings and objects to which these standards apply in order to determine the degree of significance of a particular place. The degree to which a place is significant will determine the appropriate forms of management for the place”. It then goes on (rather unhelpfully, in our view) to state (p6): “Places of local significance are of particular importance to a local community or part of a community which is usually defined by a local government area.” Likewise, the Burra Charter Guidelines, in section 3.0 The Establishment of Cultural Significance, merely outlines the process for collecting and reporting information and drafting the Statement of Cultural Significance. It does not discuss the issue of defining an appropriate threshold of significance at any level. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-32
The Panel report also includes: ·
With respect to defining thresholds of significance, it was widely agreed by different experts appearing before this Panel that there is a substantial degree of value judgement required to assess a place’s heritage value, so that there is always likely to be legitimate, differing professional views about the heritage value of some places. ·
There is a wide range of matters that can be taken into account in making any assessment (e.g. a place’s value in relation to historic, social, aesthetic, cultural factors, its fabric’s integrity and so on), leading to further grounds for differences between judgements. In the Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper, Ian Wight reviews a wide range of sets of criteria including those used in other states. He comments: For Victoria at least, the wholesale adoption of the AHC criteria seems problematic. It may be useful to retain a common practice of referring to the relevant criteria in the Statement of Significance, or, even at the risk of losing clarity, incorporate the relevant criteria in the body of the text in the Statement of Significance. It should be recognised however that this will open the documentation to argument based on AHC guidelines, including the Inclusion and Exclusion Guidelines and Examples. At the very least it would be necessary to rewrite the guidelines to include examples of ‘local’ significance. Following this course also carries the risk of taking us further away from being able to express simply the ‘significance of places important in people’s lives’. In any case it seems inappropriate to depart from the well established practice of relying upon Burra Charter values as the basis of statements of significance. This also has the advantage of being much more closely related to the Planning and Environment Act criteria. The use of Burra Charter values seems to be adequate to establish significance at the State level. Why should this not be the case at the local level? The paper concludes on this issue: ƒ
A standard format for statements of significance would seem to be appropriate for documenting all places recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. ƒ
The standard format should be structured using the relevant Burra Charter values as the key to describing why a place is significant. ƒ
Statements of significance should ideally identify all significant fabric in order to provide clear guidance to those administering the planning scheme. ƒ
AHC criteria are complex and not self explanatory and therefore seem unsuited as the basis for establishing significance at the local level. ƒ
If AHC Criteria are adopted it will be necessary to rephrase the criteria and rewrite the guidelines to make them clearly applicable to places of local significance. ƒ
The 1991 Local Government Guidelines, while out of date in some respects, still provide useful advice on establishing significance. This document should be revised and formally incorporated at Clause 81. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-33
ƒ
In accordance with current practice, structural integrity should not be a consideration in establishing significance. The degree to which a place is intact, however, should be a consideration. Existing guidelines for assessing intactness should be examined with a view to providing general guidance. In relation to thresholds, the paper is less conclusive but does note a role for age and rarity and the possible development of a table of thresholds based on age. 2.1.2
Consultation views
In the informal consultations prior to the release of the Consultation Paper, concern was expressed about the lack of uniformity about how buildings and places at the local government level are assessed and that this disparity in approach undermines community confidence in heritage controls at the local level. A variety of preferences about the use of different criteria were expressed during the consultations including the AHC/National Heritage Criteria, use of the values expressed in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and even simple age ‘cut offs’ (all buildings before a particular date deemed to be of significance). Some people consulted considered that the AHC/National Heritage criteria set the bar too high for identification and assessment at the local level. Others thought that these criteria could be modified to operate at the local level and that the development of some guidelines for applying them at the local level would be helpful. Comment was made that a number of Panels have supported the use of the AHC/National Heritage criteria to identify places of heritage significance in the local context but that these criteria needed review to assist their use at the local level. The multiple roles of heritage studies (potentially identifying places of local, regional, State and national value or significance) was raised as adding to the difficulty in using just one set of criteria for assessment. In addition, the relationship between having adequate information through appropriately funded heritage studies and the application of criteria was also raised. The definition of ‘regional’ significance varies within the State. In Geelong, for example, the region is defined by the municipality boundary and reportedly works well. The consultations also indicated that defining significance ‘thresholds’ to be met before places are recommended for planning scheme protection that are meaningful at the local level is also problematic. 2.1.3
Advisory Committee initial consideration
The Advisory Committee indicated in the Consultation Paper that it did not feel itself in a position at that time to make a firm recommendation on particular criteria and thresholds beyond supporting the benefits of uniformity and ‘speaking the same language’ across municipalities; and the inclusion of the recommended criteria in an updated Practice Note. We indicated that we felt that the matter warranted further REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-34
thought and we particularly requested that people and organisations making formal responses to the Consultation Paper address these issues. We recommended that the Report on Criteria and Thresholds be consulted as it provides a wide overview of the issues. We said that it did seem to us that it was likely that a recommendation would be forthcoming concerning a particular set of criteria as it is a matter of adapting existing sets to suit local purposes. We were not certain, however, that anything very finite would be able to be said about thresholds. It was suggested that it is clearly necessary to adopt an approach that enables places of significance to be extracted from the very large numbers of places which hold some interest – on one view every place in a municipality has something to say about its history. It appeared to us at that time that an investigation that develops from a base of a thematic history and examines whether places can illustrate the identified development themes would be the most useful in defining thresholds. 2.1.4
Formal consultation views
In response to the Advisory Committee’s invitation in the Consultation Paper for particular comment on criteria and thresholds, a large number of formal submissions addressed these issues. The overwhelming response in the submissions was the need for State‐wide consistency both in the use of an agreed set of criteria and in the application of thresholds for determining local significance. This was a more frequently expressed view than a preference for which criteria should be adopted to achieve this consistency State‐wide – a range of views was expressed on the latter issue. One implication for Councils arising from the lack of a consistent set of criteria was expressed by a Council officer as follows: Inconsistency of identification and assessment methodology between different consultants – to the extent that ...[Local Government Authorities]… may feel obliged to engage the one consultant continuously over time to ensure continuity. This is anticompetitive, and, where studies by different consultants exist, make equitable application of the Overlay to different areas difficult. The benefits of consistent criteria were considered by the City of Boroondara to be: Standardised criteria and thresholds will give Councils and owners of heritage places greater certainty when undertaking heritage assessments and will minimize possible conflicts around the appropriateness of criteria and thresholds during the planning scheme amendment process. Defined criteria and thresholds should be detailed in the VPP Practice Note with an explanation of how to apply them. Strong views were expressed in relation to the AHC criteria ‐ both in support of their adoption (with greatly improved guidelines to assist their application in relation to local significance) and against adoption – on the basis of their inappropriateness for determining local significance. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-35
The National Trust commented that: ·
The Trust sees value in the simplicity of the Burra Charter values, but also in the scope of the AHC criteria (adapted to a local focus). If the AHC criteria are preferred, they may be used as a guide, but statements of significance still written in the current HV format, which uses Burra Charter values. Alternatively, statements of significance would need to be written in a different way….. ·
It would be most useful if the HV guidelines for undertaking a study contained expanded recommendations for these aspects. Currently they simply state that a place should be of significance to the locality or community, or to the State, and to use the Burra Charter criteria. However, several submitters contended that the AHC criteria are excessively complex and thus difficult to use at the local level. The comment was made that the criteria are perhaps too finely graded and an experienced heritage consultant commented that when using them for assessment purposes it was necessary to keep rereading the AHC criteria time and time again as the different criteria are not sufficiently well‐
differentiated to remain clear in a reader’s mind – even if one is skilled in heritage matters. Other submitters were more supportive of the continuing use of HV’s criteria. The City of Boroondara commented that: In Council’s latest heritage reviews, amended Heritage Victoria criteria for the assessment of heritage places have been used to good effect. The criteria clearly articulate local cultural heritage values and are easy to use. Based on the information from the Review of Criteria and Thresholds and comments made in various submissions, the Committee has made the following qualitative comparison of the main assessment criteria currently in use in Victorian heritage studies. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-36
Comparison of Heritage Assessment Criteria Advantages
Disadvantages
Advisory Committee
Comments
Burra Charter
Basic reference for cultural
heritage values.
Provides a full process from
identification/ assessment of
significance through to policy.
Does not deal with natural values
(however the AHC/IUCN
Australian Natural Heritage
Charter can be used for this
purpose) or indigenous values
(other than through ‘social’ or
‘spiritual’ value).
Does not provide detailed criteria
to disaggregate or illustrate
values.
The Burra Charter is an important
basis for understanding cultural
heritage values. More elaboration
would be needed for this
document to be useful as
assessment criteria. However, the
values set out would be a useful
basis in other more detailed
assessment criteria.
1991 Local Government Heritage Guidelines
Related to heritage values listed
in P&E Act and the Burra Charter
Clearly expressed and provide
some advice on the types of
places to be considered under
each value.
Includes social value (in line with
Burra Charter), even though not
mentioned in P&E Act.
Does not deal with natural values
or areas, other than scientific
values related to human
understanding of environment.
Spiritual value (added to Burra
Charter 1999) only covered under
‘social’.
Even within cultural heritage, very
focussed on building fabric –
gardens not covered adequately.
Criteria no longer recognised or
used even in Victoria, no potential
for a nation-wide system.
Drafted for use at national level
rather than more geographically
specific areas
Sometimes difficult to distinguish
between criteria without reference
to Application Guidelines
Criteria do not clearly reflect the
types of cultural heritage
significance articulated in the
Burra Charter.
Wording of some criteria may
need to be varied to easily apply
to local heritage studies.
Examples in Guidelines pitched at
too high a level for use to
determine ‘local’ significance.
Criteria are difficult for nonheritage professionals to
understand
Support the use of AHC criteria,
with minor modifications to
address the local level at which
they are to be applied.
Would need revised Application
Guidelines and examples for use
at the local level (could
incorporate some material from
Vic 1991 Guidelines).
Limited to cultural heritage, does
not cover natural/intrinsic or
Initially attractive and supported
by Heritage Council for use at
AHC criteria
Widely used throughout Australia
and adaptable to suit all
significance thresholds.
Covers full spectrum of heritage
– cultural, natural, and
indigenous
Now also – with addition of
indigenous – the National
Heritage Criteria.
Very detailed and explicit subcategories and guidelines for
application.
Heritage Victoria criteria
Incorporates Burra Charter
values (other than spiritual), and
REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-37
Advantages
Disadvantages
adds rarity and
representativeness.
Clearly and simply expressed,
easy to use and understand.
Indigenous values.
No guidance provided on the
types of places that might be
considered under each criterion.
Appears to be more suitable for
individual places than for heritage
areas/precincts or landscapes.
Advisory Committee
Comments
local as well as State level.
City of Melbourne Grading System
Uses language accessible to the
general public.
Limited to buildings and
streetscapes – not very useful
outside inner metropolitan area.
Includes disparate values, or
reasons for significance, in one
categorisation.
Gradings encourage perception
that lower level places do not
need to be retained.
Streetscape descriptions focus on
the buildings that adjoin them and
do not mention elements such as
street furniture, medians and
trees.
This system tends to result in the
‘lower’ grade places being
dismissed as being of marginal
significance. Some Councils may
wish to maintain existing grading
systems for planning management
purposes, but current practice has
moved away from this type of
assessment system.
Conclusions that can be drawn from this comparison of heritage assessment criteria essentially reflect the range of views expressed in submissions, namely: ƒ
The importance of the Burra Charter values to underpin more detailed assessment criteria. ƒ
The potential for modified AHC criteria with relevant guidelines for usage to provide a basis for consistency at all levels of heritage assessment and protection – national, state and local. ƒ
The Heritage Victoria criteria are useful but are unlikely to gain acceptance nationally. ƒ
The City of Melbourne gradings have little or no applicability beyond that municipality. One submission considered that any recommendations about the development/ identification of a uniform set of criteria from the Advisory Committee process would be only part of the process to arrive at ‘... the development of one language’. This submission contended that further consultation with practitioners would be necessary before a preferred set of assessment criteria could be adopted. The Heritage Council noted that: Work is currently being undertaken at the national level by a Working Group reporting to the Environment Protection and Heritage Ministerial Council with the objective of resolving a set of assessment criteria, and thresholds that can be REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-38
applied by all three tiers of government. However, this work is unlikely to be completed until 2008. In the interim, there would be value in Victoria applying the same criteria at State and local government levels. The Heritage Council has adopted 8 criteria pursuant to Sections 8(c) and 8(2) of the Heritage Act 1995 …and recommends their use at the local level. The issue of establishing thresholds is the methodological challenge. Either as part of, or advance of, completion of the national project, Heritage Victoria should develop guidelines to assist municipalities, heritage advisors and the general community in understanding the ‘test’ for achieving the threshold for State or local heritage significance. The desirability of consistent national heritage criteria was supported by the City of Greater Geelong (the planning authority for the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes 7,600 properties subject to the HO). The City submitted that any such criteria should be ‘… very clear, provide inclusion and exclusion guidelines for the various types of heritage places, with illustrated case studies provided where applicable’. It was further suggested that: Consideration be given to the preparation of Heritage Criteria for Victoria that may easily interface with the existing National Heritage Criteria, but provide more specific and relevant guidance (with State, Local and Precinct thresholds given) to the Victorian context. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-39
The RAIA noted that the issue of thresholds is difficult and that: …thresholds and their application will remain to some extent a matter of subjective, albeit often informed, opinion. Nonetheless, it would be useful if there was some guidance on a method (or range of methods) for the establishment of thresholds. Perhaps this may need to be provided at a later stage by Heritage Victoria or Panels Victoria. The methods(s) for the identification of appropriate thresholds is a subject that might itself be encompassed in a future research paper. Such a research paper might not be able to establish a universal threshold to be applied in each municipality, it might identify a method by which each municipality could establish its own localised threshold. The application of a recognized method or approach to the identification and application of thresholds would encourage a more objective and ‘testable’ approach that would be of assistance to owners, local government and Panels. There were relatively few submissions on the issue of thresholds other than to comment generally that more guidance would be helpful. For example, the Victorian Council of Churches commented that: In essence the threshold of significance is really only potentially problematic when applying the social and historical criteria. …. Because there are literally hundreds of church properties in Victoria, the VCC supports a comparative assessment approach to such properties in terms of planning scheme protection. ….. The VCC does not support the use of age and rarity as sole criterion [sic] of threshold for local significance The City of Boroondara commented that: To meet the test for local cultural heritage significance, a place should meet the threshold in one or more criteria. This does not involve an aggregation of all the relevant criteria to meet the threshold. 2.1.5
Final conclusions and recommendations
In order to clarify our comments and recommendations on these issues we think that it is useful to define more clearly some concepts that relate to assessment of heritage significance. As noted above, the P&E Act at section 4 makes reference to places being of various types of cultural or heritage ‘interest’. As one participant in discussions noted, ‘interest’ is arguably a lesser level of value to the community than something of importance or significance. Indeed Panels have differentiated between mere ‘interest’ in a place and its having ‘significance’ sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the HO. We do not think, however, that too much should be made of the terminology: the issue for planning purposes is simply whether a place is of sufficient heritage note in the REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-40
local context to warrant planning controls being put in place to ensure that its heritage value is taken into account when development proposals are being considered. A second term useful to define is heritage ‘values’. In our view, heritage value or significance are synonymous qualities but there are a number of different types or sub‐
categories of value or significance that might be ascribed to heritage places. As earlier noted, section 4(1)(d) of the P&E Act sets out that planning seeks to conserve and enhance buildings, areas and other places that are of ‘scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or are otherwise of special cultural value’. This is one list of types of value. The Burra Charter provides another. That list is set out at Article 1.2 of the Burra Charter in the following manner: Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Thus albeit the P&E Act list does not explicitly include social value and spiritual value, assuming that they can be a category of ‘special cultural value’, the lists are essentially the same except that the Act includes ‘architectural’ value as a separate category. A combined list from the two sources would comprise: scientific, aesthetic (perhaps including architectural), architectural (if a separate value), historic, social (including spiritual) and other special cultural significance/value for past, present or future generations. The Committee does not consider, however, that, alone, the elements of these lists or a combined list are sufficient to guide decision‐making about inclusion in an HO. As we have said, the elements of the list represent the different categories of value that a place may possess but there is further list of criteria required to guide assessment of whether those values can be ascribed to a place. This list of assessment criteria for determining how a place has value is a more detailed list than the list of the values themselves: it is a list which allows the assessment of what type of significance applies. Assessment ‘criteria’ are therefore the third concept involved in an understanding of the assessment process. The assessment of how a place has value is the role for a list such as the AHC criteria. This list is one that would, for example, be used to determine that a place is representative of a class, can illustrate an understanding of our cultural history, has special association with a person or community group, is an exemplar of a type, demonstrates a high degree of technical achievement etc. It is clear that at present all of the AHC criteria do not all sit fully comfortably with each value type: they have a strong bent to built heritage. If they are to be adopted at local level, any adaptation process should incorporate an investigation into whether appropriate criteria are available to assess each type of value. It is convenient to record here that there was some brief mention in discussions of the issue of whether, in applying criteria to identify values, it was appropriate to ascribe significance to a place if it scored well on a number of criteria but did not meet any one REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-41
criterion completely. In our view the correct approach is that a place must ‘pass’ fully on at least one of the criteria to be afforded that particular value. Assessment criteria need to be: ƒ
Capable of addressing not only tangible features such as elements of the built environment or physical landforms but also spiritual/intangible features such as historic/social values. They need to encompass the broadening concept of heritage as earlier discussed. ƒ
Flexible/comprehensive enough to address individual places, a collection of items within a site (industrial or educational complexes) and a group of sites or elements that would comprise a heritage precinct or broad landscape. ƒ
Able to be applied consistently and objectively and lead to reasonably predictable outcomes. We agree with the criticisms of the AHC criteria that they are perhaps too finely‐
grained and are not sufficiently crisply conceptualised or expressed to be altogether useful. It is not satisfactory, in our view, to have to constantly consult the guidelines as a total group and their supporting material in order to interpret each criterion. However, those failings might be overcome with a review of the categories and their descriptions. The fourth concept relevant to the assessment process is ‘threshold’ of significance. Essentially a ‘threshold’ is the level of cultural significance that a place must have before it can be recommended for inclusion in the planning scheme. The question to be answered is ‘Is the place of sufficient import that its cultural values should be recognised in the planning scheme and taken into account in decision‐making?’ Thresholds are necessary to enable a smaller group of places with special architectural values, for example, to be selected out for listing from a group of perhaps hundreds of places with similar architectural values. Factors determining thresholds comprise another list again. They will include such things as intactness, age, rarity, and design or aesthetic quality. An important factor in the selection of places for listing will always be whether there is heritage fabric remaining in situ or other qualities pertaining to the place that are required to be managed. If there is nothing to be managed or that can be managed with the VPP tools available, there is simply no point including the place in the planning scheme. A commemorative plaque is more appropriate. We are of the view that thresholds have the greatest potential to vary from place to place as they will respond to the particular history and cultural fabric of the area under study. It is therefore not possible to make a list of thresholds per se that might be applied across all local government areas. It seems that all that can be developed is a list of factors which will guide the delineation of local thresholds. We would observe in passing that our approach to defining the concepts in the heritage assessment process is similar to that set out in the 1991 Local Government Heritage Guidelines to which Clause 15.11‐2 refers. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-42
All this being said, we now provide our concluding comments and recommendations on this matter. Assessment criteria The Committee considers that there is merit in having assessment criteria that can be applied consistently at the national, State and local levels. There are many major property owners who currently have to grapple with various sets of heritage assessment criteria at all three levels who would welcome one set of criteria with clear guidelines for consistent application. Consistent criteria and more predictable outcomes in relation to heritage matters would also enhance the general public perception of the ‘heritage industry’ which at present suffers from a reputation of considerable subjectivity. We understand that there is already a review process underway at the national level under the auspices of HERCON (the national heritage convention of chairs of heritage councils and directors of heritage). The Committee considers that the outcomes of this process should inform and guide the process for developing heritage assessment criteria to determine local heritage significance. It is understood that recently, in November 2006, as part of this process, the AHC criteria (with the removal of the qualifying clause to criterion (e) (see table below) were reaffirmed as appropriate national model criteria (expressed as the HERCON Model Criteria). It was, however, acknowledged that not all States and Territories would have identical criteria. There is now a movement by all States and Territories towards the HERCON model criteria. These criteria and the comparable AHC criteria are as follows: HERCON model criteria AHC/RNE Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history. a) Importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history. Possession of uncommon rare or endangers aspects of our cultural or natural history. b) Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history. c) Significant heritage value because of the place’s potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments. d) Significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia’s natural cultural places; or a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-43
HERCON model criteria AHC/RNE Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics. e) Significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or group. Importance in demonstrating a high f) degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. Strong or special association with a g) Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group particular community or cultural for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the (Indigenous tradition is dealt with under significance of a place to Indigenous (i)). peoples as part of the continuing and developing cultural traditions. Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history. h) Significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group or persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. i) Significant heritage value because of the place’s importance as part of Indigenous tradition. The Committee considers that the evaluative matters addressed by the AHC/RNE criteria as modified by HERCON are generally appropriate for assessing heritage significance at the local level but that subsets of the criteria, such as those presented in the AHC criteria, could be confusing without the assistance of explanatory guidelines. If it were proposed to adopt subsets of the HERCON criteria based on the AHC criteria, they should be considerably crisped‐up in conceptual distinction and expression. Whether or not subsets are adopted, guidelines would also be required. In this regard, the Queensland Heritage Council’s document Using the criteria: a methodology (2006) (which provides a detailed guide for the use of criteria at the state level) provides a useful model for the level and type of direction required for assessment criteria at the local level. The Committee offers the following ‘model’ of assessment of local heritage significance and identification and application of thresholds at the local level. In this model we see an important role for comparative assessment at the threshold stage and the consideration of the thematic history of the locality at the initial assessment phase. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-44
Element of the process Source/expression of element Committee comments Cultural heritage values to inform/be reflected in assessment criteria Cultural heritage values are variously expressed in the Burra Charter, the objectives of the P&E Act and the Heritage Council criteria. These expressions of heritage values are generally consistent and set the broad framework for assessment but need to be operationalised for assessment of heritage significance at the local level. Assessment criteria AHC/HERCON criteria modified and refined to apply at the local level to identify whether one or more of the above ‘heritage values’ pertain to particular places. These criteria need to have ‘crisper’ categories which are mutually exclusive and described in a manner that is understandable by a ‘reasonable person’. They need to be used to demonstrate how a place demonstrates cultural heritage values including the illustration of themes in the development of the locality. Thresholds To be used to ‘sieve’ places identified as of some significance by the above criteria and determine those that should be listed under the Heritage Overlay. An initial threshold will always be the consideration of whether there is something of heritage value forming an element of the place required to be and capable of being managed by the planning system. The statement of significance for each place needs to say why the place is important and to identify the space or fabric that illustrates this. If it is a place potentially to be managed through planning, a selection process based on threshold criteria and comparative assessment follows. This assessment is to be undertaken within a ‘locality’ delineated by geography and history of development and may be a smaller/different area to the municipal area. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-45
One factor not included in this ‘model’ of assessment is the financial and management resources available to investigate and manage heritage resources. In a sense this is another sieving factor. It may occur at the outset of an investigation into heritage significance or at the end of an investigation when outcomes are being considered. Early in the process decisions will be made that some places will not be investigated as the financial resources are not available or will not be allocated (see the discussion in Section 1.4.9). This is a ‘political’ decision made by a planning authority. In this way, for example, review or gap studies may be deferred or studies of more recent heritage will not be pursued. Consequently it does not mean that a place not included in the HO of a planning scheme is necessarily without heritage significance: it simply may be that the necessary assessment of the values of that place has not occurred. At the end of the process too it is conceivable that, in response to limited funds to manage planning processes, threshold criteria might be chosen to reduce the extent of the application of the HO throughout a municipality. The model described above is one which is intended to guide future evaluative studies. The Committee recognises, however, that the absence of consistent assessment criteria has resulted in some Councils today having to deal with the variable outcomes of heritage studies done under different pre‐amalgamation municipal governments. There is not an obvious solution to reconciling the recommendations based on different criteria, other than the conduct of extensive reviews. This matter is one which might warrant further investigation at State level. Thresholds As discussed above, the definition of ‘thresholds’ to sieve out those places recommended for inclusion in the planning scheme from those of lesser value is an important component of the assessment process. As also discussed, a fundamental threshold is whether there is something on the site or forming part of the heritage place that requires management through the planning system. While this consideration may exclude an initial number of places otherwise suitable for listing, even further sieving is normally applied to the potential candidates for listing. This most often occurs where there is a large number of essentially similar places. As we have commented, we see the development of thresholds as something which responds to the particular characteristics of the area under investigation and its heritage resources. Nevertheless the types of factors that might be deployed to establish local thresholds can be specified State‐wide. They would include rarity in the local context, condition/degree of intactness, age, design quality/aesthetic value, their importance to the development sequence documented in the thematic environmental history. This process is essentially a comparative one within the local area. That area may not coincide with the municipal area. Its definition should be informed by the thematic environmental history. If the term ‘regional’ is to be used, this term should be clearly defined in the particular context. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-46
The Committee recommends that: ƒ
The cultural heritage values presented in the Burra Charter and the P&E Act and the Heritage Council criteria should be identified as being the various types of heritage value that may be ascribed to a place and be used to provide the framework for development of an agreed set of assessment criteria to be used State‐wide to identify items of local significance in terms of those values. ƒ
The assessment criteria at the local level should be based on the HERCON‐
modified AHC criteria. The criteria should be modified to suit local area analysis and allow each of the values above to be individually assessed. ƒ
A list of factors relevant to defining local significance thresholds should be developed and promoted for State‐wide application. ƒ
Advice should be provided to planning authorities about the role of comparative assessment in the threshold stage of the listing process. ƒ
The above matters including the outcome of the work on assessment criteria and threshold factors should be included in a revised or new Planning Practice Note covering values, criteria and thresholds with detailed guidance provided on how to approach the parts of the assessment process. The advice must be suitable to the full range of circumstances that might be encountered in heritage studies across the State. 2.2
Intactness and structural integrity and condition of fabric
2.2.1
Scope of issue
Should structural integrity or condition, and intactness, of a building ever be criteria in the assessment of significance? 2.2.2
Consultation views
This issue was considered in detail in the Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper and, to a limited extent, in our consultations. The Review of Criteria and Thresholds noted that it is widely accepted that structural integrity or condition should not be a criterion in assessing heritage significance. It would be contrary to the fundamental principle in the Burra Charter that …the consideration of significance should not be coloured by consideration of the management consequences of listing. There are also good policy reasons why condition should not affect the assessment of criteria: if it were to be a factor, it would encourage owners of heritage properties who were opposed to listing to allow them to fall into disrepair. However, the paper notes that commentators drew a clear distinction between structural integrity or condition and intactness. It was observed that a place could be altered to the extent that its significance had been fatally diminished and this needs to be taken into account. The Review of Criteria and Thresholds comments: There was a suggestion that there should be official guidelines to assist in determining the degree of past changes that could or should be accepted before a REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-47
building could be said to have lost its significance. A number of studies had made good attempts at this and these might simply be pulled together. Our consultations suggested that heritage studies use intactness as a key test and means by which buildings are distinguished/graded. It is a moderating factor in assessing significance but may be less critical if the place has historical rather than aesthetic/architectural values. The critical issue is whether changes have significantly compromised the presentation and/or significance of the building. 2.2.3
Advisory Committee initial consideration and draft recommendations
The Committee agrees with the conclusions of the Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper on this matter. We recognise, however, that structural integrity or condition may be a relevant consideration at the time a permit is sought. That matter is considered under a later heading. Our draft recommendations were: ƒ
Condition, including structural integrity, should not be a consideration in assessing significance. ƒ
If it is relevant to the values attributed to it, the degree to which a place is intact should be a consideration in assessing significance. ƒ
Existing guidelines for assessing intactness should be examined with a view to providing general guidance. 2.2.4
Formal consultation views
The submissions supported the notion that intactness (which is sometimes referred to as ‘integrity’) and condition or structural integrity should be considered differently. There was agreement that the degree of intactness is relevant to an assessment of significance, provided that it relates to the values attributed to the place. It is critical that intactness be clearly articulated in the citation sheet and statement of significance, including whether later changes contribute to significance. Submissions highlighted the need for guidelines on the role of intactness ‐ prepared by heritage specialists – to facilitate a consistent approach, particularly for the most common type of places. It was pointed out, however, that the threshold of intactness could vary between regions. It was suggested that in compiling common criteria, previous studies that have discussed this matter should be referred to. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-48
2.2.5
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee maintains its earlier conclusions in relation to this issue. We recommend: ƒ
While intactness should be relevant in an assessment of significance, condition or structural integrity should not influence the inclusion of a place in a HO. ƒ
Guidelines for assessing intactness should be developed with a view to providing a consistent approach. These should be included in a Planning Practice Note, Heritage Victoria advisory note and/or in the standard heritage study brief. 2.3
Delineating the heritage place
2.3.1
Scope of issue
Identifying the whether a place is of significance and its extent is a three stage process, involving evaluation of a site and its components during fieldwork and research, specification of the significant fabric or elements in the statement of significance and delineation of the place on the planning scheme maps. This section deals with the first two issues. Various Ministerial Panels have considered the question of the conceptualisation of the extent of a significant heritage place, particularly in relation to heritage areas or precincts, industrial sites and large rural properties. The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C49 Ministerial Panel (February 2004) pointed out that the Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay does not provide any guidance on identification of heritage precincts. It noted that practice within the profession suggested that precincts should contain a substantial proportion of buildings that were assessed as being of precinct heritage significance, as defined in the statement of significance. A statement of significance should outline what is significant, why it is significant and how the place demonstrates the heritage significance. The Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C34 Ministerial Panel (April 2004) considered criteria for definition of precincts. They suggested that high‐integrity precincts should: be homogenous in building form and style; relate to a defined period; optimise community benefits from conservation and minimises private costs (for example by including as few non‐contributory properties as possible); and have clear and logical visual boundaries. The Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C37 and C38 Ministerial Panel (December 2004) also discussed the question of precinct boundaries and noted that, while the inclusion of a place in the area of an important early survey was often quoted as one basis of significance, the survey boundaries were not shown in the Thematic Environmental History, nor used as a boundary for any proposed precinct. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-49
The Corangamite Planning Scheme Amendment C3 Ministerial Panel (July 2006) dealt with the issue of delineating the extent of significance on rural properties. The report commented: In particular, the Panel considers that work needs to be done to record the nature of the heritage significance of rural properties and the heritage items on those properties. The Panel considers that the heritage significance of these places may extend well beyond the ‘homestead’ building. Without an understanding of the heritage significance of the place, ie whether its significance relates to the architecture of the homestead, the association of the place with a particular person, or the role of the place in the history of pastoral settlement in Victoria, it is difficult to determine the appropriate setting or context of the ‘homestead’ and the extent of the property that should be included in the Overlay area. The report went on to discuss the practical difficulties and inequities that could arise from the application of the HO to extensive areas being used for ongoing farming operations. Other Panels have identified similar problems with regard to industrial sites in continuing use. Both the 1991 Local Government Heritage Guidelines and the Planning Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay recognise that some land surrounding the heritage place should be included in the area to which controls apply, in order to protect the setting and context of the place. The Heritage Studies Review identified problems with consultants being provided with inadequate base maps for undertaking heritage studies, and the difficulty of defining all significant elements at the time of the study. Some consultants considered the requirement to map places was too onerous. The relationship of these issues to HO mapping is discussed in Section 3.9. Another issue is that sometimes significant buildings are situated in precincts which do not have the same basis of significance as the buildings themselves: the buildings’ significance is not related to the theme/value for which the precinct has been identified as significant. Under current scheme arrangements unless a building within a precinct is to be subject to different controls from the rest of the precinct, it is directed that it should be included within the same HO. Problems can arise in making decisions about the building when this different basis of significance is not mentioned separately in the statement of significance. The decision by VCAT in PAP Nominees Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2006] VCAT 2102 is one case where this was important. Two Victorian era shops in an activity centre zoned Business 1 were allowed to be demolished because the Tribunal considered them ʹpoor quality buildingsʹ and they were not mentioned in the statement of significance. The VCAT case relating to the ‘Gentle Bunyip’ property in Clifton Hill ‐ First Katone Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2000] VCAT 1675 – is another case where this matter arose. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-50
2.3.2
Consultation views
The question of delineation of the extent of heritage significance was discussed in several consultation meetings. One participant commented that, in some municipalities, heritage precincts fit together like pieces of a jigsaw and it is not clear how either their thematic focus or their boundaries have been defined or how they have been distinguished from each other. Other comments included the importance in precincts of other elements besides buildings, such as works (brick or bluestone curbs, street furniture, signage), trees and gardens and the spaces between built elements. There was general agreement about the importance of statements of significance/ citations in defining the important elements of a precinct and outlining the management issues associated with it. There was also broad consensus about the need for clearer guidance on the definition of precincts. Questions raised included whether it should be necessary for precincts identified as significant to include a specified ratio of significant or contributory buildings to non‐significant buildings, such as 50 per cent or 80 per cent significant. Rural and regional participants commented that delineating significant precincts was generally more difficult in rural towns as potential precincts tend to span a longer period of development (or redevelopment) thus having a greater mix of development styles, as well as a greater mixture of uses. Other matters concerning the identification of significant places and their extent included: 2.3.3
ƒ
The possibility that thematically‐linked groups of buildings or places – for example houses designed by a single architect or seaside guesthouses of a particular era – could be included under a single statement of significance, even though physically separated. ƒ
The particular issues associated with sites that contain places of State significance located within a wider property or complex that is of local significance. Advisory Committee initial views
As is the case with many of the issues associated with identifying and managing places of heritage significance, the key to achieving an understanding of the extent of places of heritage significance is the statement of significance, supported by other elements of the citation and by mapping at an appropriate scale. Desirably, heritage studies should include at least sketch maps that identify the individual components of significance in a heritage place and the physical relationship between them. The question of how these are then shown on the HO maps in the planning scheme is a matter to be decided at a later date. Where sites contain elements of State significance as well as of local importance, it is desirable to map these components separately and later designate them as separate REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-51
places in the HO schedule so that decisions concerning the future management of parts of the site would be made by the appropriate body (that is Heritage Victoria or the responsible authority). Similarly, in delineating the extent of significant precincts that surround buildings of significance not relating to the basis of significance of the precinct, it is desirable that those buildings are identified as a separate significant place and a separate statement of significance prepared. Alternatively, if the buildings are not delineated as separate places from the remainder of the precinct, it is imperative that the precinct statement of significance mentions any such anomalous but otherwise significant buildings and describes the basis of their significance. 2.3.4
2.3.5
Preliminary conclusions and draft recommendations
ƒ
Statements of significance should describe clearly all elements of a place which are assessed as contributing to its heritage significance and where appropriate should identify any buildings or other elements with a different basis of significance which may be included in the precinct whether that significance is to the State or to the locality. ƒ
Greater guidance should be given in the Planning Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay concerning criteria to guide decisions on delineating precincts. The Committee does not necessarily believe that definitive advice will be forthcoming about how the proportion of significant to non‐significant buildings or elements will influence precinct (or individual place) delineation but it seems possible that a range of factors might be identified such influencing the delineation decision, such as the geographic distribution of the elements of the place, whether the place illustrates historic themes or a particular period of development, whether it is a defined part of the municipality recognised by the community etc. ƒ
Heritage studies, where dealing with rural properties or complex sites, should include sketch maps or plans that identify the physical location of significant components of the place and their relationship to each other, as a basis for later HO mapping. Formal consultation views
A number of submissions responded to the discussion and recommendations in this section, mostly in a positive way. Matters raised included: Importance of statements of significance in identifying extent of significance ƒ
There was general agreement that statements of significance should describe clearly all elements of a place – including of a precinct ‐ which contribute to its heritage significance and should also identify any other places of local (or higher) heritage significance which happen to fall within the precinct but have a different basis of significance. ƒ
The statement of significance should be the source of conservation policy and management decisions for the relevant heritage place. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-52
ƒ
The importance of statements of significance in delineating the place should be stressed in an amended Planning Practice Note (ie. an update of the PPN Applying the Heritage Overlay). ƒ
Views about mapping of significant elements in heritage studies/citations varied. Some submitters considered that the significant parts of a place should always be mapped (separately from the HO maps, which act to trigger controls). Others felt this was only necessary when an accurate description could not be given in words. ƒ
The National Trust pointed out the need for clarity about the role and nature of the statement of significance within the more comprehensive citation (or data sheet) applying to each place. The Burra Charter envisages the statement of significance as being pithy and summarising why and how a place is significant. To expect it also to provide information on all of the significant components of a place may be trying to add a conservation management role that is not really appropriate. Amongst other things, this could spark the need to change the statement of significance if parts of a place were altered or demolished. This is likely to be a particular problem with large or complex sites, which would be better managed through the use of a conservation management plan. ƒ
A model format for citations should be developed. Consistency between the various parts of a citation is essential. ƒ
The City of Boroondara considered that identifying all places of individual significance within precincts in a statement of significance would be cumbersome and suggested it is more practical to attach a list of significant or contributory places as a supporting document. ƒ
The statement of significance for a place should be referenced in the decision guidelines in Clause 43.01. ƒ
There was support for the view that all individually significant places, whether or not they are located in a precinct, should have individual statements of significance. However, it was recognised that in some areas this process could take time to achieve for existing large precincts. Delineation of precincts ƒ
The City of Greater Geelong and other submitters pointed out that, under the terms of the Burra Charter, a heritage precinct or area is regarded as a ‘heritage place’ in the same way as an individual site is a place. Delineating a precinct needs to give consideration to the fabric within it that contributes to its significance, as well as understanding its historical development and relation to historic themes. ƒ
Significant fabric or components in relation to historic themes or associations does not need to be confined to buildings or works – they may involve vegetation, spaces between built elements, the broader landscape setting and/or subdivision patterns. ƒ
The key issue in delineation of precincts should be integrity in the local context. ƒ
Submitters stressed that there are different types of precincts: suburban, commercial/township, landscape, school, farm, and industrial. ƒ
Precincts in urban areas may cover more than one significant phase of development (e.g. mansion house in rural area, subdivision in the early 20th Century, closer settlement in the interwar period). REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-53
ƒ
It was generally agreed that more guidance needs to be given on criteria or guidelines for delineating precincts and on thresholds that these should meet. Guidance could be developed as part of preparation of National criteria and thresholds, or in the Victorian context alone. It should then be included in an updated PPN. Percentage of significant/contributory buildings (fabric) within a precinct ƒ
There were varying views on this question. One submitter considered that the proportion of significant or contributory buildings within a precinct should not be used as a measure of delineation, unless it could be shown to represent a critical threshold below which people ceased to appreciate the heritage significance of the area. Thresholds should not be arbitrary or subjectively applied. Other submitters pointed out that precincts in rural or regional towns are likely to be more heterogeneous than those in metropolitan areas. These commentators considered that a 50 per cent representation of significant buildings/components was an acceptable proportion. Grouping of thematically related buildings/sites as one place ƒ
Submitters who referred to this matter agreed with the Consultation Paper’s suggestion that thematically related buildings or sites that did not adjoin each other or form a geographical grouping could, nevertheless, be treated as a single heritage place and share a statement of significance and HO number. Treatment of areas (‘buffers’) adjoining heritage places ƒ
2.3.6
One submission requested a recommendation on this matter. This is dealt with in section 3.17. Final conclusions and recommendations
The comments on the Consultation Paper make it clear that there is a need to define our terminology in relation to statements of significance. The Advisory Committee has attempted to distinguish in its discussions and draft recommendations between the citation (also known as a data sheet in many local heritage studies) ‐ which contains a number of common elements, including a statement of significance, description, history, extent, comparative analysis, assessment of integrity or intactness, heritage management recommendations and references ‐ and the statement of significance itself. Much has been written and much discussion has taken place in heritage circles in Victoria about the form and content of statements of significance. As noted in the comments above, the Burra Charter envisages the statement of significance as being pithy and summarising why and how a place is significant. A few submitters considered that this was at odds with our suggestion that the statement of significance should identify all significant components of a place, particularly when it comes to precincts containing (potentially) hundreds of significant or contributory places. However, many comments were received in favour of the proposition. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-54
While we recognise that there may be practical difficulties in large precincts, we still believe that to assist decision‐making it is essential for the statement of significance to list (however briefly) all components of a place that contribute to its heritage significance. In the case of a precinct, this may simply involve listing: ‘individually significant places that contribute to the precinct’ (which should – eventually – have their own citations, including statements of significance) by address or description; ‘individually significant places that are not contributory to the precinct’ (again with their own citation); and ‘other buildings/components that contribute to the precinct’ (some of which may also have citations). Criteria for the definition of precincts should take into account: ƒ
the geographic distribution of the important elements of the place, including buildings and works, vegetation, open spaces and the broader landscape setting ƒ
whether the place illustrates historic themes or a particular period or type of development ƒ
whether it is a defined part of the municipality recognised by the community ƒ
whether non‐built elements such as the subdivision pattern contribute to its significance. The criteria suggested by the Hobsons Bay C34 Panel, discussed earlier, may be appropriate for inner urban, relatively homogenous precincts but appear to us to be too prescriptive for application in other situations. With regard to the proportion of significant (or significant and contributory) buildings that is desirable within precincts, we consider that the stress on built fabric inherent in this question is misleading. Precincts need to be coherent, thematically and/or in terms of design, and need to be justifiable in relation to protection of significant components. It is neither possible nor desirable to set hard and fast rules about percentages. The Committee recommends: ƒ
Statements of significance should be referenced in the decision guidelines to Clause 43.01. ƒ
Statements of significance should describe clearly all elements of a place – including of a precinct – which are assessed as contributing to its heritage significance and, where appropriate, should identify any buildings or other elements with a different basis of significance (whether that significance is to the State or to the locality) which may be located within the boundaries of a heritage precinct. ƒ
A model format for citations, including statements of significance, should be developed by HV and DPCD. Statements of significance for places listed under the HO should be included in an incorporated document referenced in the HO. ƒ
Heritage studies, where dealing with rural properties or complex sites, should include sketch maps or plans that identify the physical location of significant components of the place and their relationship to each other, as a basis for later HO mapping. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-55
2.4
ƒ
Thematically related buildings or sites that do not adjoin each other or form a geographical grouping should, where appropriate, be able to be treated as a single heritage place and share a statement of significance and HO number. ƒ
Greater guidance should be given in the Planning Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay concerning criteria to guide decisions on delineating precincts. Ambit of elements to be controlled
As referred to in Section 1.4.1 above, the identity of places and items that constitute ‘heritage’ has changed and expanded in recent times; and, in parallel, the need for statutory protection of new types of heritage places has concurrently widened. As also mentioned at Section 1.4.3, a blurry line has developed between ‘heritage’ and ‘neighbourhood character’ which emerged as a significant issue in many parts of metropolitan Melbourne in the 1990s. The range of items and places being identified as of heritage significance at the local level now indeed covers almost every aspect of the built/man‐made environment and many elements of the natural environment. Some of the diverse places and items are listed in Section 2.4.1. Not listed there are post‐contact sites of Aboriginal interest and Heritage Rivers which add further to the breadth of statutory heritage items. This diversity provides a challenge in assessing heritage values and designing the heritage provisions in the VPP: the controls must be sufficiently flexible and robust to recognise and manage that not inconsiderable diversity. The controls nevertheless must be enable property owners to appropriately use and develop their properties. 2.5
Sites of scientific interest
2.5.1
Scope of issue
As earlier noted, one of the objectives of planning in Victoria, as listed in the P&E Act at section 4(1)(c) is: To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. Also as earlier discussed, Clause 15.11 of the SPPF includes a similar but expanded objective: To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance or other special value important for scientific or research purposes, as a means of understanding our past, as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State. The ‘General implementation’ measures at Clause 15.11 require that: ·
Planning and responsible authorities should identify, conserve and
protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. These include (amongst other things): REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-56
- Places of botanical, zoological or other scientific importance - Places and sites of geological, palaeontological or other scientific importance, including rock formations and fossil sites. Despite the apparently broader recognition accorded to places of scientific importance under the SPPF clause, the heritage provisions in the VPP focus principally on protecting the built fabric of places of aesthetic or historical interest. In practice, protection of places of scientific significance is generally either ignored or dealt with under other overlays in the VPP. An exception is significant trees – including those identified by the National Trust – which are included in the schedule to the HO in some planning schemes. However, it can be argued that this control is not necessarily the most appropriate for their protection, and some Councils have used the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) instead. Places of botanical or zoological significance (often combined as ‘biodiversity’ values) are usually covered under either an ESO or a VPO. Substantial support for their protection, in relation to both identification of sites and policy development – including through referral authority advice – is provided by DSE. A number of studies have been carried out – many under the aegis of the former Land Conservation Council – in regions of Victoria to identify sites of geological and/or geomorphological significance, but very few of them have been carried through into planning schemes. Some municipalities – for example Bass Coast and Corangamite – have taken the initiative and included identified sites of geological/geomorphological significance in ESOs or SLOs specifically tailored for the purpose. VCAT has recently upheld a Bass Coast Council decision to refuse a permit on the basis of the damage that would be caused to a significant coastal landform. Earlier decisions such as that by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Appeal 1995/029224 Higgins v Colac Otway Shire have also considered the effects of proposals on volcanic features of significance. The Heritage Act provides – in line with the Burra Charter – for the recognition of places of scientific significance. However, the Heritage Council has interpreted this as ‘the importance of the place or object in demonstrating or being associated with scientific or technological innovations or achievements’. The intrinsic value of a natural place of scientific significance does not seem to be catered for under this criterion. Likewise, where natural places such as geological features are recognised as having historic value, this appears to be due to their connection with the advancement of geological knowledge, rather than to their scientific values per se. This approach seems to be somewhat at variance with the treatment of places of scientific significance under the P&E Act. Heritage Rivers – defined under the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 (Heritage Rivers Act) – constitute a further category of heritage places of scientific significance. That Act provides for the protection of public lands in certain parts of rivers and river catchment areas in Victoria which have significant nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes. Responsible authorities are unlikely to need to deal with many planning applications directly relating to these areas. However, there could be REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-57
value in identifying them in planning schemes so that any potential impacts on the values of the Heritage River can be taken into account in decisions relating to adjoining land. 2.5.2
Views from literature and/or consultation
The issue of natural places of scientific significance was discussed in only a few of the consultation meetings, but interested practitioners felt that the current HO is not appropriate for such sites and that an ESO or, in the case of significant trees a VPO, would be more appropriate. Places of geological/geomorphological significance seem to be the ‘orphan children’ of the scientific heritage category. There is no identifiable ‘champion’ at State level; indeed the Advisory Committee was told by several planners that any request to DSE (now DPCD) or the Department of Primary Industry for advice on such sites was met with a statement that it was not their responsibility. The issue of identification and evaluation of sites was raised in consultations. As noted above, a number of studies/inventories exist, but these are not exhaustive. Detailed surveys are required to establish significance, since quite subtle variations in landform can be important. Despite the lack of comprehensive coverage, there was general agreement that the known sites should be protected in planning schemes. The Committee was advised that the Geological Society of Australia (Vic)(GSA(Vic)) is working though the State identifying places of known geological/geomorphological significance on 1:250,000 map sheets. 2.5.3
Advisory Committee preliminary views
It appears that there is a need for clearer direction on appropriate VPP tools to deal with places of scientific significance, particularly geological/ geomorphological sites. The existing HO is not suitable for this purpose, as its decision guidelines and other provisions are focussed on conservation of built form, fabric and heritage character. The Committee believes that perhaps the best option for protection of geological/geomorphological sites would be the use of the ESO. It is important that the ESO, like the HO, requires a permit for subdivision as well as development. The schedule to the ESO is very flexible and can be tailored to the particular needs of this category of heritage place. There may be advantages in DSE (now DPCD) preparing a ‘model schedule’ that planning authorities could use to protect such sites, with appropriate permit exemptions and decision guidelines. With regard to significant trees, the Committee considers that individual trees or groups of trees of historic significance – for example, in gardens, avenues, cemeteries, or other designed landscapes – can be dealt with appropriately under the existing HO. However, many of the trees or groups of trees registered by the National Trust are significant because of their scientific characteristics rather than their historical value: REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-58
they may represent the extremity of the range of a species; be an example of hybridisation between species that is restricted in extent; or be of an unusual form. These types of trees are probably best protected under a VPO – or possibly an ESO if a group of trees covers an extensive area. Identification of Heritage Rivers in planning schemes would also be best achieved by use of an ESO. Ideally, this should cover a buffer area or corridor adjacent to the river, and the schedule should be designed to require permits only for those uses which have the potential to impact on the values of Heritage Rivers. 2.5.4
2.5.5
Preliminary conclusions and draft recommendations
ƒ
More guidance should be given to responsible authorities about the appropriate VPP tools for protecting places of scientific significance. This could include some cross references in the SPPF (Clause 15.11) and suitable treatment in the VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay ‐ which might need to be renamed to something like ‘Protecting Heritage Values under Overlays’ rather than the current title. ƒ
DSE (now DPCD) should prepare a model ESO schedule containing appropriate permit exemptions and decision guidelines relevant to sites of geological/geomorphological significance. ƒ
The Victorian Government could identify an agency – perhaps GeoScience Victoria – to act as a champion for protection of sites of geological/geomorphological significance, to accord with the prominence that they are given as heritage places in the SPPF, and to provide advice to responsible authorities. ƒ
DSE (now DPCD) should consider preparing a model ESO schedule containing appropriate permit exemptions and decision guidelines relevant to areas adjacent to Heritage Rivers declared under the Heritage Rivers Act. Formal consultation views
This section provoked an unexpected level of response. Several submitters commented that previous controls in planning schemes related to sites of geological/ geomorphological significance (henceforth described as sites of geological significance) had been lost in the transition to the new‐format schemes. There was widespread support for the conclusions and draft recommendations, with most submitters agreeing that the HO is not the most appropriate VPP tool to identify and protect sites of scientific significance. Preparation of a model ESO schedule for such sites was generally endorsed, with various submitters stressing the need for additional guidance to be provided in the PPN. There was also support for the idea of renaming the PPN to ‘Protecting Heritage Values under Overlays’. Other comments included: ƒ
The National Trust pointed out that part of the problem with the identification and protection of heritage places that are significant for their scientific values is confusion about whether the significance can or should be intrinsic, or whether it has to be related to human activity or perception, for example, associated with REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-59
technological or design innovations or possessing educational value or research potential. ƒ
A point of reference within DSE would be required for sites of geological significance, even if GeoScience Victoria were to take on greater responsibility for advice on development proposals affecting these areas. ƒ
There is a need to examine the past extensive surveys of sites of scientific significance and determine the extent to which these have been incorporated in planning schemes. Further work may be required to encourage use of this information. ƒ
DSE commented that identifying Heritage Rivers in planning schemes may be desirable for the sake of transparency – that is that other legislation which governs the use and development of land should as a matter of principle be linked in some way to land management under the P&E Act. DSE suggested that there may be other public land controls which could also be reflected in planning schemes in a similar way, but these were beyond the scope of this review. ƒ
An extensive submission from the GSA(Vic) provided details of the process and protocol used by the Society to assess or review the geological significance of sites. The evaluation method considers both sites that are representative of a class of features and those that have outstanding characteristics. The Society pointed out that geological heritage is not mining heritage, nor is it necessarily related to aesthetics. GSA(Vic) confirmed the Advisory Committee’s impression that the level of Victorian Government support for or interest in identifying and protecting sites of geological significance has waned significantly in the past 10‐15 years. The level of relevant scientific expertise in State agencies has also fallen. The database of geological sites maintained by GSA(Vic) was originally a joint venture with the former Department of Conservation, Forests and Land (later Natural Resources and Environment). It is now maintained solely by the Society, with no assistance from government. It contains over 2000 sites and is the only up‐to‐date register of such sites in Victoria. The Society agreed with the Advisory Committee’s description of geological sites as the ‘orphan child’ of scientific heritage category. It also agreed that the ESO would be the most appropriate tool in the planning system, but not with the proposition that DSE should prepare a model schedule – due to their lack of expertise in this area. The same concern applied to the Advisory Committee’s suggestion that GeoScience Victoria could be the appropriate body to act as a referral authority. The Society suggested that there is a need to ensure that support is provided to enable the information contained in the GSA(Vic) register of geological sites to be made available to planning authorities and developers – or an equivalent State system established and maintained. To develop the referral function, the designated State agency will need additional funding to recruit skilled staff or to develop long‐term arrangements with suitable consultants. The collaborative relationship that GSA(Vic) REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-60
has developed with Melbourne Water could serve as a model, but would need to be funded appropriately. GSA(Vic) advised that its heritage subcommittee would be prepared to work closely with state agencies to improve the current system. 2.5.6
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee notes the detailed responses on this matter and the enthusiasm shown by many submitters for examining and extending the way in which planning schemes can be used to protect sites of scientific significance. The Committee also notes the links between geological and geomorphological features and Aboriginal cultural values highlighted in the recently introduced Aboriginal Heritage Act and its Regulations. This factor lends to the importance of dealing with these sites as part of the community’s heritage. Further, since completing the Consultation Paper, the Committee has become aware of the Geopark concept, under the auspices of UNESCO’s International Network of Geoparks programme. Geoparks are territories encompassing sites of scientific importance for geological reasons, which may also have archaeological, ecological and cultural value. They are envisaged as fostering sustainable socio‐economic development, providing education on geo‐scientific and other environmental values and promoting best practice in Earth heritage conservation and its integration into sustainable development strategies. Approximately 50 UNESCO Global Geoparks have been recognised across the world to date, with a target of up to 500. A UNESCO assessment team has recently visited Australia to evaluate the proposal for recognition of the volcanic region of south‐western Victoria and south‐eastern South Australia as the Kanawinka Global Geopark – which would be a first for Australia. The Committee believes that the Geopark concept has potential for other areas of Victoria and the model provided by the Kanawinka proposal could be usefully adopted elsewhere, for example in the Central Victorian goldfields region or the Gippsland Lakes. If the Geopark designation occurs, it may be appropriate that efforts be directed to ensuring that planning controls conserve and enhance the features of the landscape that afford it Geopark status. In the context of the current inquiry, the Committee accepts the view put by GSA(Vic) that the lack of expertise in the State Government agencies may make it difficult to provide appropriate planning and referral advice to planning authorities wishing to protect sites of geological significance under their planning schemes. We consider that increased skills in geology and soil science in relevant agencies would be an advantage in terms of providing expertise and advice on scientific heritage, as well as in relation to other overlays. The Committee also accepts the distinction made in the National Trust submission between places that are primarily significant for their intrinsic environmental values (even when these can be seen to constitute heritage) and those natural or semi‐natural REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-61
places whose significance is related to human activity or perception, e.g. associated with innovation, educational potential or contribution to knowledge or research. In general terms, the former are possibly best protected under ‘environmental’ overlays such as the ESO or VPO, whereas the latter could be more appropriately managed under the HO (or in some cases the SLO). The Committee recommends: ƒ
More guidance should be given to responsible authorities about the appropriate VPP tools for protecting places of scientific significance. This could include some cross references in the SPPF (Clause 15.11) and suitable treatment in the VPP Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay ‐ which might need to be renamed to something like ‘Protecting Heritage Values under Overlays’ rather than the current title. ƒ
DPCD, in consultation with DSE and GSA(Vic) should prepare a model ESO schedule containing appropriate permit exemptions and decision guidelines relevant to sites of geological significance. ƒ
The Victorian Government should consider identifying an agency or other appropriate body to act as a champion for protection of sites of geological significance, to accord with the prominence that they are given as heritage places in the SPPF, and to provide advice to responsible authorities. ƒ
The Victorian Government should give consideration to developing a formal relationship with GSA(Vic) to support the continued assessment and review of sites of geological significance, the maintenance and updating of the Society’s database and its availability for planning purposes. 2.6
Culturally significant landscapes
2.6.1
Scope of issue
Questions have been raised as to whether the HO is appropriate for protecting all types of heritage landscapes, or whether other VPP provisions could be more effective. A number of seminars and workshops have been held in recent years to discuss protection of culturally significant landscapes. Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council have issued Landscape Assessment Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Significance (June 2002) (Landscape Assessment Guidelines). These guidelines note that: Cultural significance in landscapes may be aesthetic, archaeological, architectural (for structures in the landscape), historical, scientific or social.’ Focus of guidelines is on landscapes that are predominantly significant for their cultural heritage values. The Landscape Assessment Guidelines also suggested that ‘landscape heritage’ should be distinguished from ‘landscape character’ as a concept. They define the former as: Cultural landscape or culturally significant landscape: a geographical area that reflects the interaction between humans and the natural environment. While all landscapes show a human‐environment interaction, Heritage Victoria assesses REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-62
only those landscapes which are predominantly culturally significant for registration and/or protection purposes and which are also typically post‐European settlement places. Culturally significant landscapes are divided into three types: Designed landscapes (includes trees, avenues, parks, gardens, cemeteries, plazas, etc. and places constructed for aesthetic reasons), often designed or implemented at a specific point or points in time. Organically evolved landscape, developed over time, often through incremental changes brought about by patterns of use. Will typically include designed landscape elements. Associative landscape, primarily based on powerful religious, artistic, or cultural associations of the place and can be in relation to natural elements as well as more typically associated material cultural evidence, ie. often intangible (can be largely ‘natural’, apparently unmodified landscapes with associated cultural values). Documents relating to this association are especially important. In 2004 Heritage Victoria reviewed the extent to which the various landscape types (and major categories within them) were covered by heritage studies. It concluded that designed landscapes and some types of associative landscapes – such as those related to historical events or prominent people, or semi‐natural sites that were a focus for recreation or other community activities – were often identified as having cultural heritage significance. This was less likely with ‘organically evolved’ landscapes (also known as ‘vernacular’ landscapes), due to the larger scale and physical problems of identification and assessment. It is likely that culturally significant landscapes included under the HO show a similar selectivity. The recent HC/HV Guidelines have a section on landscapes, gardens and trees. This includes considerations relevant to extensive landscapes, such as the impact of subdivision and development on historic patterns of land use and on aesthetic values of the landscape. Some planning schemes include historic or heritage values when defining the landscape character objectives to be achieved under an SLO ‐ often in conjunction with other aspects of landscape character. The Planning Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay does not refer specifically to landscapes, though it does discuss trees and gardens and the issue of defining the extent of controls around rural homesteads. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-63
2.6.2
Consultation views
The question of the appropriate VPP tool(s) for protection of heritage landscapes was discussed in several of the consultations. The view was expressed that the cultural values of predominantly natural areas were not well handed by the existing HO. Introduction of a separate schedule for heritage landscapes was proposed as a solution. The SLO was seen to have advantages over the HO for identification and protection of heritage landscapes, in that it could be tailored to suit the particular characteristics and values of local areas. However, the inability of the SLO to control subdivision was a shortcoming relative to the HO. While all VPP zones require a permit for subdivision, heritage or landscape values are not recognised in the zone purposes or decision guidelines of all zones, so the refusal of a subdivision or the application of conditions on these grounds alone may not be upheld. One participant commented that the use of the SLO to identify and manage heritage landscapes had also proven unsatisfactory in practice, as it was also too blunt in its controls. 2.6.3
Advisory Committee initial views
The Committee concluded in the Consultation Paper that the HO in its present form can be used reasonably effectively for designed landscapes and relatively small, bounded areas of modified natural landscape that also have social or historic significance (though the absence of control over vegetation other than trees as referred to below and elsewhere in this report needs to be addressed). However, we commented that the HO in its present form is not really suitable for extensive landscapes. Introduction of a separate schedule to the HO for culturally significant landscapes might address this issue. It was suggested that management of the heritage values of extensive landscapes could also be achieved under the SLO, particularly where the landscape also has other values that need to be considered and protected. The SLO appears to be better adapted to consideration of views and vistas (into, out of and within significant landscapes). However, it would be desirable to include subdivision as well as development under the permit requirements of the SLO. The issue of distinguishing between ‘landscape heritage’ and ‘landscape character’ (as per the Landscape Assessment Guidelines) may also need to be addressed. The VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay should be amended to discuss appropriate ways of protecting culturally significant landscapes and should make reference to the Landscape Assessment Guidelines. Management of change in culturally significant landscapes – whether under the HO or SLO – requires a clear statement of what is significant about each landscape and guidance on how to deal with developments that may impinge on this significance. The recent HC/HV Guidelines are a useful starting point. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-64
Considerations relating to landscapes that are significant to Aboriginal people are discussed elsewhere in this Consultation Paper (see Section 2.5). The issue of whether ‘Gardening’ should always be exempt from the need for a planning permit has been raised in Section 1.4.1 and at Section 4.4.2. The need to control the removal of other vegetation besides trees is likely to be important in relation to designed landscapes. 2.6.4
Conclusions and draft recommendations
Possible reforms include: 2.6.5
ƒ
Introduce a new schedule to HO to cover culturally significant landscapes and provide the ability to ‘customise’ it to reflect the particular characteristics and values of each area and the pressures likely to be experienced. ƒ
Add a subdivision control to the SLO and, if necessary, clarify that heritage values are one valid aspect of landscape significance. ƒ
Provide guidance in the VPP Practice Note on Applying the Heritage Overlay about appropriate treatment of culturally significant landscapes, including reference to the 2002 Landscape Assessment Guidelines. Formal consultation views
Reponses to this section of the Consultation Paper were generally supportive of the conclusions and draft recommendations: ƒ
There was considerable support for the use of the SLO to protect those broad scale landscapes that have significant cultural heritage values, though some submitters preferred the idea of a separate HO schedule for cultural landscapes (including associative landscapes) (under the revised form for the HO mooted by the Advisory Committee) and one recommended developing a Cultural Heritage Overlay for areas with a wide range of different and complementary landscape features. The City of Boroondara considered that the HO should be used to protect and manage landscapes that are significant for interactions between humans and the natural environment, since its focus is heritage and that of the SLO is ‘character’. ƒ
If the SLO is to be used for heritage landscapes, submitters suggested that it should include controls over demolition of significant structures, subdivision and large scale tree planting, plus decision guidelines relevant to heritage values (and referencing statements of significance). Additional guidance would be required about its application for this purpose and decision‐making under it, as well as appropriate definitions (as per the HC/HV Landscape Assessment Guidelines). Heritage Victoria could assist with the development of advice to planning authorities with regard to which tools fit particular landscape settings. Additional encouragement to Councils to implement SLOs may also be required. ƒ
Informal comments made by DSE Statutory Systems personnel suggested, however, that there may be some resistance to seeing the SLO being applied for the purposes of conserving landscapes that have heritage values, especially in so far as it would be necessary to introduce demolition control. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-65
2.6.6
ƒ
One submission suggested that the Consultation Paper should have referred to the Victorian Coastal Strategy and the recent Coastal Spaces landscape assessments for the Victorian coast. Both of these refer to the importance of protecting coastal landscapes, many of which have been assessed as having high cultural heritage values for Aboriginal people and for the wider community. ƒ
Several submissions commented on the need for landscape evaluations or statements of significance to state clearly what physical aspects were to be conserved and to give guidance on acceptable changes. ƒ
In addition to the HO and the SLO, it was suggested that the DDO may also be appropriate in some circumstances for the protection and management of heritage places. Its decision guidelines should also include reference to the statement of significance. Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee finds no reason to depart from its earlier conclusions in relation to this issue. We record here that we do not agree with the apparent view of DSE (now DPCD) Planning Systems that heritage objectives are somehow to be viewed as separate from planning objectives and thus heritage considerations should be confined to clearly demarcated parts of the VPP – or at least not be allowed to be an objective of the SLO. In our view, heritage conservation is simply one of the many outcomes sought by planning – those outcomes also include appropriate levels of amenity, maintenance of ecological diversity and environmental sustainability, orderly planning, wise use of resources etc. The various tools of the VPP are directed to those ends but are not exclusively directed to any one of them. As we have earlier noted, the rural zones provisions of the VPP already list heritage outcomes amongst the many different matters for consideration, as do the State urban design policies at Clause 19. We think that use of the SLO to conserve broad landscapes which have heritage values may well be appropriate. We would suggest that a requirement for permission for demolition might be scheduled‐in rather than always included, as it may not be appropriate for many other types of significant landscapes. The same might apply to subdivision. Nevertheless, the approach we have recommended to statutory reform includes the setting up of various types of schedules to the HO which might include one designed to conserve the significant features of broad historic landscapes. This may provide an alternative to the use of the SLO. The Committee’s recommendations in this section are cast in the context of proposed changes to the HO described in Section 5.0 which envisage the introduction of an ability to include different types of schedules to the HO in much the same way as applies to other principal overlays of the VPP such as the SLO, VPO and ESO. The Committee recommends: ƒ
Introduce the ability to add purpose‐specific schedules to the HO including one to cover heritage gardens and other designed landscapes and provide a limited ability to ‘customise’ it to reflect the particular characteristics and values of each REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-66
area and the pressures likely to be experienced. The schedule should include the ability to ‘turn on’ controls on changes to specified garden components, including garden beds and vegetation that do not qualify under ‘tree controls’, provided this is justified by the statement of significance. ƒ
Amend the SLO to clarify that cultural heritage values may be one aspect of landscape significance and to allow controls on subdivision and on demolition of specified built components to be ‘scheduled‐in’ where these are justified by a statement of significance. Controls on tree planting may also be justified in some circumstances. ƒ
HV and DPCD should prepare a model SLO schedule for culturally significant landscapes (particularly ‘organically evolved’ landscapes or larger‐scale ‘associative’ landscapes). Decision guidelines in the model schedule should draw on those in the draft HC/HV Guidelines and should refer to statements of significance. ƒ
Provide guidance in the VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay (renamed as ‘Managing Heritage Places’) about the appropriate identification and treatment of culturally significant landscapes, including reference to the 2002 Landscape Assessment Guidelines. 2.7
Redundant infrastructure
2.7.1
Scope of issue
This issue concerns appropriate heritage recognition and future management of redundant large scale infrastructure. It applies particularly to public infrastructure, including linear features such as railway lines/routes – and their associated bridges and viaducts – and to reticulation networks such as water supply and sewerage systems. It may also be relevant to very large scale private infrastructure related to industrial operations, such as the Geelong Cement transport system at Fyansford. Many abandoned rail corridors have taken on new lives as rail trails for long‐distance cycling, walking or even horse‐riding. However, the resources are not often available to maintain their associated bridges, particularly where alternative means of crossing rivers, streams or roads can be provided for foot or cycle traffic. It is much harder to achieve adaptive reuse for redundant water and sewerage infrastructure, which is sometimes put forward as a reason for not listing such features under heritage controls. Various Panels have dealt with redundant major infrastructure. Many have determined that the heritage values put forward for these places have been substantiated and recommended that they should be afforded new or continued heritage protection. The question of management – including whether any demolition or alteration should be allowed – is regarded as being appropriately considered when evaluating a future permit application. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-67
2.7.2
Consultation views
This issue was discussed in the consultation sessions in conjunction with industrial heritage sites, but has sufficient distinctive features to be treated separately here. Public sector agencies commented on the increasing tendency to identify heritage values in redundant public infrastructure, including buildings, pipelines, bridges, aqueducts, piers and port machinery such as cranes. Some of the major issues from the viewpoint of the infrastructure management agencies include: 2.7.3
ƒ
Risk management, particularly in the case of buried infrastructure, where the condition of the asset may not be known (i.e. whether pipelines were filled in or buoyed or mine shafts and tunnels stabilised) ƒ
In the case of agencies operating under service level agreements with government, undertaking heritage conservation may not be recognised and funded as part of their core business or community service obligations ƒ
Expectations for future management and maintenance, including the need for permits under the HO. Advisory Committee initial views
The Committee recognises the challenges posed by heritage listing of redundant infrastructure and commends the various agencies with whom we consulted for their positive attitude to their role as heritage managers and the initiatives they have underway. Use of the existing incorporated plan facility included in the HO, or of additional schedules to the HO, would enable planning controls to be tailored to the particular characteristics of the infrastructure that constitutes each heritage ‘place’. Preparation of conservation management plans to form the basis for incorporated plans under the HO could also address the issue of future heritage management. 2.7.4
Preliminary conclusions and draft recommendations
The Committee recommends that a specific program (possibly by Heritage Victoria) be developed to encourage public sector agencies to recognise heritage asset management as core function of their operations and enable appropriate funding arrangements to be made. A suitable statutory reform may be to deal with such items under a tailor‐made schedule to the HO if an expanded suite of HO schedules was to be seen as generally appropriate. An alternative approach may be to deal with certain items, particularly smaller items, by adding them to a renamed Clause 52.16 which currently relates only to historic post boxes. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-68
2.7.5
Formal consultation views
Comments from formal submissions included: ƒ
Conservation of redundant infrastructure is very difficult without sustainable and viable uses for the infrastructure itself or at least for the surrounding area which might support retention of important heritage items. ƒ
More recognition should have been given in the discussion in the Consultation Paper to the fact that redundant infrastructure is not necessarily owned or managed by Government agencies. It also includes privately‐owned industrial systems and transport and other infrastructure privatised in the sale of ports and other facilities. ƒ
The role of well‐prepared statements of significance in making informed decisions about the future use and development of heritage places was again stressed in relation to redundant infrastructure. An incorporated plan could be used for more detailed guidance on management. ƒ
There was strong agreement with the suggestion for a program to encourage public sector agencies to recognise all their heritage assets – not just redundant infrastructure ‐ and manage them appropriately. This could require introduction of a statutory obligation, as exists in the NSW heritage legislation (Heritage Act, NSW, 1977, Section 170A). DSE and HV advised that the Victorian Heritage Strategy includes several actions concerning appropriate asset management by Government agencies. In line with the Strategy, DSE (now DPCD) has established a Victorian Heritage Forum – chaired by the Secretary ‐ as an interdepartmental committee to provide a whole of government approach to heritage policy. Development of heritage management principles for government asset management and related training modules will be a focus of Heritage Strategy implementation in 2007‐08. ƒ
With regard to planning controls, there was a view that large redundant infrastructure does not merit a separate heritage category, as the issues of identification and management are the same as for other heritage places. Some submitters also had reservations about the proposal to use schedules for the HO that could be tailored to particular situations, as this ran the risk of overloading the planning scheme. On the other hand, there was some support for more ‘place specific’ controls, even though it was recognised that these would require more work in development. The need for transitional arrangements was stressed. ƒ
Management agencies should prepare conservation management plans for different types of infrastructure. These then could be turned into ‘standard’ incorporated plans to use for future management. ƒ
Preparation of a conservation management plan should desirably precede any threat of demolition, so that management policies may be positive and proactive in attempting to provide viable uses, community interaction, fundraising (where applicable) and interpretation. However, some submitters felt that it was unfair or unrealistic to expect private owners to fund conservation management plans (unless they wanted to make major changes to their site). ƒ
Some submitters believed Clause 52.16 should not be used for redundant infrastructure, due to its lack of transparency, while other thought it would be acceptable for smaller infrastructure items. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-69
2.7.6
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee notes with approval the establishment of the Victorian Heritage Forum as an interdepartmental committee to provide a whole of government approach to heritage policy. We also commend the proposed initiatives to develop heritage management principles for government asset management and prepare related training modules. Attention may also need to be given to ensuring that heritage asset management is recognised and funded in the service level agreements between major State government departments and relevant service agencies. In the longer term, introduction of a statutory obligation on government agencies to identify and conserve heritage assets – along the lines of that which exists in NSW – could be desirable. The Committee accepts the view put by submitters that redundant infrastructure, though often large in scale, does not constitute a different category of heritage place nor require a tailor‐made schedule to address its conservation. Some recommendations under Section 2.8 apply to redundant infrastructure. The Committee also recommends: ƒ
Consideration should be given to dealing with some classes of heritage items including redundant infrastructure ‐ particularly smaller items ‐ by adding them to a renamed Clause 52.16 (which currently relates only to historic post boxes). 2.8
Industrial and other complex sites
2.8.1
Scope of issue
Several Panels dealing with proposals to apply the HO to industrial or other complex sites have identified problems, including: ƒ
Defining appropriate boundaries for the area to be identified on planning scheme maps – that is should the whole area of a former industrial enterprise be listed, even if parts of it have been converted to other uses, or should the mapping be limited to the land containing the significant elements? ƒ
The heritage value of the place may be enhanced by the fact that a long‐established use is still continuing on site, but retention of historic fabric may limit the adaptability of the site and therefore the viability of the industrial enterprise. ƒ
Sites are often not able to be assessed in detail during local heritage studies – either due to lack of access or lack of resources – so important elements may be overlooked. This is particularly true of structural details or other features within buildings. ƒ
Council heritage policies in Clause 22 often focus on aesthetic values in residential or commercial areas and on views from the street or other public spaces, so are not appropriate for evaluation of planning permit applications for changes to industrial sites. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-70
ƒ
2.8.2
Requiring permits for all works and development within an industrial complex may be unreasonable, but difficult to avoid if the significant elements are widely dispersed on a site. This problem can be overcome by an incorporated plan that exempts certain works or developments – or all works and developments in defined areas – from the need for a permit. However, preparation of such a plan is likely to be complex and expensive and it may be inequitable to expect the owners to carry the whole cost. Changing an incorporated plan is also a time‐consuming business, since it involves an amendment to the scheme. Consultation views
Industrial and other complex sites were discussed in several consultation sessions and subsequent submissions. Views expressed were similar to the matters raised in Panel reports: ƒ
The problem of ensuring adequate investigation and evaluation of industrial or other complex sites at the heritage study stage. ƒ
The need for clear statements of what is significant and why, including suggestions that such sites could really only be understood through the preparation of a conservation management plan. ƒ
The need for flexibility in handling sites that are still working industrial environments in continuing use. ƒ
The need for guidance on evaluating planning permit applications ‐ especially where site inspections revealed potentially significant heritage fabric or features that were not identified in the statement of significance. ƒ
The potential of incorporated plans to eliminate unnecessary permits and to reduce the scope of third party rights to comment on subsequent decisions. It was suggested that industrial sites should be identified and evaluated on a regional scale, through thematic studies, rather than addressing them at the level of the individual municipality. A few owners/managers of industrial sites stated that they believed some Councils were misusing heritage provisions in a de facto attempt to control use, for example, insisting on retention of small‐scale buildings unsuited to modern industrial operations in order to avoid the consequences of redevelopment – such as heavy vehicle traffic – even though the land was still zoned for industrial purposes. 2.8.3
Advisory Committee initial views
It is clear that large industrial sites, particularly when still in use by the original industrial enterprise or its successor, present particular problems in heritage assessment and management. This is also true, though perhaps to a lesser extent, of other complex sites that contain large numbers of buildings, such as private school campuses and some rural properties that may encompass a homestead and groupings of related farm buildings and workers’ accommodation. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-71
Once again, the key is for site evaluations to provide a clear understanding of the location, nature, inter‐relationship and relative importance of the heritage elements. A mechanism can then be developed to determine the extent to which these should be preserved essentially unchanged or could be modified to meet the needs of current and future operations. The Committee was concerned to be told that in at least one case, incorporated plans that modify the operation of the HO, including permit requirements and third party rights, have been approved as a ‘post‐Panel’ process and not exhibited for public comment. Incorporated plans under the HO should be the same as any other incorporated document under the planning scheme and should be exhibited either in conjunction with a proposal for addition of a place to the schedule or as a subsequent amendment. It seems to us that there may be a case for applying interim controls to industrial or complex sites in the first instance, to enable a proper investigation and assessment to be carried out. A conservation management plan could then be prepared, to form the basis of an incorporated plan to be considered in conjunction with a proposal for permanent listing. This does not, however, address the question of the resources needed to prepare the plan and whether it is reasonable to expect the owner to bear the full cost. On a separate matter, the Committee notes that the consultations revealed an increasing recognition and acceptance on the part of public sector owners/managers of industrial and related sites of their responsibilities for protection of heritage values. We commend these agencies on the heritage initiatives they have underway. 2.8.4
Preliminary conclusions and draft recommendations
In municipalities which contain a large number of industrial sites of potential heritage significance, the need for additional resources to assess these places should be taken into account by the Council and Heritage Victoria in determining the budget for heritage studies. Where heritage study resources are inadequate to properly address complex sites, those which cannot be assessed from historical research and street‐based surveys should be have interim HO controls applied in the first instance. An incorporated plan – based on a conservation management plan for the site – should be exhibited and evaluated in conjunction with any proposal to apply permanent HO controls. Heritage Victoria should give consideration to funding a wider range of thematic studies of industrial sites ‐ particularly for industries now obsolete or phasing out in Victoria. Where a site is identified as having potential State – or even regional – heritage significance, funding should be provided to help prepare a conservation management plan to act as an incorporated plan under the HO. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-72
2.8.5
Formal consultation views
Submissions on this section of the report were sometimes combined with commentary on redundant infrastructure (discussed above). There was general support for the conclusions and draft recommendations concerning increased levels of funding for studies involving large numbers of complex sites, additional thematic/typological studies, funding assistance with preparation of conservation management plans and use of interim controls until full assessments could be carried out. Other comments included: ƒ
Confirmation of the difficulty of dealing adequately with complex industrial sites in local heritage studies, due to lack of time and/or lack of access to sites. The advantages of early involvement of owners were stressed in terms of achieving a positive outcome. ƒ
Some concerns were raised about the idea of listing all significant components of a complex heritage place in the HO schedule, given that they may all share the same property address. Alternatives would be use of an incorporated plan or possibly treating the place as a precinct. The City of Greater Geelong considered that the precinct option would be onerous on Council for a single place – presumably because Geelong has a separate policy (in Clause 22) for each precinct listed in under the HO. ƒ
The National Trust suggested that priority thematic studies included ports, water supply (domestic and irrigation) and the pastoral industry (e.g. shearing sheds) – especially where places of potential heritage significance are subject to change and threat of loss. ƒ
The National Trust also stressed the importance of the historical significance of industrial sites, rather than or in addition to their architectural features/aesthetic values. It considered that the evidence of industrial heritage specialists was often undervalued by Councils and at VCAT, compared with that of heritage architects. ƒ
It was suggested that contamination of industrial sites is a potential problem in retention of heritage significance. This should be investigated before decisions are made about which parts of a site should be conserved. Otherwise, it can lead to incremental losses of important retained fabric, as problems are discovered. ƒ
The National Trust also made the point that there is a need for industrial heritage conservation to be considered in broader strategic planning, for example, for Docklands. It was said that important components of Melbourne’s maritime heritage have been lost and others are under threat. ƒ
Along similar lines, the City of Moonee Valley suggested that financial support should be provided to local government to enable comprehensive reviews of industrial land and to apply interim heritage controls where necessary. Much of the potentially significant industrial building stock [in inner and middle Melbourne] is in the process of redevelopment and will be converted or demolished within the next decade unless resources are provided for its assessment and protection. ƒ
Several submitters stressed the need for a flexible approach to industrial sites supporting viable businesses that need to expand and grow. Adaptation for new REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-73
technology and to meet occupational health and safety issues may also require changes to historic industrial sites. 2.8.6
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee adopts its interim conclusions on this matter as final views. We recommend: ƒ
In municipalities that contain a large number of industrial sites or other complex sites of potential heritage significance, the need for additional resources to assess these places should be taken into account by the planning authority and Heritage Victoria in determining the budget for heritage studies. ƒ
Where heritage study resources are inadequate to properly address complex sites, those that cannot be assessed from historical research and street‐based surveys should have interim HO controls applied in the first instance. An incorporated plan – based on a conservation management plan for the site – should be exhibited and evaluated in conjunction with any proposal to apply permanent HO controls to these places. ƒ
Heritage Victoria should give consideration to funding a wider range of thematic studies of industrial sites ‐ particularly for industries now obsolete or phasing out in Victoria. Where a site is identified as having potential State – or perhaps regional – heritage significance, funding should be provided to help prepare a conservation management plan to act as an incorporated plan under the HO. ƒ
Decisions guidelines appropriate to the evaluation of industrial sites and other complexes should be developed and added to Clause 43.01 (or relevant schedules in the Committee’s suggested new HO structure). ƒ
Councils with heritage policies in Clause 22 should give consideration to whether these provide adequate guidance on conservation of the heritage significance of industrial and other complex sites and if not, they should adopt the guidance offered in the HC/HV Guidelines. 2.9
Dry stone walls
2.9.1
Scope of issue
Historic dry stone walls are a familiar feature of the landscapes of many parts of the State. They are a particularly visible component of the dry, sparsely vegetated volcanic landscapes of western Victoria. They have long been recognised, at least by people interested in heritage matters, as a valued feature of Victoria’s built heritage. From time to time their repair and maintenance has been the subject of heritage funding and special skills training programs. For many years, however, it has been recognised that the particular characteristics of dry stone walls make their protection by the statutory planning system problematic. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-74
2.9.2
Consultation views
The Committee was advised of the findings and recommendations of a recent study of dry stone walls in the Shire of Melton. The study commented on the characteristics of dry stone walls that differentiate them from other types of structures or places of historic value in terms of ensuring their protection. These characteristics include the following: ƒ
some walls are jointly owned as they are located on property boundaries ƒ
as they have no mortar, the walls are vulnerable to theft, pilferage and deterioration ƒ
they are perceived as expensive to maintain, repair and build ƒ
they are often regarded as inhibitors to modern farming practice ƒ
the walls are sometimes perceived as not being of intrinsic value when compared to other historic rural buildings and other structures. Following discussions with DSE and Heritage Victoria, the Melton study identified the HO as the most appropriate mechanism to protect dry stones walls. It identified various precincts (containing both individually significant walls and others contributing to the visual value of the precinct) and a number of individual walls (of local or State significance). The Melton study noted that dry stone walls rely on their context ‐ often a broad landscape setting free of the incursions of more recent closer settlement ‐ for their interpretation and appreciation. There is therefore an inherent conflict between the objective of preserving the landscape context for the walls ‐ that may include properties that do not themselves contain any walls or are not proximate to walls ‐ and the rights of property owners to develop their land, construct new buildings and pursue agricultural activities as otherwise allowed for under the planning scheme. Given that property owners often regard dry stone walls as a liability, there are also issues concerning the timing and processing of the introduction of statutory controls. The Melton study feared that many walls would be deliberately removed if controls were mooted. The Committee has been advised of difficulties using the HO in that all the walls have to be mapped individually to avoid covering huge swathes of land with a HO. Identification for the purposes of mapping – other than through ground survey – is extremely difficult, since walls are difficult to distinguish from other linear features, such as hedges, on aerial photographs. A suggested alternative to listing walls individually in the HO is the use of an SLO in circumstances where the walls are seen as contributing to a cultural landscape (for instance, where there is a volcanic landscape characterised by natural features as well as man‐made structures derived from the materials provided by the landscape). REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-75
2.9.3
Advisory
Committee
recommendations
preliminary
consideration
and
draft
The Committee considers that the best way to conserve dry stone walls could be by expansion of Clause 52.16 which is one of the ‘Particular Provisions’ of the VPP and all planning schemes in Victoria. The clause currently provides controls over the demolition of historic post boxes. It is a clause not linked to a mapping requirement in the same way as the HO. If the clause was to be expanded to include dry stone walls this would overcome the mapping difficulties which hinder the introduction of conservation controls under the HO. The heading of this clause could be changed to ‘Historic Items’ or similar. Some other discrete historic/heritage items, such as drain or ‘manhole’ (‘access hole’) covers, and bluestone or brick kerb and channelling, might also be considered for inclusion in this provision. Consideration should also be given to the desirability or utility of including a definition of dry stone walls, either in Clause 52.16 itself or in the list of general terms at Clause 72, which might include a cut‐off date for interest (such as the post boxes have) to exclude more recent walls. The control in Clause 52.16 would also need to explicitly reinstate the control over fences, given fences are otherwise exempted from control by Clause 62.02. That could be done by stating that a permit is required for demolition, works, etc. to ‘a fence that is a dry stone wall’. A better option, however, may be to modify the Clause 62.02 exemption itself ‐ which now reads ‘Repairs and routine maintenance to an existing building or works’ ‐ to also exclude repairs to a dry stone wall unless in accordance with existing materials and detail. The Committee appreciates that there are also dry stone constructions that are not fences. They can be causeways or embankments above or below roads; cairns, such as trig points on the top of mountains; or markers along boundaries. However, many of these features are located on public land and are more limited in extent than dry stone walls, and are thus easier to map making them candidates for HO controls instead. 2.9.4
Formal consultation views
There were a small number of submissions which addressed issues related to the conservation of dry stone walls and other constructions. The submissions were generally clear about the need to protect these distinctive items of local cultural heritage significance but there was some difference of views as to the appropriateness of the type of control suggested in our Consultation Paper. For example, Ms Josie Black (director, Corangamite Dry Stone Walls Conservation Project 1991‐95 and a co‐founder of the Dry Stone Walls Association of Australia) commented that: ….a Heritage Overlay could be the best way to protect dry stone walls. In fact Corangamite Shire has done precisely this with the 13 sections of walls identified as REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-76
significant by the Corangamite Dry Stone Walls Conservation Project 1995 (page 12). However, we wonder at the practicality of a wholesale application for overlays in the Corangamite Shire and likely community reaction when about 30% of the agricultural area in the Shire has dry stone walls. The submissions by the Dry Stone Walls Association of Australia also included that while there would be cost savings to planning authorities through not having to map or otherwise identify the dry stone walls subject to control (if a blanket control under Clause 52.16 were used), this form of control would be difficult to enforce as there would be no record of the extent of most of the walls at the time of the introduction of the control. It was suggested that therefore a blanket control under Clause 52.16 would ‘represent only a partial improvement’ to the current situation of no conservation controls over of the walls. The Association also suggested that an SLO might be used instead. It was suggested that this approach again may avoid the necessity to map the walls. It was noted, however, that the SLO does not contain demolition controls and it was thought that there might be some opposition to introducing this provision in the SLO. Indeed later discussions with DSE (now DPCD) Statutory Systems staff concerning possible statutory reforms arising from this review did suggest reluctance on their part to introducing such a change. This reluctance, however, seemed to be on the basis that if the SLO were deployed to achieve heritage conservation outcomes this would inappropriately go beyond the function of such an overlay and would allow heritage matters to step outside their appropriate VPP toolbox. The Dry Stone Walls Association favours instead a program targeting properties where older dry stone walls are known to exist. This would involve a study of only those walls where the land owner agreed to participate in the study and to accept the statutory outcome. It would also involve funding by the State of a suitably‐trained heritage consultant to assess the walls, ranking of the walls against agreed criteria, reporting to land owners of the results and the recommended application of statutory controls to walls identified as significant. Corangamite Shire Council also disagreed with the Committee’s draft recommendation about the use of Clause 52.16 to control alterations to dry stone walls on the basis that: [Clause 52.16]… is a very obscure reference and it is unlikely that any member of the public & dry stone wall owner would know of its existence. It is also not information passed on during property conveyancing so even if the current owner were made aware it is unlikely that the information would be transferred. This submission went on to comment that: There are two levels of dry stone wall significance: the overall network, history and sheer extent of walling that has landscape and cultural value; the second is the craftsmanship and examples of different types of walls….. …it is perhaps important to consider the view that promotion of the special qualities and heritage significance of the walls may offer protection to the overall REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-77
network. If gates are inserted into existing walls or some sections removed to provide for machinery this may be considered an acceptable outcome. To complement this, a survey of the walls should be undertaken to determine sections that are of particular significance. Oral submissions at the hearings went so far as to suggest that if a blanket control over all dry stone walls ‐ such as might be available through Clause 52.16 ‐ was introduced, especially without a public process, (whether or not a cut‐off date of construction for the walls was specified), it might alienate affected land owners and lead to deliberate neglect or ‘accidental’ demolition. The Corangamite Shire representatives further considered that use of a widespread SLO controlling only dry stone walls, as proposed by some interested parties, might not be acceptable to landholders in their area. Instead, they suggested using a more localised SLO for specific areas of wall under threat, rather than trying to protect all of them. This would, however, require the addition of a demolition control to the SLO, at least where this was justified in specific circumstances. Another submitter addressed heritage conservation issues affecting his property including damage to a dry stone wall and other heritage features that he said had occurred as a result of Vic Roads construction activities and the absence of support by the local Council and others for their preservation. The National Trust representatives suggested in the hearing that use of Clause 52.16 might work if its scope was wider than just for dry stone walls (e.g. for other discrete items of heritage significance) and the provisions were publicised appropriately. However, the Trust’s preference was for such items to be included under the HO, possibly under a schedule which referred specifically to unmapped items. Another matter raised in formal submissions was that damage can occur (sometimes unwittingly) to dry stone walls through other activities on abutting land. The Macedon Ranges Residents Association raised the issue of the adverse impact of vegetation on walls. This occurs where new owners, particularly of rural residential lots, plant screen trees or windbreaks too close to the walls. The Dry Stone Walls Association also mentioned at the hearing that walls are also subject to damage as a result of roadside vegetation maintenance activities of road authorities or their contractors (as well as in road widening operations). 2.9.5
Advisory Committee consideration and final recommendations
The Committee is of the view that it is desirable that VPP measures directed to the conservation of dry stone walls be introduced. The Committee believes that the introduction of planning controls over the walls would not only allow regulation of their demolition and alteration but it would also heighten the appreciation of their heritage value and thus potentially assist in their maintenance and repair. It would therefore be appropriate that accompanying educational material be released at the time of introduction of the controls. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-78
The Committee considers that the planning scheme protection of dry stone walls could be of two types over two different timeframes. A widespread/generic interim control for perhaps 5 years with a sunset clause could be introduced by Ministerial amendment without exhibition to all or all relevant planning schemes immediately; and later (or in some cases at the same time) permanent/on‐going controls could be applied after exhibition to those (mapped) walls identified through an appropriate study as being of local cultural heritage significance. Notwithstanding the contrary views on this matter presented in the formal submissions, the Committee considers that, as an interim control, the best way to conserve dry stone walls is by expansion of Clause 52.16. As we have said, it is necessary that a clause not linked to mapping be applied until such time as walls can be properly surveyed. The Committee does not share the submitters’ views that Clause 52.16 is an obscure clause of planning schemes which will be overlooked by the public. All of the use and development items dealt with in the Particular Provisions of planning schemes do not appear on the scheme maps but this does not make them ineffective or overlooked. The Committee is not aware of any evidence that would suggest that the existing Particular Provisions, including those that apply to land in varied types of ownership as would apply in the case of a dry stone wall control, for example those relating to native vegetation removal, provision of bicycle facilities, tennis court lighting and satellite dish installation, do anything other than operate as a satisfactory part of the scheme. We note that the introduction of widespread native vegetation controls in Clause 52.17 of planning schemes was heralded by State policy statements and accompanied by explanatory/guidelines documents and later release of a practice note. Similar promotion of dry stone wall controls would be appropriate. In response to the concerns about adverse public (farmer) reaction to a blanket control, we are of the view that, albeit it is sometimes the case that land owners and occupiers subject to new planning controls will deliberately not comply with them, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. The Committee is of the view that most members of the public will comply with planning requirements just as with any other statutory regulation. For those who are reluctant to do so, exercise of the enforcement powers available under the P&E Act generally acts as an effective deterrent. In order to deal with the parallel or subsequent permanent listing of some (mapped) walls in the HO, there should be an exemption in Clause 52.16 for those walls included in an HO. As discussed above, the HO controls and/or Clause 62.02 would accordingly have to be worded to allow the control of works and demolition to extend to dry stone walls. The Committee, having heard further on this matter, is now not certain that a cut‐off date of construction to identify the walls subject to planning control will be possible or could usefully be applied. We were advised that the walls are notoriously difficult to REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-79
date except where historical records exist. At best a cut off date of pre World War 2 might be considered. The Committee also believes that there are some landscapes where the combination of such features as natural volcanic landscape features, Aboriginal and post‐contact archaeological sites, historic building forms, dry stone walls (bordering narrow laneways, major highways, paddocks, holding yards, homestead grounds etc), the presence of early exotic trees and transparent historic subdivision patterns would justify the application of a landscape overlay. Such an overlay might be the existing SLO (with the necessary addition of demolition control ‐ either achieved by a head clause change which would then apply in all SLOs or, better, introduced selectively via a scheduling‐in capability) or by changes to the HO as is discussed in Chapter 5. We record that we are of the view that there is little point in addressing the preservation of dry stone walls by including in planning schemes only those dry stone walls where the land owner is in support of the control. Those walls are going to be protected in any case by the land owner’s own management measures. We suggest that if interim controls were to be introduced through Clause 52.16, the heading of the clause would need to be changed to ‘Historic Items’ or similar. This might also allow some other discrete historic/heritage items, such as drain or ‘manhole’ (‘access hole’) covers, and bluestone or brick kerb and channelling, to be considered for inclusion in this provision. The addition of a schedule to this clause would also offer the opportunity to ‘schedule out’ particular areas to which the provisions of the clause would not apply. We note that other clauses in the Particular Provisions of planning schemes have schedules enabling geographic differentiation of controls. In the case of dry stone walls, areas could be ‘scheduled out’, such as all municipalities in Victoria except those where dry stone walls are concentrated such as those on the northern and western periphery of the metropolitan area (Whittlesea, Hume, Melton, and Wyndham) through to the Western District (Moorabool, Golden Plains, Corangamite, Moyne and Glenelg). We consider that a ‘sunset’ provision, perhaps of five years, should be applied to this part of Clause 52.16. We suggest that this might encourage detailed dry stone wall studies to be undertaken by Councils which could then lead to the inclusion of locally significant walls in whole or in part in the HO or perhaps the SLO. Municipalities could then be ‘scheduled out’ as this process takes place. Notification provisions similar to those applying to the native vegetation provisions in Clause 52.17 of the VPP could also be introduced. Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of a definition of dry stone wall in the list of general terms at Clause 72. The control in Clause 52.16 would also need to explicitly reinstate a control over fences, given fences are otherwise exempted from control by Clause 62.02. That could be done by stating that a permit is required for demolition, works, etc. to ‘a fence that is a dry stone wall’. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-80
It would also be appropriate to alter the effect of the Clause 62.02 exemption ‐ which now reads ‘Repairs and routine maintenance to an existing building or works’. This might be done by adding an exception to that exemption as discussed earlier – being ‘except works to dry stone walls where not using original materials or in accordance with original details’. However, on reflection, we think that including an exemption to the Clause 62.02 provision itself may set a precedent leading to an unwieldy list of such exemptions. A better approach would be to indicate in Clause 52.16 that permission is required for routine repairs and maintenance to a dry stone wall except where the works deploy original materials types or are undertaken in accordance with original construction details. We have given consideration to the matter of damage to walls by adjacent plantings on private land and roadside maintenance activities by road authorities. We think that the best approach to overcoming these problems is to seek to increase general awareness of these issues and encourage Councils and VicRoads to introduce to include consideration of wall protective measures in roadsides management plans. If an SLO were to be applied to a broader landscape including dry stone walls, however, there may be some opportunity to include control over landscaping and other works within specified setback distances. The Committee recommends: ƒ
Clause 52.16 should be amended by the Minister without public exhibition to introduce a permit requirement for demolition or alteration of fences that are dry stone walls (possibly only those constructed prior to 1940) in scheduled municipalities for a period of five years. This permit requirement should be expressed as extending to routine repairs and maintenance where not in accordance with existing materials and construction details. The provisions should include exemptions from permission for dry stone walls included in an HO (or SLO), and should include appropriate application requirements and decision guidelines. ƒ
Councils in the scheduled municipalities should be required/assisted to complete assessments of dry stone walls to identify and map those of local significance within five years from the date of introduction of the Clause 52.16 interim control and to introduce appropriate permanent controls through the application of the HO (and/or the SLO). Municipalities where studies have been completed and permanent changes to the planning scheme to protect dry stone walls considered should be progressively scheduled out of the interim control. ƒ
A definition of ‘dry stone wall’ should be considered for inclusion in Clause 72 of the VPP. ƒ
Non‐linear dry stone constructions assessed to be of local heritage significance should (continue to) be protected by the HO. ƒ
Other non‐planning measures such as awareness and encouragement programs for property owners should be implemented in municipalities where dry stone walls are located. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-81
2.10
Land use
2.10.1
Scope of issue
The essential issue here is whether otherwise prohibited uses should be controlled under the planning scheme provisions relating to heritage. 2.10.2
Current provisions and consultation views
As is typical of most overlays, the HO for the most part relates only to development. However, Clause 43.01‐5 atypically deals with land use. It provides that a permit may be granted to use a heritage place for an otherwise prohibited use if the heritage place is identified in the schedule to the overlay, ‘the use will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place’ and ‘the benefits obtained from the use can be demonstrably applied towards the conservation of the heritage place’. It is to be noted that all of the three requirements must be met. The two decision guidelines in relation to this permission are ‘the views of the Heritage Council if the heritage place is included on the Victorian Heritage Register’ and ‘the effect of the use on the amenity of the area.’ The VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay states: This provision should not be applied to significant areas as to do so might result in the de facto rezoning of a large area. The provision should only be applied to a limited range of places. For example, the provision might be used for redundant churches, warehouses or other large building complexes where it is considered that the existing uses will create difficulties for the future conservation of the building. Currently this provision applies in the metropolitan area of Melbourne to places that are included on the Victorian Heritage Register. It is assumed that the Practice Note is using the words ‘significant areas’ to refer to large areas, not ‘significant’ areas in a heritage sense. In Warraglen Developments Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2004] VCAT 2004, the Tribunal considered the proposed residential redevelopment of a large bluestone building on land zoned Industrial 3 that was also covered by a HO. As the land was on the VHR, and Heritage Victoria had already granted a ‘heritage permit’ for the conversion of the building, the member took the view that the scope of the Tribunal’s discretion did not include any heritage issues. The Tribunal stated: Given that Heritage Victoria has granted a heritage permit for this proposal, clearly this deals with the general requirements for a permit under the Heritage Overlay, and I consider this also overrides the concerns expressed by the Council regarding the heritage merits of the proposal per se. The Tribunal went on to consider whether the existence of the heritage permit in itself satisfied the more specific matters raised in the two decision guidelines or whether the Tribunal must independently reach a view on whether the criteria had been satisfied. The Tribunal considered that ‘the former view seems the correct one’. Nevertheless, ‘to REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-82
remove any doubt’ the Tribunal made an assessment of the proposal in terms of the decision guidelines. The Tribunal was satisfied that the modifications to the building would not adversely affect the significance of the building. The Tribunal was also satisfied that: ...the conversion of the bluestone building to 22 dwellings would demonstrably provide benefits for the conservation of the ‘heritage place’, in the sense of securing the on‐going active use of the bluestone building and the ability of an established body corporate to properly maintain the building. The Tribunal had regard to a proposed planning scheme amendment strengthening the policy to preserve industrial employment. The Tribunal considered that there would not be any unreasonable negative industrial amenity impacts (such as complaints by future residents about industrial noise or activity). The Tribunal had regard to real estate evidence that there was no feasible commercial/office demand for the use of the building and that the building had ‘problem features’ that would limit its use. The conversion of the building was allowed. The application of Clause 43.01‐5 was not discussed in any detail during our consultations but the view was put that there is a lack of guidance as to how decisions should be made when the provision applies. It was suggested that there are probably only a small number of places that warrant a provision allowing prohibited uses. One submitter argued that Clause 43.01‐5 and the HO schedule format preclude appropriate guidance being given to the question of prohibited uses. They argued that: A change that simply allows a tick in the prohibited uses column is not sufficient to allay community concerns even if the amendment is a combined permit/amendment process that would provide for a generally acceptable prohibited use from a community perspective. The submitter argued that the only way of tackling the problem at present would be to require the simultaneous exhibition of a section 173 agreement. A ‘more transparent and easily interpreted technique’ was suggested, however. It would involve the deletion of the column relating to prohibited uses in the existing schedule (renamed Table 1) and the first dot point of Clause 43.01‐5 (which specifies one of the prerequisites for application of the provision) reworded as follows: ·
The heritage place and use are listed in Table 2 of the schedule to this overlay ·
Any condition opposite the use in Table 2 to the schedule to the overlay is met. During our consultations the prospect of having the option of controlling the change of use of all places in a HO was also briefly mentioned. Although it does not directly concern otherwise prohibited uses, we note also that it was suggested that it may be appropriate to include a provision that would allow the otherwise prohibited subdivision of land. The example was given of allowing the excision of a dwelling and a new dwelling on the balance lot, provided other factors REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-83
were satisfied (for example adequate area for effluent disposal), if heritage objectives were advanced. It would need to be demonstrated that such a subdivision would assist the upgrading and maintenance of a dwelling with heritage values. There may also need to be an agreement made under section 173 of the P&E Act and control over where the second dwelling was located so that it did not adversely affect the setting of the significant building. An alternative approach would be to provide for a permit exemption for the excision of a lot under certain circumstances. It was noted that such measures would undoubtedly increase support for heritage controls in rural areas. 2.10.3
Advisory
Committee
recommendations
preliminary
consideration
and
draft
The Committee does not know how many places are subject to this provision (that is have a ‘Yes’ in the relevant schedule column headed ‘Otherwise prohibited uses may be allowed’) nor are we aware of the nature of the places, apart from those places on the VHR. We suspect, however, that it is only a very small proportion of places to which this optional provision has been applied. It is questionable whether the existing decision guidelines adequately cover the range of matters that should be considered. There is also a need for guidelines to assist the exercise of discretion. On that matter we note that HC/HV Guidelines have a section on ‘Change of Use’. It contains a list of matters that should be considered when assessing a proposal for an otherwise prohibited use. However, it also seems to be related to the broader issue of change of use, which is not currently controlled by the HO. As noted by the Tribunal in Warraglen, the planning control situation in Clause 43.01‐5 is ‘somewhat unusual’ when it applies to places on the VHR. As acknowledged by the Tribunal, there is uncertainty about whether the issue of a permit by Heritage Victoria can be taken to mean that the requirements for the issue of a permit under the HO are satisfied. If a place is on the VHR a decision guideline at Clause 43.01‐5 requires the views of Heritage Council to be considered. If the proposed use to one otherwise prohibited under the planning scheme does not change the building fabric, it is questionable whether the Heritage Council has an interest in the matter. The approach suggested by the submitter – a separate table with the ability to include conditions – might have merit. The Committee also sees some merit in reversing the current statutory arrangements whereby the ability to allow otherwise prohibited uses must be deliberately scheduled‐
in, to making this allowance apply unless scheduled‐out. This would seem to go some way towards facilitating finding ‘new uses for old buildings’ which would appear to have broad heritage benefits provided the potential for loss of heritage fabric is borne in mind. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-84
In the Consultation Paper the Committee particularly invited the views on this matter, as well as the general issue of otherwise prohibited uses. Possible statutory reforms recommended in the Consultation Paper were: 2.10.4
ƒ
Liberalise use of the prohibited uses ability, at least for individual building HOs, by reversing the current statutory arrangement whereby the provision must be scheduled‐in so that instead it always applies unless deleted. ƒ
Clearer guidance on the issues involved with considering prohibited uses should be provided in the HC/HV Guidelines. ƒ
Revisit the decision guidelines in the VPP on this matter. Formal consultation views
Many of the submissions ‐ including those of the Heritage Council, the heritage interest group of Ministerial Panels and a number of local Councils ‐ supported the status quo. That is they said that consideration of whether otherwise prohibited uses should be scheduled‐in should occur at the time a place is introduced into the HO, or as part of a review. It was also noted that an owner/developer who wishes to establish an otherwise prohibited use can make an application under section 96A of the P&E Act for a combined amendment/application. The City of Boroondara argued that the existing arrangement provides ‘less risk of inappropriate uses occurring in heritage places’. The City of Moonee Valley saw the benefit of a site‐by‐site consideration of whether otherwise prohibited uses should be able to be considered. The National Trust noted that the provision allowing prohibited uses ‘may not be used often, but offers rare flexibility that might allow the preservation of a threatened place’. The Trust supported our draft recommendation to make the possibility of a prohibited use the default option, on the basis that it is likely to increase the use of the provision. However, unlike other submissions, the National Trust did not distinguish between individual places and precincts. A few submissions indicated limited support for the liberalisation of the HO provisions related to otherwise‐prohibited uses. They saw merit in altering the HO default position for individual places, as well as for all VHR places. That is, the ’Prohibited uses may be permitted?’ column in the schedule to the HO would be activated, unless it was deliberately scheduled‐out. It was noted that any decision with respect to an otherwise prohibited use needs to be taken in the context of other planning considerations, such as the effect on the ongoing viability of the site, surrounding uses and, frequently, the need for an environmental audit. The City of Maribyrnong noted that it is appropriate to consider prohibited uses where a building has ‘an unusually poor fit’ with many uses (for instance, where it was purpose built for a rare use that is no longer required) The Murtoa Stick Shed on the VHR is a case in point. Although DSE accepted the reversal of the prohibited uses arrangement for individual heritage places, it queried ‘whether there is a great deal of demand for these REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-85
provisions’, particularly since the liberalisation of uses in zones since the introduction of the VPP. There was almost universal opposition to the idea of the HO default position being changed for precincts covered by a HO. Many local Councils, particularly in the inner and middle ring areas of Melbourne, noted that the majority of their heritage overlays comprise residential precincts. It would be problematic to have otherwise prohibited uses ‘switched on’. It could potentially undermine zone controls over extensive areas. DSE noted that the prohibited uses provision has not been applied to precincts in the past. There was general support for the VPP Practice Note to provide clear guidance on the consideration of otherwise prohibited uses. In relation to VHR places, the City of Boroondara argued that the responsible authority should determine land use matters. The submission also sought clarification on the role of Heritage Victoria, noting that Clause 43.01‐5 refers to ’the views of the Heritage Council’, not Heritage Victoria. Interestingly, the Heritage Council’s submission advised that it has not received a single land use referral under Clause 43.01‐5 ‘for at least a decade’. Some of the submissions addressed the prospect of allowing the otherwise prohibited subdivision of land. A planner with the Mornington Peninsula Shire argued that the ability to vary subdivision controls ‘would only be justified in very exceptional circumstances where a site specific planning scheme amendment would arguably be the most appropriate mechanism for consideration’. On the other hand, the National Trust noted that disallowing subdivision of smaller lots in rural zones sometimes results in the abandonment and loss of significant dwellings with HO controls, as the owner may prefer to live in a new house and cannot or will not maintain an older dwelling. The Trust suggested that revised provisions might allow old dwellings to be saved. An otherwise prohibited excision of land could be allowed. Alternatively, allowing two dwellings on one allotment, when one has a HO control, could encourage the use of an older dwelling. The Trust recognised that neither of those ‘strategies’ would prevent an application for demolition once the exemption had been granted, with the excision option being ‘particularly vulnerable to exploitation’. The Trust suggested the possibility of permit conditions ‘to the effect that the HO dwelling must be kept in good condition and be habitable’. Alternatively, a permit condition (or a covenant made with the local Council pursuant to the Heritage Act or a section 173 agreement under the P&E Act) might be included ‘to the effect that the responsible authority would not normally consider granting a permit to demolish the HO dwelling in the future’. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-86
2.10.5
Final conclusions and recommendations
In some submissions there appears to have been a misunderstanding about the discretion that would be retained by a local Council if, as we suggested, otherwise prohibited uses were to be scheduled‐in. Allowing consideration of an otherwise prohibited use of course would not mean it must necessarily be permitted. If a statutory revision of the HO occurs as we recommend in Chapter 5, such that it provides different schedules for precincts and individual places, we see merit in there being different default positions for otherwise prohibited uses. The idea of automatically scheduling‐in otherwise prohibited uses in HO precincts should not be pursued. Such a provision could effectively amount to the rezoning of large areas of land. However, we continue to endorse the idea of automatically scheduling‐in otherwise prohibited uses for individual heritage places, for the reason that it would be likely to increase the use of the provision. Ultimately, local Councils would maintain control over whether such a provision was activated as it might be scheduled‐out. There should, however, be clearer guidance on when it is appropriate to allow such uses when application would be made under that provision of the HO. The current provisions at Clause 43.01‐5 are unusual. Two of the three prerequisites ‐ or condition precedents – for permitting use of a heritage place for an otherwise prohibited use are matters that are more akin to decision guidelines. There would be value in rethinking both the condition precedents and the decision guidelines. With respect to the latter, it is probably not necessary to require the views of the Heritage Council to be sought when VHR places are involved. We accept that it is appropriate to be cautious about introducing a provision which would allow an otherwise prohibited subdivision to occur of land in an HO – as it may be seen as a means to subvert the otherwise reasonably rigid controls over small lot subdivision in rural areas. Also, while there is the lure of a conservation benefit, there are real difficulties in ensuring that the benefit is directed to conservation ends. Furthermore, use of the existing provision for allowance for prohibited uses could potentially allow approval of a second dwelling on a lot. This is a matter which may have some conservation benefits but would need to be carefully considered and any new provision carefully scripted. We recommend: ƒ
If a system is introduced that enables different controls to be applied to precincts and individual places in the HO, then the default position for individual places should be that otherwise prohibited uses are allowed to be permitted, unless they are scheduled‐out. The contrary position should be adopted for precincts. That is, in the case of places that are precincts, otherwise‐prohibited uses should only be able to be considered if this discretion is scheduled‐in. ƒ
A revised VPP Practice Note should provide guidance on when otherwise prohibited uses should be scheduled‐in, including the necessary strategic justification. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-87
ƒ
The prerequisites and decision guidelines applicable to consideration of an otherwise prohibited use should be reviewed. ƒ
Consideration should be given to deleting the requirement in Clause 43.01‐5 for ‘the views of the Heritage Council’ to be taken into account. ƒ
The HC/HV Guidelines should include clear guidance on the exercise of discretion when a permit is sought for an otherwise prohibited use. ƒ
Further consideration should be given to allowing the subdivision of land including excision of a second dwelling on a lot, in situations where there would be a clear conservation benefit. This consideration should extend to whether satisfactory measures can be put in place to ensure conservation benefits are realised. 2.11
Places of significance for historical or social reasons
2.11.1
Scope of issue
As earlier discussed, most of the controls and decision guidelines in the HO derive from the tradition of conservation of built heritage fabric, primarily for its aesthetic values. The broadening of commonly accepted heritage criteria to include social value and historic values associated with important people and events raises issues about what should be controlled in order to preserve the significance of these places. Several Panel reports have commented on these matters, particularly in regard to places nominated as having historic values due to association with people or events. The Panel report on Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C37 and C38 discussed at length the appropriate threshold to be reached before such associations would constitute sufficient significance to warrant listing a place under the HO. It referred to the ‘Application Guidelines’ that accompany the 1990 version of the Criteria for the Register of the National Estate. These stress the need for places to illustrate the contribution of a person to public life and suggest that the extent to which the association (between person and place) affected the fabric of the place and the extent to which the place affected the person can be important. The Panel commented: … it seems reasonable to us that, relying on the AHC criterion’s [H1] Explanatory note and guidelines, there must be some nexus between a place and a person’s importance for that place to have any heritage significance. The Bayside Panel also pointed out that historical associations are often identified as a by‐product of research that is triggered by other qualities of the place – usually its aesthetic values. The Panel proposed that the thematic history or equivalent study should identify themes and people it considered significant and seek out places that might be connected with them, in parallel with the more usual process for identifying places to be investigated. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-88
The Panel also commented on what to control in order to preserve the significance of places identified for reasons other than architectural or aesthetic merit: … there was clear agreement that buildings that were significant for different reasons could reasonably be treated somewhat differently when proposals were made for any alterations. We have highlighted this point in particular in our comments in relation to 5 Edward Street, Sandringham, where the site’s significance is its association with the Boyd family, rather than the details of the general fabric of the house.
The report then went on to say, with particular reference to that property:
There remains the question about what aspects of fabric of the property should be identified as being significant in demonstrating the association with the Boyd family. We are of the opinion that the house is significant, but that significance does not reside in the details of the design or particular decorative features. Proposed future modifications to it should be assessed in this light. We do not see any reason why it would not be acceptable to make quite significant changes to the dwelling, as long as its principal elements were retained. The garden is clearly significant and the Schedule to Clause 43.01 should be amended to introduce additional tree controls. Likewise, the two outbuildings/ studios are significant and should be listed in Column 6 of the Schedule. However, we accept that these are in poor condition and contain hazardous materials and that it may not be practicable to restore them without unreasonable costs and/or risks. This is a matter to be decided when a permit is sought to demolish or alter them. The Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper also recognises the problem of planning schemes having to deal with sites which are of historical significance, but have little fabric remaining to illustrate that significance: To be listed on the Heritage Overlay we need to know what physical aspects are to be conserved. That paper suggests that in some cases a plaque may be more appropriate than planning controls, but in others, the landscape may have retained some of its early character or important views into the site might remain. The paper also suggests: Perhaps the clue to successful listing of either places with historic association or historic places with little extant fabric is the same. We simply need to know what physical attributes we want to keep and why. Similar issues apply to places recognised primarily for their social value. This is particularly likely to arise as a consequence of heritage studies that had a close involvement of local community members. Places may be nominated because of their importance to the community – for example, a midwife’s house or birthing hospital where generations of a town’s population were born – that now present as very modest, much altered dwellings. The attachment is to what the building represents REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-89
and the role it played in local history, rather than to the details of its fabric or the preservation of any particular design features. 2.11.2
Consultation views
This issue was not raised in any of the consultation meetings.
2.11.3
Advisory Committee initial views
The central issue is again the role of the statement of significance in defining what is important about the place and why. The decision guidelines in the HO need to be specifically linked to the statement of significance for each place. There may be a role for incorporated plans to customise planning provisions for places where standard controls over any changes to the fabric are not appropriate or not adequate as a means of preserving the significance of the place. Similar comments may apply to places of social value, which may be intangible or non‐
material, and to places of spiritual significance. 2.11.4
Preliminary conclusions and draft recommendations
In the Consultation Paper the Advisory Committee suggested that: 2.11.5
ƒ
the decision guidelines in Clause 43.01‐4 be amended to include specific reference to the statement of significance for a place (where one exists) ƒ
greater flexibility be provided (by means of a schedule or incorporated plan) to vary the provisions of the HO to reflect the specific values of a place and the controls required to protect its significance. Formal consultation views
Comments on this section confirmed the Advisory Committee’s impression that conserving heritage places significant for their historical and social value has sometimes been difficult to achieve under the current structure of the HO. There was general agreement that the decision guidelines in Clause 43.01‐4 should include specific reference to the statement of significance for a place (where one exists). Other comments included: ƒ
The relationship between the stories (historical or social values) and the fabric of the place needs to be made explicit in the statement of significance for a place. The reasons for a place’s significance should be the guiding factor in management. While agreeing with this proposition, some submitters were concerned about what would happen to places that do not have statements of significance. ƒ
The decision guidelines in the HO need to be augmented to provide guidance on the exercise of discretion with regard to places of historical or social significance. A starting point could be the definition of historic value in the Burra Charter. An updated document on criteria and thresholds should also be produced, which REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-90
should deal (amongst other things) with historical and social significance and intangible heritage. The HV standard brief for local heritage studies may also need to be amended. 2.11.6
ƒ
There were varying views about the degree of alteration that was acceptable in a place of historic or social significance, before it would fail to reach the threshold for listing under the HO. Overall, submitters agreed with the principle that greater intactness adds to the value of a place, and indicated that they thought that it was desirable that there be at least some surviving fabric linked to the historical event/personage or social value. Clearly, proposed alterations to a place listed in the HO also need to be managed in a manner that ensures that the alterations do not make the place so different that its historical or social meaning is lost. Nevertheless there was some support for the view that some events or associations may be so important that a place might retain significance regardless of past treatment. ƒ
Reference should be made in the Advisory Committee report to the Victorian Framework for Historic Themes, which is currently in preparation. It may help to give weight to conservation of places important for their historic or social values. ƒ
There is a need for training of Councillors in heritage and decision‐making under the HO, particularly in relation to non‐architectural/aesthetic values. ƒ
One submission commented that different Councils place different values on places of historical or social significance: ‘heritage poor’ local government areas may try to protect places that other better‐endowed municipalities would not consider. It was not clear whether this was intended as a criticism or whether the submitter felt it was justified in terms of the development history of the areas in question. ƒ
There was some support for a separate schedule for places of historic or social value where there is no significant fabric – planning authorities could seek to manage use (where this is important) or provide for appropriate interpretation of the heritage values of the place. Permits relating to appropriate development could be exempt. ƒ
The DSE submission suggested that there was a need to clarify the comments in the Consultation Paper concerning the need for greater flexibility to vary the requirements of the HO to reflect the particular values of a place. It suggested that an example should be provided. Final conclusions and recommendations
Managing places with social or historic values that have little or no heritage fabric poses a particular problem for the planning system. As we have earlier commented, planning is about management of the environment and changes to it, and an appropriate ‘threshold’ that a heritage place should be required to pass is that it has something to be managed. This ‘something’ is usually tangible fabric but it may, for example, be a significant absence of built form, special spatial characteristic or a pattern of ownership. If such things are present, then however ephemeral they are, there will be something to manage. If not, a commemorative plaque is the appropriate way of signifying the importance of the place to the local community. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-91
Our recommendations are: 2.12
ƒ
Heritage studies should give consideration to the process recommended by the Bayside C37 & C38 Panel, that is, identifying themes and people considered important in the history of the area and seeking out places connected with them. ƒ
The decision guidelines in Clause 43.01‐4 should be amended to include specific reference to the statement of significance for a place (where one exists). ƒ
Heritage studies/documentation of places on the HO should be reviewed and updated progressively to ensure that all individually significant places have their own statement of significance. ƒ
Greater flexibility should be provided (by means of a schedule or incorporated plan) to vary the provisions of the HO to reflect the specific values of a place and to modify the controls required to protect its significance. ƒ
The importance of the basic threshold for listing under the HO – having something to manage – should be spelled out in the PPN Applying the Heritage Overlay (as renamed). Visibility from public and private realm
In describing what they seek to control and achieve, the VPP and the HO in all planning schemes are silent as to whether it is relevant to the consideration of significance, or impacts upon it, that the place or element is visible or not visible from certain vantage points. The purpose of Clause 43.01 and its decision guidelines simply focus on impacts on the ‘significance of the heritage place’. There is a SPPF reference, however, in Clause 15.11, to maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s ‘image’. To the extent that that ‘image’ goes beyond ‘reputation’ and extends to the physical environment, there may be some suggestion here that public visibility is an issue to be addressed. Also many planning schemes have local policies and guidelines as reference documents that distinguish between ‘concealed’ built form and built form that is ‘visible from the street’. The recent changes to exempt buildings and works at Clause 62.02 of the VPP and consequent changes to the matters requiring permission under the HO, have led to references in the HO to visibility ‘from a street (other than a lane) or public park’ in relation to minor domestic services and rainwater tanks. It is often assumed ‐ by members of the general public at least and sometimes by others with closer associations with heritage conservation ‐ that the principal role of the HO is to protect views from the frontage (or a rear laneway, park or other public space). It is commonly considered that development that is invisible from the street will not impact adversely on significance. As earlier suggested, that will not, however, always be the case. The Committee notes the careful references to visibility from the public realm in the recent HC/HV Guidelines for example in the discussion of area HOs and demolition at Part 3.4.6. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-92
2.12.1
Review of case law and consultation views
VCAT members referred the Committee to numerous decisions considering the relevance of views from the private and public domain. An important case is A Goodfellow v Boroondara CC (2001) 9 VPR 52; [2001] VCAT 2121. The Tribunal held there was nothing in the HO, the relevant heritage study (a reference document in the planning scheme) or the development guidelines in the study (an incorporated document) to support the proposition that views of a building from the private domain are irrelevant. The Tribunal held that the height and bulk of the proposed building was excessive when viewed from the private and public domain, and both vantage points were relevant. In that case the ‘private domain’ was the abutting and nearby back yards and the ‘public domain’ was the street and a right of way and park to the rear. That approach was also adopted in the pre‐VPP case of Frank Basile and Associates v Port Phillip CC [1998] VCAT 365; editorial comment 22 AATR 247. In that case the Administrative Appeals Tribunal commented: ...the rear extension to the dwellings in the terrace would be visible from a number of surrounding properties, not just from public spaces. In my view it is proper that residents of an urban conservation area, and their visitors, are able to enjoy the heritage values of the area when seen from their own properties, as well as from public spaces. P Goodrich and Frank Basile have been endorsed in a number of recent cases. For instance, in Boris Kaspiev & Ors v Port Phillip CC (Application for Review 1998/81898) VCAT noted that the purpose and scope of the HO, together with the decision guidelines in Clause 43.01‐5, consistently refer to ‘the heritage place’, not ‘the streetscape’. Furthermore, the relevant provisions of the Council’s ‘Heritage Building Guidelines’ applied to ‘all visible facades’. The Tribunal also noted the 1989 decision in Davey v City of Camberwell 2 AATR 55 where it was said: The proposed extension would be highly visible to neighbouring properties. Where people have purchased dwellings in an Urban Conservation Area, it seems to the Tribunal that they are entitled to some assurance that rear extensions, which will be visible to them on a daily basis, are carried out in accordance with the prevailing architectural characteristics of the area which have led to its conservation specification in the first place. In Gro Ruz Eaglemont PL v Banyule CC [2006] VCAT 48, the Tribunal did not accept the evidence of a heritage consultant that perception from the public domain represented a sufficient basis for deciding the matter. The Tribunal stated: We take the view that a place’s heritage significance can be established independently of whether it can be seen from a particular vantage point. Often, buildings are screened from public view, archaeological sites totally hidden, historic REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-93
sites unidentifiable, or, an important subdivision plan (as in this case) may be understood from its designer’s drawings. Nor did the Tribunal accept the implication of another expert that the view from the street should determine the impact of the proposed subdivision and building envelope on both the existing subdivision and the building. The Tribunal stated: Even if we were to take the view that vantage point was relevant then it could include views from adjoining property, from the air or elevated points, and from within the site. Relying on the cultural significance of the heritage place, as revealed in incorporated and reference documents and expert evidence, the Tribunal in Clinton Casey v Boroondara CC [2004] VCAT 324 was of the view that: ...the key issue in heritage terms is the visibility from the public view...That is not to say, other views are not relevant, but those views are of a lesser relevance in heritage terms than the view from [the street].... In terms of the views from the private realm while these will be altered they do not...adversely affect the significance of the heritage place to such an extent as would warrant refusal of the application. They [sic] may be situations where a private view would assume a greater relevance than a public view such an example would be where a building is screened from the public view by vegetation an/or fencing, but this is not the case in this situation. Other VCAT decisions have focussed on the tension between protecting views from the street and other planning objectives. For instance, in Bowman v Hobsons Bay CC [2004] VCAT 1379, the Tribunal commented on the ‘unfortunate basic tension’ between the neighbourhood character benefits of keeping upper level bulk more to the front of a site and away from the back yards of neighbours versus the heritage benefits of requiring upper level built form to be pushed to the back of the site, to protect view lines from the street. The Tribunal saw no simple answer to this tension. While noting the ‘specific requirements’ of the various applicable heritage controls to minimise the heritage impacts on a particular street, the Tribunal considered that ultimately it is a judgment for the Tribunal as to whether the neighbourhood character and residential amenity impacts of this approach are acceptable. A further theme in many of the VCAT decisions is the need to strike a balance between heritage conservation objectives and such matters as the need for modern living accommodation, the retention of building stock and accommodation for families. For example, in Taylor v Port Phillip CC (Application for Review 2000/006672), the Tribunal supported rear additions to a building in a terrace of an important heritage building because they responded to the ‘needs of modern occupants’ even though they were visible from the public realm to a degree. One submitter noted that compared to other states Victoria has very extensive heritage controls with very high levels of public acceptance. They posited that important contributors to that acceptance are that demolition remains discretionary and property REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-94
owners have been allowed to ‘adapt dwellings for modern life, particularly to the rear’. They argued that there should be caution in changing this approach. The Committee heard that the issues relating to vantage points are often different in rural areas and country towns to those in more intensively developed areas. For instance, in isolated rural areas, buildings may be well removed from the closest road and other properties. In country towns often distant views of the three dimensional form of buildings are important. Those situations were not the subject of any VCAT cases we reviewed. The question was raised of who judges what are relevant vantage points? On that matter we note that many local policies and guidelines attempt to objectively define desired levels of concealment in particular situations by reference to sight lines from the opposite side of the street. Other policies and guidelines are more general. For instance, they refer to ‘demolition of fabric to the rear, particularly when not visible from the street, is likely to be of less concern’ or ‘additions should generally be concealed from views within the street’. In contrast, incorporated plans in the Ballarat Planning Scheme include permit exemptions for development within specified areas of a site, including areas removed from abutting roads. It was generally considered that very minor works that are not visible from the public realm should not require planning permission. However, reflecting the view of the Tribunal in Gro Ruz Eaglemont, some of the people consulted questioned whether it is was appropriate to relinquish control over additions/alterations or new development because they would not be visible from the street simply due to their concealment by a fence, vegetation or some other interruption to views (that could be removed in any case). 2.12.2
Advisory Committee initial consideration and draft recommendations
Many of the VCAT decisions appear to take a purist approach to the issue of vantage points. Unless restricted vantage points are suggested in supporting documents, the Tribunal has generally considered that views from both the public and private domain are relevant. That broad approach may be said to be at odds with the notion that heritage is not a static concept and buildings should be allowed to be adapted. It may also undermine the widespread acceptance in Victoria of heritage controls. However, it is the Committee’s view that ultimately the focus of heritage controls should not be on views from particular vantage points per se. Rather, the focus should be on the significance of the heritage place and how the proposed development or works would impact on that significance. Such an assessment inevitably relies on the proper assessment and documentation of the significance of heritage places, including elements that contribute to significance. While local policies and guidelines may refer to vantage points, the consideration of that issue should at best be a qualification of or subordinate to the primary consideration of impact on significance. An exception, of course, is where the basis of significance for a place lies only in the streetscape. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-95
Possible statutory reforms include: 2.12.3
ƒ
Precluding reference in planning schemes to assessing significance by reference to vantage points except in areas where significance derives from the heritage streetscape. ƒ
Clarifying the role of views in heritage considerations in supporting documents such as the VPP Practice Note. ƒ
Designing HO controls so that consideration of views only from the public realm (rather than all views) is a factor to be deliberately ‘turned on’. Formal consultation views
The submissions concurred with our view that the focus of heritage controls should be on how a proposal would impact on the significance of the heritage place, and not on views from particular vantage points per se. For instance, VCAT commented on the need to draw a distinction between the ‘protection of public views and the protection of private realms’ but ‘not in a rudimentary fashion by practice or regulation, but on an individual basis from the statement of significance itself’. VCAT suggested that: If the statement of significance has accurately identified what is to be protected, then whether just the public view needs to be protected, or whether both the public and private realm need to be protected will be clear, and it will be a straightforward matter to establish what needs to be protected on a particular property. A Heritage Advisor argued that ‘visual appreciation’ of a place should be addressed in the statement of significance. The adviser suggested that the significance of streetscapes ‘is only one special case’, but there may also be situations ‘where there is no claim over the private realm’. A planner with the Mornington Peninsula Shire noted that it would be useful if the statement of significance provided, amongst other things, ‘some indication’ of whether it is ‘primarily intended to maintain a streetscape elevation’. Some local Councils advised that they deal with the issue of visibility via local policies and/or incorporated documents. For instance, for a building graded ‘significant’, the entire fabric is to be protected, whether visible from the public domain or not. However, for a building graded ‘contributory’ visibility from the public domain is important. The National Trust noted that it is ‘standard practice’ in the inner city, and precincts generally, to ‘focus on the visible or at least the front section of the place as being the most significant’, given that most places are ‘contributory’ and ‘have a clear “front and back”’. The Trust endorsed the current HC/HV Guidelines that generally recommend the retention of the front two rooms and main roof form, but argued that that should apply to ‘contributory buildings, not individually significant ones’. The Trust also noted that in the near future more post WWII houses will be included in the HO and REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-96
that they are ‘are often designed “in the round” and the back is as important as the front’. A number of submissions opposed the idea of controls that would result in demolition or alterations and additions not visible from the street being exempt from the need for a planning permit. A Heritage Advisor observed that with such exemptions ‘some streets would be reduced to stage sets with only facades’. The Shire of Nillumbik highlighted the complexity of the connection between visibility and significance on sites which are difficult to view given their size or because vegetation or topography intervene between the public realm and the place. On the other hand, a number of local Councils supported reforms to the HO that would allow views from the public realm ‘to be paramount’ in the consideration of proposals within a precinct (as opposed to individually listed buildings). Potential changes to the notice, decision and appeal requirements for such proposals were also supported. The Heritage Council advised that its current position on this issue, in a variety of settings, is dealt with in the HC/HV Guidelines. DSE supported the first of the possible statutory reforms we listed in our Consultation Paper; that is, assessment of significance by reference in planning schemes to vantage points should be precluded, except in areas where significance derives from the streetscape. The third possible reform we listed was that heritage controls be designed so that consideration of views only from the public realm (rather than all views) is a factor to be deliberately ‘turned on’ (triggered in the HO schedule). Responses included: ƒ
DSE submitted that it might lead to its universal application for precincts and that it would be essential to point out that the recommendation ‘should only have limited application and would need specific support from the statement of significance’. ƒ
The City of Glen Eira argued that it ‘could be good for some heritage areas where we are really only concerned with views from the street’. However, for individual buildings ‘there is obviously the need for consideration of views the whole way around the building’. ƒ
The City of Boroondara argued that it would place on Councils ‘an onerous burden’ in seeking to introduce controls and in assessing proposals. For example, while it is unlikely that a view control would be triggered for a ‘non‐contributory place’ within a precinct, consideration of streetscape impacts and impacts on views may be warranted when considering a replacement development. A preferable approach would be for the HO provisions ‘to provide increased guidance as to the assessment of views from the public realm in relation to heritage considerations, particularly in relation to streetscape considerations and the assessment of proposals within precincts’. ƒ
The City of Hobsons Bay advised that its current policies deal with views from the street. The Council suggested that ‘if other views are significant’ they ‘should be able to be selected’, but otherwise they should not apply. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-97
ƒ
2.12.4
A Heritage Advisor noted that the rear of an individually significant building may contribute to significance. However, where a building is contributory to the HO, and the statement of significance does not address rear yards, any control over the rear yard is not warranted. It should not be assumed that the private domain is significant. Consideration of ‘private domain views’ should be ‘deliberately turned on’, like outbuildings and interiors. Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee considers that an improved system would provide an ability to accommodate both standard and optional permit exemptions – based on visibility from vantage points ‐ for individual places and for precincts. Local Councils should be provided with the opportunity to decide that in certain precincts there is no wish to control various buildings and works not visible from a street or public park. It would seem likely that this approach would most often be relevant in parts of the inner metropolitan area or some older parts of regional centres. While that opportunity should be provided in recognition of the fact that the basis of significance for some places will be their historic streetscape value, default or standard provisions and guidelines should be careful to not incorporate any explicit expression or implication that preserving the view from the street amounts to conserving heritage significance. The Committee recommends: ƒ
Statements of significance should indicate whether significance relates only to views from the public realm, or whether views from other vantage points are also relevant. ƒ
The role of views in heritage considerations should be expressed in the decision guidelines of the HO and clarified in a revised VPP Practice Note. ƒ
Consideration should be given to introducing a provision in the HO which requires public views to the heritage place be ‘turned‐on’ as a decision guideline. 2.13
Researching and recording significance
2.13.1
Scope of issue
There are two main matters which arise in this context. The first is the need to develop a consistent and high quality approach to the preparation of heritage studies. As noted earlier, Panels have sometimes found fault with the background studies which purport to justify the significance of places proposed for listing. There is also a quite considerable variation in approach to studies in different municipalities. Further, given that heritage studies often become established as reference documents of schemes without being subject to challenge REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-98
and/or close scrutiny through the Panel system, it is important that ‘quality‐control’ occurs by other means. The second matter relates to statements of significance. Statements of significance are key documents in managing heritage places: there is a need for the preparation of statements of significance for all heritage places which are designed not only to be a record of the importance of the place, but are useful in the process of considering permit applications. 2.13.2
Consultation views and Panel experiences
In relation to the issue of heritage studies, the Committee notes that the Panel that recently considered Amendment C80 Part 2 to the Casey Planning Scheme, which proposed the introduction of a number of new HOs, was very complimentary in its report about the way that the research for the heritage study had been approached and structured. In particular, the report commented upon the quality of the thematic history which had been prepared and noted its critical strategic role in supporting the proposed listings. The approach to the structure of the heritage investigations in that case, whereby the significance of buildings is strategically underpinned by their relationship to municipal historic themes, is also found in the current Heritage Victoria brief for heritage studies. Despite this standard brief for heritage studies, however, study outcomes do vary from municipality to municipality. Some of this variation was thought to relate to a shortage of professional heritage practitioners prepared to conduct heritage studies within the budgets available (and to later find themselves at Panel hearings being criticised for their work). The consultations indicated general support for the Heritage Victoria standard study brief and the preparation of thematic histories. There were less consistent views, however, about the content of statements of significance. While there was general acceptance of the critical role of statements in managing places and about the need to broadly state the basis of the significance of the place and identify the elements of significance, the heritage consultants and advisers in particular had differing views as to whether the statements should be short and ‘pithy’ or more fulsome. This was not merely a stylistic difference but represented different approaches to effectively conveying relevant information to decision makers. It was suggested by some that a clear understanding of the basis of significance could be clouded by overly long statements; others thought that a fuller exposition was necessary to convey significance. There were differing views also as to whether the statements should go so far as to make management recommendations. A view was expressed that statements of significance for precincts need to specify what fabric and spaces between/around the fabric are significant. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-99
2.13.3
Advisory Committee initial conclusions and draft recommendations
In the Consultation Paper, the Committee endorsed the strong support for a consistent approach to the preparation of heritage studies and the current Heritage Victoria brief to consultants. In as much as study approaches and outputs still vary, it was said that it would be appropriate to explore ways to achieve greater consistency. In this respect the Committee supported further Heritage Victoria training of consultants and Council planners in relation to the conduct of studies and the development of a model template for study reports. As well prepared statements of significance are central to making well‐ informed decisions about development proposals affecting heritage places – by defining the basis of significance and the elements that should be conserved ‐ every effort should be made to ensure their timely, consistent and accurate preparation. A template for statements of significance should be designed by Heritage Victoria and its use promoted through the standard study brief and a revised Practice Note. Also, as elsewhere recommended, the decision guidelines in the HO should make reference to considering the statement of significance for places subject to permit applications. 2.13.4
Formal consultation views
There were not many formal submissions on this issue but generally those that were received supported the Committee’s draft recommendations. In relation to a consistent approach to the preparation of heritage studies, the City of Boroondara supported this idea and also noted that there is currently no standardised brief for the preparation of ‘gap’ studies and reviews of dated heritage studies. The City of Yarra also supported this consistent approach to studies as well as the development of a model template for study reports. One Heritage Advisor suggested that peer reviews of heritage studies would be advantageous to the planning scheme amendment process. The RAIA commented that: ….it is critical that adequate funding is allocated for Heritage Studies to ensure high level, detailed and thorough studies are undertaken. The outcomes and recommendations of these studies must be relevant to and able to be applied to planning schemes. If there are outcomes and recommendations which cannot legally and/or practically be applied to the planning schemes they should be clearly presented as a separate part of the heritage study. Every heritage listed building/place should have a detailed citation and some existing Heritage Studies need to be reviewed and updated to address this issue. RAIA Victoria also supports the recommendations for consistent approach to the preparation of heritage studies. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-100
The City of Glen Eira supported the draft recommendation for a standard citation template, with the proviso that any new template should be rolled out over time when Councils review their HOs. The City of Boroondara and the City of Yarra also supported the introduction of a standard template for succinct statements of significance and for guidance on the statement to be provided in the VPP Practice Note. The Victorian Council of Churches also supported a standardised format for statements of significance and emphasised that, in relation to church properties, the statement of significance needs to clearly articulate why the church property is significant and where there is a complex of buildings, indicate which buildings are significant and which are not. The Heritage Council again supported this approach and commented that HV should provide specific guidance on this matter to local government, practitioners and Heritage Advisors. However, not all submitters supported the idea of a standard template for statements of significance. The City of Stonnington commented that: Such a template may constrain and distort the key messages that need to be addressed for a particular place. It is agreed that the Statement of Significance should address some key elements. Council supports the development of a guidelines and samples of statements of significance. The City of Stonnington also commented on the need to differentiate between citations in the Heritage Study which can contain a large amount of detail about a heritage place and the statement of significance which should remain a brief summary of the key issues relating to the significance of a heritage place. The Macedon Ranges Residents Association asked if as well as statements of significance there should ‘… also be a statement of contextual significance and listing of potentially threatening processes (e.g. what’s not to be lost about the place)?’ The City of Yarra concurred with the recommendation that the decision guidelines in Clause 43.01 should make reference to considering the statement of significance of the place. 2.13.5
Final conclusions and recommendations
Based on the general support for greater consistency in the process for researching and recording significance, the Committee recommends that: ƒ
The standard study brief for heritage studies should be reviewed so that it can also apply to ‘gap’ studies and the review of dated heritage studies. ƒ
Further training should be provided for Council planners, heritage consultants and relevant stakeholders in relation to the conduct of heritage studies. ƒ
A template for statements of significance should be prepared by Heritage Victoria and its use promoted through the standard heritage study brief and the revised Practice Note. ƒ
The decision guidelines in Clause 43.01 should include reference to considering the statement of significance for places subject to permit applications. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-101
2.14
A priori listing
As earlier discussed, the preparation and implementation of a municipal heritage study is not cheap and may put particular resource strains on some Councils especially, perhaps, those with rural budgets and/or hundreds of potential heritage sites. 2.14.1
Scope of issue
The Ballarat C58 Panel made the suggestion that the discrepancy between the effort required to prepare definitive documentation of heritage places and the resources available to undertake the task could be resolved by using ‘a two‐tier structure to the HO’. As described in the Panel report, Level 1 controls ‘would be based on the premise of unequivocally identifying what we want to keep.’ It was suggested that Level 1 controls would be applied to individual buildings or areas of State or regional significance whose significance had been established on the basis of a rigorous application of established AHC criteria. The significance set out in the statement of significance would not be open to challenge, the Panel suggested, except at the time of the amendment applying the overlay. The expectation would be that a permit would not be issued for demolition except in exceptional circumstances. The Panel also suggested that Level 2 controls ‘would be based on the premise of identifying what we don’t want to lose without serious thought.’ The arrangement envisaged by the Panel was that Level 2 controls would apply to other buildings or areas having prima facie local heritage significance on the basis of assessment against a set of simplified criteria designed for the assessment of local significance. The prima facie heritage significance could then be challenged at the time of application for a planning permit. The expectation would be that a permit could be issued for demolition on the basis of identified criteria. Should such a structure be established? 2.14.2
Consultation views
The Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper considers this proposal. It refers to the lower of the two grades of listing as ‘a priori listing’. Benefits are identified such as conserving research effort ‘for when and where it is really required’: and the introduction of the HO ‘with a minimum of effort’, while still requiring a planning permit for alterations or demolition. However, the paper identifies the significant problems of a reduction in certainty and a consequent increase in appeals (applications for review to VCAT); and the potential to undermine the regard in which the thousands of places already covered by the HO are held. On that matter the paper suggests that the vast majority of places that will ever be in the overlay are already there. The Review of Criteria and Thresholds also raises the issue of how the planning authority, or VCAT, would make decisions about places that are listed with minimal REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-102
information. The paper asks: ‘Would it be necessary to commission further investigation of any provisionally listed property... even if that permit is not going to be contested?’ Commentators on that paper offered strong opposition to ‘a priori listing’ with minimal documentation that could then be challenged at VCAT. Their comments referred to the need for some understanding of significance in order to be able to make permit decisions and the likely result of poor quality heritage studies that might not have public support. It was also pointed out the concentration of research on places that are in dispute already occurs, to some extent, through the Panel system. 2.14.3
Advisory Committee initial consideration
The Committee in the Consultation Paper adopted the conclusion of the Review of Criteria and Thresholds paper that ‘a priori listing’ of places on the basis of a reduced level of documentation should not be pursued. It was said that it would have benefits with respect to the use of scarce resources. However, those are outweighed by a number of problems in our view: it would increase uncertainty and raise issues of fairness. Who would pay for the ‘further investigation’? In a precinct covered by a HO, why should the onus be on the first permit applicant to establish significance? In the Committee’s view, the best time to make assessments is not when buildings are threatened by demolition. Also such a system of listing would effectively transfer decision making about significance from the planning authority (and Panels) to VCAT. 2.14.4
Draft recommendation
A two‐tier approach to listing, on the basis of a reduced level of documentation for Level 2 places, should not be pursued. 2.14.5
Formal consultation views
The submissions almost universally endorsed our draft recommendation that a two‐tier approach to listing not be pursued. A Heritage Advisor argued that a system involving a prior listing would undermine the significance of heritage places and would become unworkable and unsustainable from a planning management perspective. Submissions noted the increased uncertainty, issues of fairness and the transference of decision‐
making about significance from the planning authority to VCAT. Only one submission – from the City of Ballarat ‐ suggested that the concept should be explored further. The Council noted the substantial resources required to prepare citations for each element that makes up a heritage place that is a precinct. The Council highlighted that changes to individual sites or elements occur over time and it is often not until the permit application stage that further information about significance comes to light. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-103
2.14.6
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee acknowledges the need for cost effective ways to manage heritage places and the considerable resources required to prepare detailed citations. Nevertheless, we do not support the concept of a priori listing, with a reduced level of documentation for some places. We adopt our earlier reasons for that conclusion. The Committee recommends: ƒ
The concept of a priori listing should not be pursued. 2.15
Keeping and updating heritage documentation
2.15.1
Scope of issue
The Terms of Reference call for consideration of how documentation on heritage places, especially those subject to a HO, is maintained. This should include consideration of paper based and electronic databases and linkages between the statutory HO provisions and the supporting documentation. 2.15.2
Consultation views
As part of the Heritage Studies Review, six heritage studies that were completed between 1994 and 2001 were examined. The studies used various databases. Only one Council had the consultant database and data installed on its computer and all relied to some extent on hard copies of the study to access information. There were inconsistencies in how heritage places were listed. The review identified support for an integrated State‐wide database. The review anticipated that the new requirement for studies to provide data for Heritage Victoria’s electronic Local Heritage Places Database (LHPD) would provide an appropriate uniform approach. Mention was also made of the brief referring to possible alternative means of information recording (for example video recording). The standard Heritage Study Brief (dated 28 April 2006) by Heritage Victoria still requires consultants to use the LHPD as a data repository. However, the brief notes that Heritage Victoria is in the process of phasing out the use of LHPD and instead providing Councils with external access to HERMES, which has been Heritage Victoria’s main business tool for a number of years. It notes that once that access is available, consultants undertaking heritage studies that are partially or wholly funded by the State Government will be required to enter place data in this database. Heritage Victoria staff advised that the brief is currently being updated to require the mandatory use of HERMES and remove references to the LHPD. A user manual is being prepared. Individual Councils will own and manage the data on HERMES and data will be available to anyone else with approved access to HERMES. Heritage Victoria staff advised the Committee that while HERMES will be extremely valuable as a ‘live’ or changeable database, there will continue to be a need for the maintenance of ‘static records’ to fit the statutory process. Where a heritage study is an REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-104
incorporated or reference document in a planning scheme, it is critical that it be available (in digital form and as hard copy) in the form it was adopted. In relation to studies concluded before the use of HERMES, Heritage Victoria staff advised the Committee that a pilot project has been underway to input heritage place information into HERMES. Municipalities including Greater Geelong, Hobsons Bay, Boroondara and Manningham have been involved. The process has been relatively straightforward in most cases, although the age of one study has presented problems with the direct scanning of information into HERMES. Heritage place information includes the name/address, statement of significance, history, description, reference document and comparison with other places. It can include photos and other images. It includes individual HOs and precincts, as well as places identified in studies but either not yet covered by an overlay or rejected for HO cover. Those Councils that have supplied data will have full management rights and responsibilities for their own data. They will also have ‘read only’ access to the data relating to other municipalities and to the separate Heritage Victoria place data, other than contact details (such as land owner and permit applications) and ‘event data’ (relating to processes within Heritage Victoria). Upon request, other parties could be provided with access. Data can be retrieved by reference to a keyword, address or Local Government Area. The date is not linked to the Geographic Information System (GIS) used by Councils, although there is the prospect that that could occur in the future. Each place has a unique HERMES number. Although there is no provision for including the number in the schedule to the HO, the Committee was advised that that was a possibility. Alternatively, the HERMES number could be included in the address column. Heritage place information from four more municipalities is to be included in HERMES by the middle of this year and the process will be ongoing, with 20 municipalities expected to be involved by June 2008. There is no mandatory requirement for this process and it will depend on on‐going funding. During our consultations there was widespread support for a readily available electronic data system. It was suggested that this should include all information relating to heritage places and related resources, including statements of significance, criteria for assessing heritage issues and guideline materials. Such information would not only be useful for decision makers. It would be useful to prospective designers, purchasers and owners in making decisions about heritage matters. One submitter mentioned the need for both paper based and electronic databases and linkages between the statutory heritage provisions and the supporting documentation. It was suggested that documentation should be available on a website; reviewed and updated with nominated sunset clauses to ensure reviews occur on a regular basis; and accessed via an up to date index prepared by a librarian. Another submitter noted the need to integrate HERMES with Council software systems. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-105
There is also the issue of the need to amend documentation to reflect information that arises during a permit process, particularly new information about a place or existing information that is ‘challenged’. 2.15.3
Advisory Committee initial consideration and draft recommendations
The ongoing project to input information from past studies and the requirement for new studies to provide data into HERMES will greatly improve the situation relating to the keeping and updating of information. The use of HERMES offers major advantages in relation to the accessibility of data. It will also be invaluable for comparative analyses. The only negative element of HERMES apparent to the Committee is that the lack of broad band internet access in rural areas may mean reduced access for some. As this is a new development there is a need to monitor its progress. Refinements may be desirable or necessary, especially in relation to integration with Council land information systems and inclusion of a HERMES number for places listed in the schedule to the HO. There is a need to ensure that ‘static records’ that are part of the statutory regime are maintained in an appropriate way. There should also be caution about reliance on HERMES data. There can be no guarantee of its accuracy. HERMES should not be viewed as a de facto planning scheme. The definitive information should always be the online planning scheme. The Committee’s initial recommendations were: ƒ
Support the continued program of inputting old heritage studies into HERMES. ƒ
Investigate and implement measures to ensure there is convenient and widespread access to HERMES. ƒ
Introduce measures to ensure incorporated and reference documents are maintained in their adopted form and are readily available. ƒ
Enable refinements to HERMES as problems or data requirements are identified. ƒ
Include an additional column for the HERMES number included in the schedule to the HO. ƒ
Funding should be made available to allow the integration of the HERMES system with Council software systems. ƒ
Support consideration of heritage documentation requirements in the DSE (now DPCD) e‐planning strategy. ƒ
Investigate how to require regular review of stored information. ƒ
Investigate procedures to allow input of new information that arises during permit process. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-106
2.15.4
Formal consultation views
There was almost universal support for the use of HERMES as a centralised system for all heritage data collection and updating. However, the following observations were made: ƒ
There is a need for adequate funding to transfer all data to HERMES as well as technical support by a central authority such as Heritage Victoria. ƒ
Many local Councils have their own electronic heritage databases that are, or will eventually be, linked to their Geographic Information System [GIS] and property database. To be useful, HERMES must be able to be integrated with other Council databases, including GIS and permit processing systems. ƒ
HERMES must be able to be easily updated on a day‐to‐day basis. ƒ
There are implications arising from the fact that HERMES is a dynamic database. Firstly, it needs to have a ‘point in time’ capacity that provides a history or archive of planning scheme amendments. Secondly, while HERMES could be the appropriate depository of statements of significance, if statements of significance are to be incorporated in planning schemes it would be necessary for the data to remain unaltered unless an amendment is introduced. Alternatively, the status of HERMES data could be reduced to reference level. ƒ
There needs to be a procedure to allow the input of new information that comes to light during the permit process. ƒ
It cannot be assumed that all individuals or all areas have broadband access. Paper records of heritage documentation should also be kept and be available for the public to access. ƒ
Unrealistic time lines should not be placed on the review of stored information. ƒ
Some of the Councils involved with the pilot project have experienced difficulties importing ‘old’ information into HERMES. ƒ
While HERMES has excellent potential, its use during the preparation of heritage studies is yet to be fully tested. Consideration should be given to not making HERMES mandatory in the standard Heritage Study Brief until it has been completely tested and any issues resolved. As a separate but related matter concerning recording of places, a Heritage Advisor highlighted that the Burra Charter calls for existing fabric to be ‘adequately recorded before any changes are made to the place’. The Advisor argued that, accordingly, where demolition of a place ‐ or contributory element – is allowed, as a matter of course an archival record should be made by the local Council or the owner. The Advisor suggested that this should be lodged with the Council or a public collection/library. The Advisor noted that digital photography allows an archival quality and cheap way of doing this. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007
2-107
2.15.5
Final conclusions and recommendations
The Committee endorses the use of HERMES as a centralised database for the collection, storage and updating of heritage information. Many of the submissions raised factors that should be taken into account during the development and implementation of the system. We recommend: ƒ
HERMES should be the principal repository for heritage data, including existing and future heritage studies, statements of significance and full citations. ƒ
Funding and technical support should be provided to local Councils to facilitate the use of HERMES, including the integration with Council databases and software systems. ƒ
HERMES should have an archive capacity showing the history of planning scheme amendments, earlier heritage studies and statements of significance. ƒ
Paper records of heritage documentation should be maintained and be readily available. ƒ
There should be an investigation of how and when stored information should be reviewed and updated. ƒ
HERMES should also be the repository of archival material concerning demolished buildings or other fabric. REVIEW OF HERITAGE PROVISIONS IN PLANNING SCHEMES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – AUGUST 2007