Eastern Golf Course, Doncaster Road, Doncaster

Transcription

1 , Road, Heritage Assessment in accordance with Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay July 2013 bryce raworth conservation urban design 19 Victoria Street St Kilda Vic 3182

2 , Road, Heritage Assessment in accordance with Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay June Introduction This heritage assessment was commissioned by Mirvac, the owners of the Eastern Golf Course. It has been prepared in accordance with the draft Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay, which states that a development plan for the place must include, inter alia, a heritage assessment. 2.0 Sources of Information The analysis draws upon relevant documents such as: Current built form master plan [part], page 24 of the Development Plan. Report of the Panel, Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C86, 17 May Context Pty Ltd, Peterson R, Stafford B, (1991) City of and Templestowe Heritage Study; Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd (August 2009) Draft Eastern Golf Course Conservation Management Plan; Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd (August 2009) Draft Eastern Golf Course Heritage Tree Assessment; Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd (February 2011) The Site of the Conservation Analysis and Policy; Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd & CDA Design Group (2011) Eastern Golf Course Heritage Tree Assessment; and the relevant sections of the Manningham Planning Scheme, including Clauses 43.01, and Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 1

3 3.0 Current Listing and Controls Manningham The whole of the is currently identified as a heritage place, HO43, in the Manningham Planning Scheme. The citation for the place as found in Context Pty Ltd, Peterson R, Stafford B, (1991) City of and Templestowe Heritage Study is as follows: Tullamore (The Eastern Golf Club) Road, Built in 1887 as the country home of Melbourne surgeon Thomas Fitzgerald, this painted brick house is now used as a golf club. It is a double-fronted, two storey, Italianate house with a slate hipped roof. The chimneys have heavy mouldings and mansard tops. The frieze has brackets, regularly spaced between panels over a cornice mould. There is a flat string course band at first floor level and flat quoins. The projecting left-hand bay combines a hipped roof section, with a steeper gable-roofed projection, and side windows with pointed segmental heads and panels below. Continual additions are swamping the original building. The remainder of the property has been converted to a golf course, however a number of earlier features remain. These include timber stables with brick end walls. Some earlier windbreaks and a dam system remain. Fitzgerald purchased the land (76 acres originally part of the Carlton Estate) in He lived there only at weekends and holidays, and kept racehorses in the stables. In 1909 Tullamore was sold to William Stutt (formerly a Shire Councillor and an M.P.), and it remained in the family for over forty years. Architecturally, this building can be compared to (for example) site no The house Tullamore, the stables and some plantings and site features are of local historical significance as remnants of the country property established in 1887 by Thomas Fitzgerald, demonstrating the lifestyle available to professional men in the nineteenth century, and later for its association with William Stutt. The schedule to the heritage overlay identifies paint controls and tree controls with the site, and also identifies that the stables are an outbuilding that is not exempt under Clause Heritage Victoria No part of the site is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. National Trust No part of the subject site has been classified by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria). Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 2

4 Australian Heritage Council The subject site is not included on the Register of the National Estate, the Commonwealth Heritage List or the National Heritage List. 4.0 Heritage Overlay The following sets out the heritage controls that obtain in Manningham. These are referred to further below in my analysis of the proposal and the range of heritage issues raised by the site. As noted above, the site under consideration is subject to the provisions of Clause 43-01, the heritage overlay. The purpose of this overlay is as follows: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places. To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the heritage place. Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority will need to consider, as appropriate: The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place. Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy. Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place. Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 3

5 Whether the proposed sign will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the lopping or development will adversely affect the health, appearance or significance of the tree. The proposal may also be reviewed against the policy found at Clause 21.11, the objectives of which are as follows: To enhance cultural heritage through the retention and protection of significant buildings, precincts, trees and landscapes. To minimise impacts on heritage places as a result of changes to adjoining land uses and development. To protect sites of archaeological significance. More particularly, guidance in relation to local heritage policy is found at Clause 22.03, the objectives of which are: To recognise, protect, conserve, manage and enhance identified cultural heritage places. To ensure that the significance of cultural heritage places involving the aesthetic, historic, scientific, architectural or social value of a heritage asset to past, present and future generations, is assessed and used to guide planning decisions. To encourage the retention of cultural heritage places and ensure that these places are recognised and afforded appropriate protection to enrich the character, identity and heritage of the municipality. To ensure that the subdivision of a cultural heritage place does not adversely affect the identified aesthetic, historic, scientific, architectural or social value of the heritage place or other features identified in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. To promote the identification, protection and management of sites and areas of archaeological significance including aboriginal cultural heritage. This clause provides policy in relation to new buildings and works and additions to buildings: Additional buildings or works on the site of a heritage building and/or located within a heritage precinct conserve, enhance and be responsive to the heritage place and/or precinct. The development of cultural heritage places be compatible with and not adversely affect the heritage value and significance of the cultural heritage place and/or precinct. Development adjacent to heritage places and precincts responds positively to the heritage place in terms of its bulk, setbacks, materials, colour scheme and form. The design of new buildings not mock the heritage building and/or precinct, but rather complement the original fabric and design characteristics of the heritage building and/or precinct in terms of bulk, style, materials, setbacks, colour scheme and form. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 4

6 Policy is also provided in relation to alterations to heritage places: The design and location of external and internal alterations should preserve, restore or reconstruct the original features and forms of heritage buildings. External alterations maintain the aesthetic, historic, scientific, architectural or social value of a heritage building/precinct and a building s contribution to the streetscape. All new materials used be respectful of the nature and colour of the original fabric of the building. Alterations to the front façade of a heritage building are treated with particular care in recognition of their potential negative impact on the architectural and aesthetic contribution of the building to the streetscape. Alterations to the rear of buildings are encouraged in order to minimise or avoid any detriment to the aesthetic and architectural contribution of the building to the streetscape and the heritage precinct. Vegetation is also considered under Clause 22.03: The removal or lopping of vegetation identified as making a significant contribution to the setting and heritage value of a heritage place is strongly discouraged. Removal or lopping of significant vegetation may be supported in limited circumstances, including where parts or all of the vegetation is dead, dying or presents an immediate risk. These policies provide a positive and helpful suite of recommendations for the management of development of the having regard to heritage considerations. 5.0 The Site In terms of the buildings on the land, Council s citation for HO43 makes reference to both the former house Tullamore, now the clubhouse, and the former stables, and this seems appropriate. Both items are of heritage interest and significance and warrant retention. The former house, Tullamore, has been substantially altered externally, including having had its substantial original two storey timber verandah removed. In fact, it retains relatively little of its original character, and it is not fully clear to what extent even its external walls would need to be rebuilt if the additions that enclose the ground floor were to be removed. In any case, it seems reasonable that any future development of the site should seek in the first instance to retain this building and restore at least some of its original appearance and character, although not necessarily fully restoring it, and possibly to retain some of the additional envelope that surrounds it. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 5

7 Options for reuse would include residential, aged care, gallery, clubhouse, functions centre, small retail outlet, restaurant, or recreation facility [in each case subject to design]. The interiors are not identified as being subject to the heritage overlay controls, and this also seems appropriate, as they have been altered, and will not doubt require substantial internal reworking with regard to any future adaptive reuse such as residential accommodation. I note that in the case of Tullamore, a substantial portion of the original external fabric is now internalized. The stable structure is a simple but handsome and representative example of the type, and could be retained and redeveloped for a variety of compatible uses, possibly with only relatively minor external changes. The interior of the stable structure is not subject to a heritage control. The Council citation for the site notes the pine windbreaks and dam system as remnants of the earlier land use associated with Tullamore, and tree controls are identified for the site within the schedule to the heritage overlay. With regard to the heritage values of the landscape in terms of its association with Tullamore, it is understood that there is no significant heritage garden setting to this building, although there are some remnant individual trees of interest. 6.0 The proposed DPO It is now proposed t that this land be redeveloped as a residential subdivision in accordance with a master plan prepared by Mirvac, and that a Development Plan Overlay be introduced to guide the master planning of the site. The following documents have been reviewed to that end: Current built form master plan [part], page 24 of the Development Plan. Proposed Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay, Redevelopment Site [undated draft]. Masterplan, Redevelopment Landscape Strategy, Mirvac, Report of the Panel, Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C86, 17 May The Redevelopment: Landscape Strategy, sets out the master plan for subdivision of the site and illustrates the intent in relation to landscaping, road alignments and the like for the land. As discussed above, the site was in 2011 reviewed in the context of Amendment C86 to the planning scheme, which inter alia proposed to introduce a new Local Planning Policy, Clause Policy. In part the review undertaken under Amendment C86 related to matters of heritage, including the extent of heritage controls over the site. The Panel Report in relation to that matter found generally in favour of evidence that I presented at the panel hearing. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 6

8 the Panel supports the retention of Tullamore and considers that should a future owner decide to remove some or all of the surrounding additions, Tullamore should be retained, restored and allowed to regain its former identity and prominence in terms of its visibility from Road and from within the site as a reminder of the site s original use as a farm. The future Development Plan should include guidelines and controls to bring this outcome into effect. The Panel supports the retention and preservation of Tullamore, as discussed above, and of the stables and the three identified trees, for their specific heritage value. The Policy should be specific, not only that these historic elements should be conserved, but in terms of the two buildings, why they should be preserved and the extent of land around them that is necessary to ensure that their context is not compromised by unsympathetic landscaping, buildings or other works in close proximity. Similarly, while not able to be appreciated at present, there may be views to and from Tullamore that should be retained or created in any Development Plan. The Panel accepts the view of Mr Raworth that the stables served a farming rather than domestic function. This view is supported by the distance between the two buildings. The Panel therefore sees no need for there to be a physical or functional connection between Tullamore and the stables, or for there to be the declaration of a heritage precinct to encompass these buildings and the three significant trees. Findings The site has a number of elements of heritage value that should be retained and preserved on that basis, namely Tullamore, the stables and the three nominated trees. The relevant sections of the Policy should be amended to read: Protect the existing Club House Tullamore and stables, as identified in the and Templestowe City of and Templestowe Heritage Study Context Pty Ltd Peterson R, Stafford B (1991) Manningham City Council Heritage Study, Context. Retain and apply a Tree Protection Zone to trees numbers 4, 27 and 82 as identified in Conservation Analysis and Policy, Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd (2011). Allocate open space and / or roads and / or allotment boundaries so that reasonable development is possible without intrusion into any Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). Site open space and/or roads so that the house and the stables are visually connected. A planning scheme amendment is now sought to enable redevelopment of the land in accordance with the Mirvac master plan. As part of the amendment it is intended that the extent of the heritage overlay, which currently encompasses all of the Golf Course land, will be restricted to the elements of heritage significance, ie the former Tullamore, the stables and the three identified trees of significance. Further to this, I recommend as per my evidence to the C86 Panel, that the heritage overlay be revised to include curtilage extending to a distance of 10m in all directions from the original external walls of Tullamore and the stables respectively. This extent of curtilage should be noted in the listing in the schedule Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 7

9 to the heritage overlay, eg Tullamore, inclusive of land to a distance of 10m from all original external walls. Having regard for the heritage overlay to the site, the significance of the elements found on the site and the findings of the C86 Panel, it is my view that the proposed master plan represents an appropriate outcome for this site. Tullamore is retained in a landscaped curtilage that seems appropriate and sufficient for the future conservation and, it is to be hoped, restoration of this historic building. The stables are also retained in a landscaped setting, and there is no proposal for built form of any kind that would interrupt the current relationship between the two buildings. Development along the Road edge of the golf course is to be intermittent, with gaps between built form allowing views into the site toward the house and stables. I understand that the identified trees of heritage interest, ie trees numbers 4, 27 and 82 as identified in Conservation Analysis and Policy, Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd (2011), are retained with an appropriate Tree Protection Zone, as recommended by the C86 Panel. The trees do not require a curtilage with regard to the heritage overlay on this basis. In conclusion, the proposed master plan for redevelopment has been prepared with due regard for the character, appearance and significance of the heritage buildings on the land and their setting. The relationship between the old and new elements will provide an acceptable outcome given the judicious use of the land adjoining the heritage buildings and the retention of their mature landscaped environment. BRYCE RAWORTH Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 8

10