proposed redevelopment at 26-56 queens parade fitzroy ... · proposed redevelopment at 26-56 queens...

Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design

Proposed redevelopment at 26-56 Queens Parade FITZROY NORTH

and Rear, 26-56 Queens Parade

FITZROY NORTH

Statement of Evidence to the VCAT

VCAT Reference P2079/2016 & P147/2017

Bryce Raworth Conservation Consultant and Architectural Historian

Prepared under instruction from Planning & Property Partners

17 August 2017

Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd | Conservation • Urban Design 1

Proposed redevelopment at

26-56 Queens Parade FITZROY NORTH

and Rear, 26-56 Queens Parade

FITZROY NORTH

Statement to the VCAT

17 August 2017

1.0 Introduction

1. This analysis was prepared under instruction from Planning & Property Partners

Pty Ltd, and relates to two separate properties known as 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North and rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North. It concerns the proposal to redevelop the sites by undertaking demolition works to existing buildings and constructing multi-storey residential buildings.

2. By way of background, a permit application for the redevelopment of the main site (referred to here as 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North) was submitted to the City of Yarra on 18 May 2016 [PLN16/0434]. Council issued a Request for Further Information (RFI) on 14 June 2016, to which the applicant responded on 14 and 26 July 2016. Council subsequently failed to make a determination on the application within the statutory period, and this forms the basis of Application for Review P2079/2016.

3. A very large number of objections were received in relation to the application.

4. The matter was ultimately considered by Council in December 2016, with the

Delegate report recommending refusal because, inter alia, ‘the proposed height, scale and massing does not respond to the existing or preferred character of the area and will dominate the surrounding area’. Heritage considerations per se are not specifically mentioned in the recommended grounds for refusal.

5. The proposal was proceeding to VCAT in March 2017 with an amended scheme

when a Design and Development Overlay that includes a height limit of ten storeys was introduced to the area on 28 March 2017 under Amendment C229. The VCAT hearing was postponed until September 2017 so that further amended plans could be prepared that addressed the new height controls.

6. An alternative development scheme (dated 24.07.17) was subsequently submitted by the applicant, referred to as the VCAT substituted plans. Council’s Delegate report in relation to this scheme noted that Council’s heritage advisor was generally supportive (in advice dated 3 August 2017), subject to several relatively minor points of clarification. The Delegate report recommended that Council inform VCAT that had it been in a position (to make a determination), it would have issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.

Expert Witness to VCAT 26-56 Queens Parade (and land to rear), Fitzroy North August 2017

Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 2

7. Council’s Internal Development Approvals Committee (IDAC) subsequently concluded that had it been in a position to make a determination, it would have issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit, citing two reasons, one of which touched upon heritage considerations:

1. The height, setback, design detailing and massing of the proposal would unreasonably

impact the heritage significance and neighbourhood character of the area.

8. A separate application had been made in relation to rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North on 26 July 2016 [PLN16/0732] for the construction of four townhouses as part of an integrated development with [PLN16/0434]. Council failed to a determination on the application within the statutory period. Following the postponement of the March VCAT hearing, an amended scheme (dated 21/07/17) was submitted by the applicant.

9. IDAC subsequently determined it would have issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit in relation to this revised scheme, contrary to the Council Delegate position, the grounds for refusal not referencing Council policies or heritage considerations.

10. This application is under consideration as part of Application for Review P147/2017.

11. This statement was prepared with assistance from Guy Murphy of my office. The views expressed are my own.

2.0 Sources of Information

12. The analysis below draws upon multiple site visits and an inspection of the site

and its environs, along with a review of the City of Yarra's Development Guidelines for Sites Subject to the Heritage Overlay (Clause 22.02) and Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01), the related heritage studies and the conservation objectives for the immediate area. In particular reference has been made to the City of Yarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincts (1998), and the City of Yarra Review of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007 (including Appendix 8, Revised February 2017).

13. It draws upon the evidence I prepared in relation to the March 2017 hearing that was postponed in order to allow preparation of the present VCAT substituted drawings.

14. I have reviewed Council’s Delegate report and heritage advisor’s comments in

relation to the main site at 26-56 Queens Parade, the heritage impact statement prepared by Lovell Chen that accompanied the original application for the main development site, and the Council Delegate report in relation to the site at the rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North (which included a summary of Council’s heritage advisor’s comments). I have reviewed Council’s Delegate report and heritage advice in relation to the substituted scheme for the main site, that prepared for the rear site, along with the determinations of Council’s Internal Development Approvals Committee (IDAC) in relation to the substituted schemes



currently under consideration. Historic MMBW plans of the area and Sands & McDougall directories have also been referenced.

15. Regard has been had for documentation associated with the gazetted planning

scheme Amendment C229, including the Queens Parade, Clifton Hill Built Form Review, prepared by Hansen Partnership for Yarra City Council February 2017.

16. This statement is to be read in conjunction with the VCAT substituted drawings

dated 24/07/2017 prepared by Cox Architecture and VCAT substituted drawings dated 21/07/2017 prepared by Koichi Takada Architects, along with other documents submitted with respect to the current application for review.

3.0 Author Qualifications

17. A statement of my qualifications and experience with respect to urban conservation issues is appended to this report. I have provided expert witness evidence on similar matters before the VCAT, the Heritage Council and the Building Appeals Board on numerous occasions in the past, and have been retained in such matters variously by municipal councils, developers and objectors to planning proposals.

4.0 Summary of Views

18. My findings and views in relation to these matters can be summarised as follows.

• The subject land at 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North is a large site

containing factory buildings and vacant land. The double storey Art Deco factory on the south portion of the site, (the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory), is ‘individually significant’ and included within the wider adjacent North Fitzroy Precinct (HO327). On the north side of the site is an ungraded single storey factory that is not subject to any Heritage Overlays. The site’s primary frontage is onto Queens Parade, with minor partial frontages onto rear lanes to the north and north west. Adjacent heritage buildings extending to the south along Queens Parade are graded ‘contributory’. The adjacent streetscape along Queens Parade to the north and along the opposite side of the street are not heritage environments.

• The broader development proposal also includes a smaller portion of land adjacent to the west across a laneway. This land is referred to as rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, and currently comprises vacant land.

• The VCAT substituted drawings prepared by Cox Architecture for the purposes of the present application for review propose both part demolition within the main site and development with a building of varying heights rising to 10 storeys.

• The extent of demolition is considered acceptable given that it involves either structures that are ungraded and outside the Heritage Overlay, or with respect to the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory, secondary fabric that does not contribute to the building’s street presence or the significance of the wider precinct.



• The substituted scheme for 26-56 Queens Parade is responsive to its streetscape and wider urban contexts through the expression of a masonry podium along the Queens Parade frontage with a visually lightweight treatment to the upper levels, and stepped profile, that responds to the scale of the existing adjacent building stock by means of this stepped transition in height. The setbacks associated with the upper levels will limit their visibility from the surrounding streets and areas to the north, east and west, and result in lower scale boundary built form heights.

• While the higher built form will be visible within Queens Parade, above and to the rear of the ‘individually significant’ factory building on the subject site, it is designed and articulated as a visually separate built form of clearly distinguishable character.

• The scheme is acceptable in terms of its impact on the heritage building on the subject site and the broader heritage area. While the works will clearly result in a degree of change, this change will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place to an extent that is unreasonable or inappropriate, having regard for its significance and for the range of precedent in Yarra in relation to the development of industrial heritage places.

• It is proposed to construct four 3 storey townhouses on the separate parcel of land at rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North. The VCAT substituted scheme is acceptable with respect to heritage considerations given it is located in an isolated, essentially non-heritage laneway environment, is of a relatively low scale, and will have a negligible impact on the significance of the wider overlay.

• Having regard for these matters, the two proposals under consideration have been prepared with appropriate regard for the objectives and design guidelines of the Heritage Overlay of the planning scheme as set out in Clause 43.01, and the associated design guidelines provided within Clause 22.02, and are acceptable without further modification or amendment.

5.0 Declaration

19. I declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate, and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Tribunal.

BRYCE RAWORTH



6.0 History & Description

20. The citation for the North Fitzroy Heritage Overlay Area provides an historical

overview of the development of Fitzroy North, which is reproduced in part as follows. The south section of North Fitzroy (south of Holden Street) was retained in Crown ownership until 1865, as part of the Melbourne township reserve. This was a ring of land extending 5 miles from Hoddle’s original Melbourne town plan that was set aside in 1844 for ‘orderly’ development in government planned subdivisions. […] North of Holden Street, large agricultural allotments had been sold in 1839, their boundaries surviving in the east-west streets of Miller, Barkly and Clauscen Streets. There was also an area, bounded by (approximately) Nicholson, Church, Rae and Scotchmer Sts, that was sold as private quarry allotments in 1851 to encourage production of building stone. The future suburb was bordered by a road to Heidelberg and the Plenty districts (later Queen‘s Parade) that ran diagonally to Hoddle‘s survey grid through the North Fitzroy‘s Crown reserve. It was proclaimed in 1850 as one of Melbourne‘s 3 chain (60 metre) government roads, now called Hoddle boulevards‘. To the north, the township of Northcote on the Merri-Merri Creek (later Westgarth) was laid out by Hoddle in 1852 with some allotments extending south of the Merri Creek to Rushall Crescent in North Fitzroy. These allotments now have substantial buildings dating from the 1850s and 1860s (see Queen‘s Parade Heritage Area, HO 331). St. George’s Rd was another diagonal route, on the western flank of the area, used to transport construction materials to the 1854-8 Yan Yean water supply scheme near Whittlesea. By 1860, Fitzroy Council annexed the 480 acres now comprising North Fitzroy. Distinguished naturalist and engineer, Clement Hodgkinson, as Victorian Assistant-Commissioner of Crown Lands and Survey 1861-74, was responsible for the government subdivisions of Carlton (south of Princes St, 1860), North Carlton, North Fitzroy and Clifton Hill (1865-9), Hotham Hill (1866), South Parkville and North Parkville (1868-9). Under his supervision, suburban planning employed the cost-efficient grid system used by Hoddle. A model town design in the area by Hodgkinson’s predecessor. Andrew Clarke (the designer of St Vincent’s Place, South Melbourne), is thought to have inspired the curved streets of Alfred and Rushall Crescents in North Fitzroy, although both streets were laid out under Hodgkinson. Lacking a public recreation reserve, the new Fitzroy Council was temporarily granted 7 acres in 1858 bounded by Reilly Street (Alexandra Parade), Queens Parade and Smith St. The 1858 reserve was for a future Anglican parish church and the Collingwood (later the Metropolitan) Gas Company which commenced production in 1861. In 1862, Fitzroy Council requested an oval-shaped 50 acre public reserve flanking the Yan Yean tramway (St. George’s Road). The oval reserve was laid out under Hodgkinson and extended south in 1863, as a squared-off addition to the reserve to the line of Freeman St, to provide the Prince of Wales Cricket Club an extra playing ground. In 1882-3, Edinburgh Gardens was permanently granted to the Council and planting of its avenues commenced. […] When cable tram routes along Queen’s Parade, Nicholson Street and St. Georges Road commenced construction in 1883, North Fitzroy landowners began subdividing their allotments. On the Nicholson Street tram route, owners of the 1850s stone quarries and the 1839 farm allotments north of Holden St, followed suit. When tram services began in 1887 many new houses were ready for sale or under construction. North Fitzroy emerged as a late-Victorian commuter suburb with local shopping strips along the



cable tram routes, the commercial strip of St Georges Road extending east and west along Scotchmer Street. Convenience shops were built on pedestrian street corners as households multiplied. The Inner Circle Railway running via Royal Park, North Carlton, Nicholson St, and Clifton Hill was completed in 1888 with a spur line dividing the Edinburgh Gardens into two, and terminating at the ‗Fitzroy‘ station, Queen‘s Parade. A new rail link direct to the city (the Clifton Hill to Princes Bridge line) opened in 190185 and saw Edwardian buildings filling out the suburban streets east of St. Georges Road and the revitalising of the main shopping strips. Public transport continued to support North Fitzroy as a commuter suburb during the 1920s with the opening of Rushall railway station and the electrification and extension of the St Georges Rd and Nicholson St tramways. North Fitzroy‘s suburban development, especially east of St George‘s Road to Rushall Crescent, was far from complete when the Boom collapsed in 1893. However its good access to public transport led to a rapid recovery. A number of small factories were built in or near the 19th century commercial strip of Scotchmer St, the best architectural examples being of the late 1930s. […]

21. The 1900 MMBW Plan for this part of North Fitzroy provides an overview of the physical development of the subject site and its surrounds at this time. Queens Parade and the reserve on its south side at the corner with Alexandra Parade had been laid out in their current form. The site then comprised a series of deep allotments, most with a single frontage onto Queen Street to the south west. The land was only partially developed in comparison to the densely developed residential subdivisions nearby along Brunswick and Coleman Streets, and further along Queen Parade to the south. The south side of the subject site contained a timber yard and either a dwelling or shop (numbered 26 & 28), with the larger northern portion containing four houses on large fenced blocks with outbuildings and spacious rear yards.

22. Sands & McDougall directories list residential occupants at 8-16 Queens Parade in 1900, with a chairmaker, product merchant and a fruiterer at 18-26 Queens Parade, then vacant land, a house remover, wood merchant and resident (Mrs Janet McCallum) at Queens Parade. (It is unclear whether any of the buildings at 18-24 Queens Parade may have functioned as shops during this early period). The street contained a combination of residential occupancies and commercial enterprises for the next few decades, with businesses including a laundry and livery stables.

23. By 1930, this part of Queens Parade still appears to have retained a broadly similar configuration to that seen in the MMBW plan, with directories listing a ‘product merchant’ at 22-24, Tait & Bird ‘Sht mtl’ at 26 and ‘Luke, K G, metal spinner’ at 28-34, with the remaining addresses along this part of Queens Parade appearing to be residential.

24. Major change occurred in the late 1930s with the construction of a large new Art

Deco style factory for the K. G. Luke Pty Ltd company in c1938-1939 (further historical background on this structure is provided in Section 7.0 as part of the statement of significance for the building.)



Figure 1 1901 MMBW Plan extract showing development on the subject site at this time

(shaded blue).

25. The subsequent piecemeal construction of the building followed the gradual expansion of the company’s land holdings to include adjacent sites further east along Queens Parade. It included further works in 1945 and the construction of an addition comprising an administration building on the east side in 1965, a process of built form evolution described in some detail in the Lovell Chen heritage impact statement that formed part of the original application documentation. The remaining Victorian structures along this part of Queens Parade to Napier Street were gradually lost over subsequent decades as more commercial development occurred. By 1970, directories list residents at 8-24 Queens Parade, with ‘Luke K G Aust P/L stnls stl prdcts’ occupying the remainder of the street frontage to the corner with Napier Street. The Subject Site

26. 26-56 Queens Parade comprises a large five sided area of land, with a smaller adjacent portion of land to the west. The larger main site has a primary street frontage onto Queens Parade to the south east. It abuts adjacent sites to the north east and south west. It abuts a combination of adjacent laneways and adjoining properties to the north west and north. The adjacent smaller portion of land to the west is a four sided allotment which abuts an adjoining property to the north, and adjacent laneways along the remaining frontages. It is vacant and contains car parking. Both sites are generally flat in topography, with a rise in gradient of approximately one metre in a north westerly direction.

N



27. The main site contains two commercial/industrial buildings, with vacant land in

between used for car parking.

28. The largest structure on the site is the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd Factory. This presents a double storey Art Deco style facade to Queens Parade, which features a distinctive stepped and serrated parapet line. The elevation is broken into a series of bays by regularly spaced rendered masonry piers, with predominantly blank walls at ground floor level interspersed with several vehicle entry points and doorways. The first floor level largely retains original metal framed windows in each bay. The face brick exterior walls have been painted bright pink. Service plant and tubing has also been attached to the facade. The roof structure is varied, comprising sections that are pitched and sawtooth in form. The roof is not visible from Queens Parade.

29. The original portion of the facade comprises what is now the west side of the Queens Parade elevation. Since its initial construction, the factory has been altered by a number of additions and other changes documented in more detail by Lovell Chen. The 1965 construction of the rendered masonry administration addition on its east side addressing Queens Parade to a design by architects Meldrum and Partners. This is plain and undecorated in character compared to the frontage of the original main factory, though it provides a similar pattern of fenestration and horizontal courses. This addition has been further altered in more recent times with the creation of a recessed corner entry point. A projecting bay on the north east side of this addition is located at a very considerable setback, and is distantly visible from Queens Parade

30. The second building on the eastern side of the site is known as 54 Queens Parade. This is a single storey brick factory (identified by Lovell Chen as interwar in origin), which presents a shop frontage to Queens Parade, abuts the adjacent apartment building to the east at 58 Queens Parade, and extends the full depth of the site. It presents a relatively plain red brick side elevation to the interior of the site, with regularly spaced metal framed windows with concrete lintels, and a corrugated iron clad pitched roof incorporating roof plant. Queens Parade Environment

31. Queens Parade is one of the principal thoroughfares in Fitzroy. Asphalted, it contains multiple lanes of traffic in each direction, flanked by a secondary road serving local traffic on each side, separated by a median strip. The median strips feature rough rock edging, with grass and mature exotic tree plantings and street lights on the southern side. The secondary roads have bluestone kerbing and gutters, with broad grassed nature strips also planted with mature trees and generous asphalted footpaths. A line of timber electricity poles runs down the nature strip on the north side.

32. Queens Parade opposite the subject site adjoins a triangular shaped, grassed reserve on the corner with Alexandra Parade to the south and Napier Street to the east. Further to the north east along Queens Parade are a series of low rise industrial buildings. Alexandra Parade to the south is a very busy major inner city route of comparable dimensions to Queens Parade, comprising three lanes of traffic in each direction on either side of a very broad median street featuring



mature plantings of street trees. Each far side includes parallel parking inset with more street trees, and narrow asphalted footpaths.

33. The streetscape along Queens Parade to the south west is the subject site’s principal heritage interface. It comprises a row of two pairs of double storey rendered masonry Victorian buildings, which abut the south side of the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd Factory. Further south again is a row of single storey Victorian terraces, with the double storey classical styled former National Bank of Australasia at 460 Brunswick Street, on the corner with Queens Parade, forming a prominent corner anchor to the streetscape.

34. The streetscape to the north east along Queens Parade comprises a recently completed 5 storey apartment building on the adjacent land at 58 Queens Parade. Further north across the intersection with Napier Street are a series of large, multi-storey apartment developments. West Boundary Interface

35. The environment on the west boundary interface of the subject sites, including the land at rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, comprises a combination of rear laneways and two directly abutting adjacent sites.

36. The southern part of this interface sits adjacent to an unnamed laneway, which extends around two sides of the second smaller development site. This is bordered to the west and south by the rear fences and garage doors of properties fronting Brunswick Street and Queens Parade, and is not considered a sensitive heritage environment. While these properties include heritage buildings, their primary frontages address the adjacent streets (Brunswick Street and Queens Parade) on the far side of these sites. The laneway is surfaced with a combination of bluestone cobbles and concrete.

37. The adjacent properties that directly abut the subject site to the west comprise the 6 storey contemporary apartment development at 496-498 Brunswick Street and the two and three contemporary residential townhouse subdivision around Grace Lane to the north and north west. North Boundary Interface

38. The comparatively narrower north boundary abuts the rear of the adjacent modern townhouse subdivision centred around Grace Lane on its west side. On its east side it sits adjacent to a rear service lane behind dwellings addressing Coleman Street to the north. This lane is utilitarian in character and not a sensitive heritage environment.



Figure 2 The north east side of the site contains an ungraded single storey commercial

building addressing Queens Parade.

Figure 3 The central portion of the Queens Parade frontage comprises a large area of

vacant land.



Figure 4 The former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory at 26 Queens Parade is graded

‘individually significant’ and is the only building on the development site subject to a Heritage Overlay, (HO327).

Figure 5 The eastern corner of the 1965 administration addition to the former K. G.

Luke Pty Ltd factory facing Queens Parade has been further modified to create a new entry point.



Figure 6 Adjacent to the south west of 26 Queens Parade are two pairs of largely intact

Victorian terraces at 18-24 Queens Parade, which are graded ‘contributory’.

Figure 7 Further to the south west at 8-16 Queens Parade is a row of single storey

Victorian cottages.



Figure 8 View north east along Queens Parade from the intersection with Alexandra

Parade showing its very broad proportions. The street frontage to the subject site is partially visible at left.

Figure 9 View east across the vacant land on the east side of 460 Brunswick Street with

a frontage onto Queens Parade. It is possible this will receive more intensive development in the future.



Figure 10 View north along the laneway towards the smaller separate island site adjacent

to the west of the main development site, ie toward the land identified as rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North. It currently comprises vacant open space.

Figure 11 View south along the laneway behind the rear of the adjacent properties (right)

facing Brunswick Street to the west. The surrounding frontages comprise back fences and garage doors.



Figure 12 Distant view toward the subject site from the west side of Brunswick Street,

with single storey ‘contributory’ cottages in the foreground, and the multi-storey apartment development at 496 Brunswick Street visible at far left.

Figure 13 View from Brunswick Street of the modern residential development along Grace

Lane (left) and the contemporary 6 storey apartment development at 496-498 Brunswick Street.



Figure 14 View east from the entry into Grace Lane from its intersection with Brunswick

Street.

Figure 15 View looking east towards the modern double storey residential development on

the south side of Grace Lane. The subject development site is located behind these buildings.



Figure 16 View south west towards the corner of Napier Street (left) and Newry Street

(right). The proposed development will be partially visible in the distance behind the single storey terraces in the foreground.

Figure 17 View along the west side of Napier Street from the north east. The recent 5

storey apartment development on the corner at 58 Queens Parade is visible at left.



Figure 18 The east end of Coleman Street as viewed from the opposite side of Napier

Street.

Figure 19 30 and 28 Coleman Street, with existing partially visible multi-storey

development behind (to the south).



Figure 20 View looking south west towards the end of Coleman Street showing the

cotemporary double storey townhouses around each side and the end of this street.

Figure 21 16 and 14 Coleman Street are part of the contemporary townhouse development

at the western end of Coleman Street.



Figure 22 View west along the boundary (at centre) between 497 Napier Street (left) and

499 Napier Street (right).

Figure 23 The recently constructed 5 storey apartments at 58 Queens Parade (left) and the

adjacent 3 storey apartments at 497 Napier Street (right).



7.0 Significance

39. Part of the main site at 26-56 Queens Parade and all of rear 26-56 Queens Parade

are included with the North Fitzroy Heritage Overlay Precinct (HO327), identified by the City of Yarra Heritage Review as being of outstanding significance. This study provides no detailed information on the specific site or its streetscape, although included the following summary statement of significance for the precinct: How is it significant? HO327 North Fitzroy Heritage Overlay Area (south of Holden St) is aesthetically and historically significant to the City of Yarra (National Estate Register [NER] Criteria E1, A4) Why is it significant The Government planned section of Fitzroy North (south of Holden St) is significant • As a demonstration of the earliest stages in the development of North Fitzroy, commencing

with the 1850s Yan Yean tramway and the quarry route of Nicholson St, the establishment of North Fitzroy’s first churches and its pre-Boom suburban mixture of small residential and commercial buildings coinciding with provision of horse drawn public transport.;

• For its late 19th century buildings that represent rapid growth and change in the character of the relatively remote suburb to an established residential and business area with a range of commercial and institutional buildings serving the wider population of North Fitzroy;

• For the aesthetic value of its suburban planning, with the combination of curving streets and garden reserves, and the vistas created by the intersections of standard rectilinear subdivision with the strong diagonals formed by St Georges Road and Queens Parade, the exceptionally wide streets and crescents, the triangular garden reserves, and focal views to buildings and parkland. This aesthetic is underscored by the built form seen in the construction of commercial and institutional buildings to the property alignment along a number of streets and on corners;

• The generous public domain, with street plantings of historic elms and 20th century plane trees,

• For its low rise streetscapes of intact Victorian and Edwardian buildings one and two-storey terrace and villa housing;

• For the range of Victorian and Edwardian-era building form and finish, from the modestly decorated timber cottages and stuccoed Italianate style houses, simply designed corner hotels and shops, to the rich variety of decorative buildings including an extraordinary concentration of decorative bichrome and polychrome brickwork and flamboyantly decorated Italianate residential and commercial terraces, banks and hotels, interspersed very occasionally with dominating narrow spire and tower elements of religious, commercial and institutional buildings.

• As one of Melbourne’s early residential commuter suburbs served by train and cable tram services linking it to the city by 1888, with extensive Boom era terrace buildings and closely built row housing within this sub-area providing evidence of the effects of public transport on early development;

• As essentially a well preserved Boom-era suburb that, despite the abrupt economic collapse of the early 1890s, continued developing during the Great Depression years and into the first decades of the 20th century due to the amenity of its planning, parkland, local schools and shops and extensive public transport. This yielded both the generous frontages and sizes of the post-Depression villa houses and the row house forms and narrow frontages of the Boom era;

• For its traditional Victorian-era residential character, evoked by the formal presentation of the decorated facade to the street with its small ornamental front garden, low front fence, pedestrian gateway and front path, with the functional necessities of delivering coal, removal of nightsoil and occasional stabling provided by the back lanes;

• For landmark buildings and sites that formed key meeting places in the area during the main development era of the 1860s to the 1930s, including religious institutions, schools, monasteries and churches, and the buildings associated with charitable bodies such as the



Salvation Army, Church of Christ Bible School, and the temperance movement. Also the former Nth Fitzroy Police Station, the former Licensed Victualler’s School and Asylum site and complexes such as the Old Colonists Homes;

• For the asphalt footpaths, pitched lanes, gutters and lane crossovers and mature street and individual plantings (such as mature elms, planes, palms, and Kurrajongs) that reinforce the unified character of the dense, relatively low-rise residential development;

• The 19th century landscape of Edinburgh Gardens and its representation of Fitzroy’s cultural history in its plantings, memorials, recreation sports club grounds and pavilion buildings, plus the Inner Circle Railway reserve as a cultural landscape strip across the north of the area;

• For the outstanding Victorian and Edwardian-era streetscapes such as those surrounding the Edinburgh Gardens (Alfred Crescent, St Georges Road, Brunswick and Freeman Streets) that include a rich collection of Victorian-era Gothic and Italianate style buildings interspersed with fine buildings from the Edwardian period;

• For the important views and vistas within the area, including those of the Edinburgh Gardens, its mature trees and historic structures, as seen from many parts of the Heritage Overlay Area, and views obtained from Edinburgh Gardens to the many significant buildings at its curtilage and the city skyline, the vista from the elevated position of the Cricket Club grandstand toward the upper facades of buildings in Freeman and Brunswick Streets, and the Brunswick Street vistas (south to the spire of St Patrick’s Cathedral, and north to St Luke’s spire)

• For the contribution of well-preserved inter-war buildings, particularly the small intact inter-war houses where the building design has adapted to the prevailing built character of the area in siting, scale, decorative quality and stylistic variety.

40. The citation for the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory in the Victorian Heritage

Database reads as follows. What is significant? The former K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate manufacturers factory complex (part) at 26 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North was created in 1938 for Kenneth G. Luke and has historical associations with K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. (see also 28-58 Queens Pde) The place has a fair integrity to its creation date. In 1921 Kenneth Luke became a partner in a small metal-spinning and silverware business at Carlton. By 1925 he was its proprietor and an employer of seven. These employees were still with him thirty years later, with 650 others, making an ever-increasing range of products: silverware, stainless steel surgical equipment, plated goods and glass-washing machines. In 1929 he bought a larger factory in Queen's Parade, Fitzroy (since redeveloped), doubled his staff and introduced new lines. At the outbreak of World War 2 production was again stepped up and Luke became an honorary adviser to the Department of Supply and Shipping. Luke went on to achieve many major public roles. In 1938-55 he was president of the Carlton Football Club. A delegate (from 1935) to the Victorian Football League, he was its vice president (1946-55) and president (1956-71). With postwar growth generating record crowds, he consolidated central administration and professionalised the game for players. Fabric from the creation date at the K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate manufacturers factory, former (part) is locally significant within the City of Yarra, compared to other similar places from a similar era. How is it significant? The K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate manufacturers factory, former (part) at 26 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North is historically and architecturally significant to the locality of Fitzroy North and the City of Yarra. Why is it significant? The K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate manufacturers factory, former (part) is significant as: `An unusual large `Art Deco' (or Moderne style) factory/warehouse that has a very intact facade of



architectural merit especially in its parapet profile' (part 26-58, bricks painted). This (factory) was co-located on the spur railway line through the Edinburgh Gardens and the Queens Pde `Fitzroy' rail station which was a lucrative goods railway line from 1891 to 1980, serving this and other interwar industries nearby' (Wight 2001). The building is closely associated with the nationally known (Sir) KG Luke and his highly successful business enterprise as well as his sporting links, both local and national.

41. As noted above, the Lovell Chen heritage impact statement that accompanied the 2016 application to Council identified the somewhat complex evolution of the site, which has been developed over several decades rather than arising from a single construction period. This helps explain the variety of detailing to the Queens Road facade, which somewhat detracts from the overall unity and integrity of elevation.

42. The City of Yarra Review of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007 (Appendix 8, Revised February

2017) graded each building within the precinct as ‘individually significant’, ‘contributory’, ‘not contributory’. These are defined in that document as follows. Individually Significant Aesthetically, historically, scientifically, and/or socially significant at the Local level and contributory or complementary to the Heritage Overlay Area Contributory Contributory to identified cultural values of Heritage Overlay area as stated in the Statement of Significance Not Contributory Not contributory to identified cultural values of Heritage Overlay area as stated in the Statement of Significance

43. The former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory is graded ‘individually significant’, meaning it is of significance in its own right, as well as for the contribution it makes to the streetscape and wider overlay area. This includes the land at 26 Queens Parade, 28-56 Queens Parade and, by definition, the subject land to the rear of these sites that is part of the same title (accepting that this ‘Rear Site’ is, as a physically and visually independent lot comprising cleared land only, of no appreciable significance). Gradings for buildings along the adjacent and nearby streetscapes are as follows. West Side of Queens Parade 460 Brunswick Street individually significant 8 Queens Parade contributory 10 Queens Parade contributory 12 Queens Parade contributory 14 Queens Parade contributory 16 Queens Parade contributory 18 Queens Parade contributory 20 Queens Parade contributory 22 Queens Parade contributory 24 Queens Parade contributory 26 Queens Parade individually significant 28-58 Queens Parade individually significant



44. The entry for 26 Queens Parade identifies it as K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate

manufacturers factory, former (part), 1938. The entry for 28-58 Queens Parade identifies it as K.G. Luke Pty Ltd. electro plate manufacturers factory, former (part), 1937. East Side of Napier Street 497 Napier Street not contributory 499 Napier Street contributory 501 Napier Street contributory 503 Napier Street contributory 505 Napier Street contributory South Side of Coleman Street 18 Coleman Street contributory 20 Coleman Street contributory 22 Coleman Street contributory 24 Coleman Street contributory 26 Coleman Street contributory 28 Coleman Street contributory 30 Coleman Street contributory 32 Coleman Street contributory East Side of Brunswick Street 468 Brunswick Street contributory 470 Brunswick Street contributory 472 Brunswick Street contributory 474 Brunswick Street contributory 476 Brunswick Street contributory 478 Brunswick Street contributory 480 Brunswick Street contributory 482 Brunswick Street contributory 484 Brunswick Street contributory 488 Brunswick Street contributory 490 Brunswick Street contributory 496-500 Brunswick Street not contributory 520 Brunswick Street contributory 522 Brunswick Street contributory 524 Brunswick Street contributory 526 Brunswick Street contributory 528 Brunswick Street contributory 530 Brunswick Street not contributory

45. In summary, Queen Parade is a moderately significant streetscape to the south of the subject site only, and is not a heritage environment immediately to the north or along the opposite side of the street. Brunswick Street to the west is a moderately significant streetscape along its east side in the vicinity of the subject site, comprising largely single storey Victorian cottages, with contemporary development further north. Coleman Street to the north is also of moderate



significance on its eastern side to the intersection with Napier Street, its western end comprising modern development and not constituting a heritage environment.

8.0 Heritage Status

Victorian Heritage Register

46. The subject sites are not included on the Victorian Heritage Register. National Trust

47. The subject sites are not classified by the National Trust. City of Yarra

48. The subject sites are partly located within the North Fitzroy Precinct, HO327, a large precinct covering much of North Fitzroy. The portion of the site included in this precinct is located on its south west side and corresponds to the land known as 26 Queens Parade containing the former K. G. Luke Pty Ltd factory and the rear vacant land parcel. No external paint controls or internal controls apply under the provisions of this overlay.

49. It is noted that the central part of Queens Parade is also subject to the Heritage Overlay as far south as its intersection with Alexandra Parade.

Figure 24 Heritage Overlay map showing the extent of the North Fitzroy Heritage Overlay

Precinct (HO327 shaded pink) in the area immediately surrounding the subject sites (shaded blue).



9.0 Heritage Policy

50. The purpose of Clause 43.01, the Heritage 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.

51. Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause

65, the responsible authority must 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. • 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.

52. The City of Yarra's Development Guidelines for Sites Subject to the Heritage Overlay, Clause 22.02, provides guidelines relating to demolition, new development and additions at heritage places. 22.02-4 Objectives To conserve Yarra’s natural and cultural heritage. To conserve the historic fabric and maintain the integrity of places of cultural heritage significance. To retain significant view lines to, and vistas of, heritage places. To preserve the scale and pattern of streetscapes in heritage places. To encourage the preservation, maintenance, restoration and where appropriate, reconstruction of heritage places. To ensure the adaptation of heritage places is consistent with the principles of good conservation practice.



To ensure that additions and new works to a heritage place respect the significance of the place. To encourage the retention of ‘individually significant’ and ‘contributory’ heritage places. To protect archaeological sites of cultural heritage significance. 22.02-5 Policy It is policy to: 22.02-5.1 Demolition Full Demolition or Removal of a Building Generally encourage the retention of a building in a heritage place, unless • The building is identified as being not contributory. • The building is identified as a contributory building, and

o new evidence has become available to demonstrate that the building does not possess the level of heritage significance attributed to it in the incorporated document, City of Yarra Review of Heritage Areas 2007 Appendix 8, revised March 2017 and

o the building does not form part of a group of similar buildings. Note: The poor condition of a heritage place should not, in itself, be a reason for permitting demolition. Encourage the retention of original street furniture and bluestone road or laneway materials and details (where relevant). An application for demolition is to be accompanied by an application for new development. Removal of Part of a Heritage Place or Contributory Elements Encourage the removal of inappropriate alterations, additions and works that detract from the cultural significance of the place. Generally discourage the demolition of part of an individually significant or contributory building or removal of contributory elements unless: • That part of the heritage place has been changed beyond recognition of its original or

subsequent contributory character(s). • For a contributory building:

o that part is not visible from the street frontage (other than a laneway), abutting park or public open space, and the main building form including roof form is maintained; or

o the removal of the part would not adversely affect the contribution of the building to the heritage place.

• For individually significant building or works, it can be demonstrated that the removal of part of the building or works does not negatively affect the significance of the place.

22.02-5.7 New Development, Alterations or Additions 22.02-5.7.1 General Encourage the design of new development and alterations and additions to a heritage place or a contributory element to a heritage place to:

• Respect the pattern, rhythm, orientation to the street, spatial characteristics, fenestration, roof form, materials and heritage character of the surrounding historic streetscape.

• Be articulated and massed to correspond with the prevailing building form of the heritage place or contributory elements to the heritage place.

• Be visually recessive and not dominate the heritage place. • Be distinguishable from the original historic fabric. • Not remove, cover, damage or change original historic fabric. • Not obscure views of principle facades. • Consider the architectural integrity and context of the heritage place or contributory

element. •

Encourage setbacks from the principal street frontage to be similar to those of adjoining contributory buildings; where there are differing adjoining setbacks, the greater setback will apply.



Encourage similar facade heights to the adjoining contributory elements in the street. Where there are differing facade heights, the design should adopt the lesser height. Minimise the visibility of new additions by:

• Locating ground level additions and any higher elements towards the rear of the site. • Encouraging ground level additions to contributory buildings to be sited within the

‘envelope’ created by projected sight lines (see Figure 1) • Encouraging upper level additions to heritage places to be sited within the ‘envelope’

created by projected sight lines (for Contributory buildings refer to Figure 2 and for Individually significant buildings refer to Figure 3).

• Encouraging additions to individually significant places to, as far as possible, be concealed by existing heritage fabric when viewed from the front street and to read as secondary elements when viewed from any other adjoining street.

Discourage elements which detract from the heritage fabric or are not contemporary with the era of the building such as unroofed or open upper level decks or balconies, reflective glass, glass balustrades and pedestrian entrance canopies. […] 22.02-5.7.2 Specific Requirements (where there is a conflict or inconsistency between the general and specific requirements, the specific requirements prevail) Corner Sites and Sites with Dual Frontages Encourage new building and additions on a site with frontages to two streets, being either a corner site or a site with dual street frontages, to respect the built form and character of the heritage place and adjoining or adjacent contributory elements to the heritage place. Encourage new buildings on corner sites to reflect the setbacks of buildings that occupy other corners of the intersection. […] Industrial, Commercial and Retail Heritage Place or Contributory Elements Encourage new upper level additions and works to:

• Respect the scale and form of the existing heritage place or contributory elements to the heritage place by being set back from the lower built form elements. Each higher element should be set further back from lower heritage built forms.

• Incorporate treatments which make them less apparent. […]

53. The main site is subject to a Design Development Overlay (DDO16), which was gazetted as a 2 year interim control on 28 March 2017 as part of Planning Scheme Amendment C229. The site is identified as Precinct 2A in the DDO, for which the following design objectives apply. The design objectives for Precinct 2A: Boulevard Precinct includes:

• To ensure the redevelopment of the land accommodating the former ‘K.G. Luke Pty Ltd Electro Plate Manufacturers’ factory contributes positively to the urban character of Fitzroy North.

• To retain, enhance and incorporate the existing heritage facade into the redevelopment of the site and to create a consistent parapet height along the streetscape.

• To ensure new development does not diminish, or detract from the heritage values of the boulevard streetscape, the heritage street wall and the heritage trees along Queens Parade.

• To moderate the prominence of development above the street wall with respect to mid and long range panoramic and streetscape views and the Yarra skyline from the Edinburgh Gardens (HO213) and Newry Street (HO327- Fitzroy North Precinct).

• To ensure heritage buildings retain their three-dimensional form as viewed from the public realm to avoid ‘facadism’.



• To ensure an appropriate transition in building scale across the site having regard to the existing and preferred built form to the east, north and west.

• To recognise the low scale, fine grain format of existing surrounding development. • To avoid repetitive stepped built form at upper levels of development. • To ensure development appropriately considers the amenity impacts on neighbouring

development and achieves a high standard of internal amenity within the development. • To encourage the development above the street wall to be designed as a series of separate

development parts with building separation to enable views to the sky. • To encourage permeability within and through the site. • To ensure adequate solar access is provided to the Queens Parade boulevard and the

adjoining Napier Street Reserve.

54. The following building heights and setbacks are identified for Precinct 2A. Built Form Mandatory Control Discretionary

Control Built Form Outcome

Building Height

• Maximum 31m (10 storeys).

- Development that: • Respects the scale of existing

heritage buildings, both on and adjoining the site;

• Ensures projections above the street wall are not dominant in the skyline when viewed from Newry Street and the Edinburgh Gardens;

• Ensures adequate solar access is provided to the Queens Parade boulevard and the adjoining Napier Street Reserve at the equinox (09.00-15.00); and

• Maintains the visual dominance of the heritage boulevard trees on Queens Parade over the built form.

Facade Height

• Retain existing heritage facade; or

• Where no heritage facade exists a maximum 10m (3 storeys).

• The street wall of development adjoining the individually significant building should be below the parapet height of the heritage building.

Development that: • Incorporates the existing heritage

street wall into the redevelopment of the site and establishes a consistent street wall height along the streetscape;

• Ensures through a combination of height, massing and materials, the decorative parapet of the individually significant heritage building remains prominent along the street wall;

• Ensures the primacy of the landscape boulevard within the Queens Parade viewshed; and

• Does not detract from the heritage values of the boulevard streetscape, the heritage street wall and the heritage trees along Queens Parade.

Front Setback from boundary of Queens Parade

• 0m up to maximum 10m (3 storeys).

Upper Level Setback from front of building

Above existing heritage facade: • Minimum of

8m setback from 10m (3 storeys) to 16m (5 storeys)

• Minimum of 11m setback from 16m (5 storeys).

Above new street wall (where no existing heritage facade): • Minimum of

5m setback from 10m (3 storeys) to 16m (5 storeys



• Minimum of 8m setback from 16m (5 storeys).

Setback(s) from rear boundaries – North & North West adjacent to NRZ & GRZ

• ResCode Standard B17 measured from the rear boundary of adjoining properties up to 10m (3storeys).

• Setback within a 45 degree angle line measured from 10m (3 storeys) up to 25m (8 storey).

Development that: • Delivers an appropriate transition

in scale of development from the surrounding lower scale heritage residential built form;

• Delivers an appropriate interface arrangement to neighbouring properties and minimises visual bulk and mass when viewed from neighbouring properties;

• Limits amenity impacts of building bulk, overlooking and overshadowing on existing residential properties;

• Avoids repetitive stepped form within the 45 degree profile; and

• Ensures the projections above the street wall are not dominant in the skyline when viewed from Newry Street.

Setback(s) from side boundary – East adjacent to NRZ

• 0m setback to match party wall of existing adjoining development up to 10 metres (3 storeys).

• Setback within a 45 degree angle line measured from 10m (3 storeys) up to 25m (8 storey).

Setback(s) from side boundary – East adjacent to MUZ

• 0m setback to match party wall of existing adjoining development or 10m (3 storeys) where no party wall exists.

• Minimum of 9m setback from the windows/ balconies of adjoining apartments up to 16m (5 storeys).

• Minimum of 15m setback above 16m (5 storeys).

Development that: • Delivers an appropriate interface

arrangement and minimise visual bulk and mass when viewed from neighbouring properties;

• Delivers an appropriate transition in scale of development to the existing apartments on Napier Street; and

• Limits amenity impacts of building bulk, overlooking and overshadowing on existing residential properties.

Setback(s) from side/ rear boundaries – West & North West adjacent to MUZ

• 0m setback to match party wall of existing adjoining development to the west or 10m (3 storeys) where no party wall exists.

• Setback within a 45 degree angle line measured from 10m (3 storeys).

Development that: • Delivers an appropriate interface

arrangement and minimise visual bulk and mass when viewed from neighbouring properties

• Delivers an appropriate transition in scale of development to the existing apartments and the lower scale heritage residential built form in Brunswick Street;

• Avoids repetitive stepped form within the 45 degree profile; and

• Limits amenity impacts of building bulk, overlooking and overshadowing on existing residential properties.



55. This DDO has been noted but has not been central to my analysis as it is not a

heritage policy per se. Nor, I have been instructed, was it prepared with any heritage consultant advice.

10.0 The Proposal

56. As discussed, the subject site comprises two parcels of land, identified as 26-56

Queens Parade, Fitzroy North and rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North.

57. The demolition and proposed new works in the VCAT substituted schemes for each site are described separately as follows. Proposed Demolition

58. It is proposed to partially demolish the ‘individually significant’ former K D Luke Pty Ltd factory. The roof, north west and north east external walls will all be removed, as will all the interior fabric. The later addition to the north east side of the factory will be completely demolished. All the existing vehicle crossovers to Queen Parade will be removed.

59. Retained elements of the factory will comprise the original facade to Queens Parade and the south west boundary wall.

60. Relevant Council policy in relation to the demolition of parts of individually significant places is as follows.

Encourage the removal of inappropriate alterations, additions and works that detract from the cultural significance of the place. Generally discourage the demolition of part of an individually significant or contributory building or removal of contributory elements unless: […] • For individually significant building or works, it can be demonstrated that the removal

of part of the building or works does not negatively affect the significance of the place.

61. The extent of demolition is considered acceptable given it involves parts of the building that do not contribute to the factory’s architectural significance or its streetscape presence. This fabric is generic and utilitarian in character, and has not been identified as key significant fabric. The building’s architectural significance derives from the contribution its Art Deco facade makes to the Queens Parade environs, and this facade will be largely retained and restored. The addition to the north west part of the factory is not an original part of the building or stylistically consistent, particularly at its corner return. Council policy allows for the demolition of such additions. There are no internal controls on the building. The factory complex presents plain, functional elevations to the rear, western property boundary, which is not considered a sensitive heritage environment and does not constitute the building’s primary frontage. Demolition of the western wall adjacent to the laneway to the extent indicated will not adversely affect either the presentation of the building itself to Queens Parade or the character, appearance and significance of the streetscape extending west including 18-24 Queens Parade.



62. It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey factory building at 54 Queens

Parade on the north east portion of the site, which addresses Queens Parade and abuts the adjacent building at 58 Queens Parade. This is acceptable because this building is ungraded, is of no architectural note and is not subject to a Heritage Overlay.

63. The land at rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North is essentially vacant, and further site clearance is not an issue with regard to heritage considerations. Proposed Development – VCAT Substituted Plans – Description

64. It is proposed to construct residential buildings on the larger main site fronting Queen Parade, and the smaller rear site to the west. Main Site (26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North)

65. On the main development site overlooking Queens Parade the proposed scheme will comprise a large multi-storey apartment building extending parallel to each of the shared property boundaries at a setback around a large internal courtyard space, which opens onto Queens Parade mid-way along that frontage.

66. The substituted scheme under consideration incorporates a number of changes in relation to the previous, scheme, notably a reduction in its maximum height from 12 storeys down to 10 storeys, revised and reduced external massing, and revised elevation treatments. The configuration of built form within the site is very different from that previously contemplated.

67. In terms of plan, the development will contain two levels of basement car parking, each extending across almost all of the subject site. The lower level (Basement 2) will contain car parking and some provision for bicycle storage. The upper level (Basement 1) will include car parking, bicycle storage, bin stores and service areas. The ground floor will contain apartments along each side, with a café, restaurant and shop adjacent to the Queens Parade frontage, and communal spaces including a gym, yoga studio, lounges and library inside the site facing onto the central courtyard. The central courtyard space will be landscaped. Each of the upper levels above will contain apartments with balconies or roof terraces.

68. The basement will be entered from Queens Parade via an entry ramp and rebuilt vehicle crossover at the north western end of the site’s primary street frontage. The remainder of the existing vehicle crossovers along Queens Parade will be eliminated.

69. The height of the proposed development envelope will vary across the site, forming a 3-4 storey podium along the edges, with 4 higher ‘tower’ elements of 9 and 10 storeys set back further within the site.

70. Along the Queens Parade boundary, the street frontage will be consistently 3

storeys in scale, including at the interface with the adjacent double storey Victorian buildings to the south, and the contemporary 5 storey apartment development to the north, and also within and immediately behind the retained heritage facade. The higher built form of the tower behind the retained heritage facade is set back at an angle between Levels 3-5, with a minimum setback of 4.3 metres. Levels 6-9 will be setback a minimum of 2.9 metres, but angled in an



opposite direction to the lower levels, creating a stacked effect in terms of massing with the top four floors partially overhanging the lower floors in the south-east corner. Two additional towers are located along the new infill section of the Queens Parade frontage, with three towers thus presenting to this elevation. The central tower along this frontage has varying setbacks with a minimum of 2.7 metres above Level 2, while the northern tower has varying setbacks at a minimum of 1.9 metres. (The adjacent existing apartment building to the north at the corner with Napier Street has no setbacks from Queens Parade).

71. Along the north, east and west property boundaries, the new building volume will vary in height between three and four storeys, with setbacks ranging from approximately 3 to 6 metres (increasing to over 9 metres at the northwest corner). A fourth, 9 storey tower is to be located at a greater setback from the northeast corner, essentially to the north of the central and eastern towers proposed for the southern boundary.

72. The new Queens Parade facade, east of the retained heritage facade, will feature a

3 storey lower podium. This will be divided into regularly spaced bays comprising charcoal coloured face brick clad piers, with a low parapet of the same material. The bays will be largely glazed and feature upper level balconies with timber balustrades. This infill podium will be the same height as the retained factory facade.

73. The levels above will be predominately glazed and light in character, interspersed

with narrow timber louver panels and alternating balconies at each level, the balconies featuring white powder coated planter boxes and clear glass balustrades.

74. The remaining elevations will be given a similar external treatment to the upper levels above the Queen Street podium, with privacy screens to the ground to second floor windows and balconies. Rear Site (rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North)

75. The substituted scheme under consideration for this site incorporates external changes that are minor relative to the scheme under consideration for the March VCAT hearing, with the chief external change being reconfiguration of some of the openings to the east elevation.

76. It is proposed to construct four attached 3 storey townhouses on the smaller rear site to the west of the main development area. These will include principal entries from the laneway to the south east at ground floor level, with narrow fenced terraces/gardens on the north west side. At first floor level, the townhouses will be set back from 2.3 metres to more than 3.6 metres from the north west property boundary to create terraces spaces. The second floor will have greater setbacks on the north west and south sides. The roofs will be flat in profile.

77. The external elevations will be rectilinear and contemporary in character, finished

with white aluminium panels, off white brickwork, glazing and metal privacy screens in comparable neutral palette of tones to the proposed adjacent development on the main site. It is understood the existing bluestone cobblestones to the laneways adjacent to the rear site will be retained and where necessary, reconstructed.



11.0 Discussion

78. The key considerations in assessing the proposed substituted scheme for 26-56

Queens Road are its impact on the significance of the former factory, the adjacent streetscapes and the wider Heritage Overlay area, and the consistency of the design with regard to relevant Council policy and heritage considerations in general.

79. I consider the scheme to be an acceptable outcome with respect to heritage considerations because of the largely non-heritage character of Queens Parade, the considered interface with the neighbouring heritage buildings along Queens Parade, the combined site’s physical and visual separation from other nearby heritage streetscapes, and the overall outcomes associated with the proposal’s carefully considered massing, incorporating varying setbacks and transitions in height. K D Luke Pty Ltd Factory Frontage

80. The original double storey heritage facade of the former K D Luke Pty Ltd factory will be integrated into the new development in a considered manner that upholds the contribution it makes to the Queens Parade streetscape.

81. At ground floor, the existing vehicle entries on the street facade will be eliminated, with small recessed terraces inserted into 4 of the bays and large new window openings in the remainder. The internal planning of the new building envelope behind the facade will allow for the retention of the existing pattern of upper level fenestration, which will retain its existing original metal framed joinery. Recessed balconies will be created behind some of the first floor window openings. At second floor level, the addition will have no setback at the north and south ends of the facade to a width of one bay. The second floor and the storeys above will otherwise be set back behind the parapet line so as to reduce their visibility from the street, placing architectural emphasis on the facade in views from street level. While the tower in the south west corner of the site has a minimum setback of 2.9 metres above the retained at its north eastern corner between Levels 6-9, the greater. setbacks to Levels 3-5 below will provide an appropriate degree of separation, creating a shadowline and providing sufficient horizontal separation.

82. These new upper levels will be of a contrasting light, largely glazed appearance relative to the masonry character of the factory facade. The upper level setbacks will preserve the legibility of the existing serrated Art Deco parapet line. The facade will be enhanced by the proposed restoration works, which include removing paint from originally face brick surfaces.

83. The northern corner to the north side of the facade at the entry to the central

courtyard will feature a brick return wall that matches the heritage facade in materiality. A return wall was originally incorporated at the suggestion of Council, to ‘give the retained building a sense of depth and context’, as was noted at page 31 of the December 2016 Delegate report regarding the proposal. As is noted in the 9 August 2017 Delegate report: The previous design would have incorporated a return segment in the internal wall of the café. While not as long, the return wall would now be external and is a more desirable heritage outcome as this return would now be appreciated. This minor change is supported on this basis.



84. There are many precedents for the incorporation of the facades of industrial and

commercial buildings in new developments of this character within the City of Yarra and elsewhere.

85. Examples include the approved development at 160-164 Argyle Street, Fitzroy

(Figure 25), the residential development to the former boot factory on the corner Gipps and Nicholson Street, Abbotsford (Figure 26) and the approved development at 239-245 Johnston Street, Fitzroy (Figure 27). Such schemes include a broadly comparable degree of facade retention, upper level setbacks and vertical scale to that which is proposed for the subject site.

Figure 25 Approved development at 160-164 Argyle Street, Fitzroy, with an industrial

building partially retained to the front and side boundaries.



Figure 26 Residential development to the former boot factory at the corner of Gipps and

Nicholson Streets, Abbotsford. Again, the built form rises from within the retained shell of the heritage building.

Figure 27 Approved development at 239-245 Johnston Street, Fitzroy. Part of this

development includes the retained and partially restored facade of an industrial building.



Queens Parade Environment

86. On the south side of the site is the interface between the new building volume and the adjacent 2 storey Victorian buildings located within HO327. Along the adjacent southern property boundary and the Queens Parade frontage, the scale of the new building volume will be 3 storeys. This scale, along with the incorporation of the existing 2 storey factory facade into the new building, will tie the development into the existing urban fabric to this streetscape in a reasonable, sensitive and responsive manner.

87. The expression of a 3 storey podium to the new elevation north of the retained heritage facade along Queens Parade will help link the new building to the existing streetscape scale, establishing a sympathetic visual relationship with the lower built form further south and around the intersection with Napier Street. The new facade(s) to the upper levels has been designed to be visually lightweight in contrast to the masonry treatment of the podium. The upper levels will be varied through different arrangements of balconies, windows, and planter boxes, which will create visual interest and provide some articulation to its vertical and horizontal scale. The inclusion of balcony planters will further soften the appearance of the elevation.

88. The adjacent site to the north at 58 Queens Parade, on the corner with Napier Street, contains a contemporary 5 storey development. The new building will be 3 storeys in scale where it abuts this building on Queens Parade, increasing in height further south only with additional setbacks. While this is not a heritage interface, this nevertheless represents a moderated and considered transition in scale.

89. The proposed 9 and 10 storey tower elements on the Queens Parade side of the site are acceptable given these higher levels will be at setbacks from Queens Parade and also given that they are articulated as separate tower envelopes rather than a single monolithic development. Queens Parade is an unusually broad streetscape, with an open reserve on its opposite side. This is not an environment where there is a strong architectural relationship between built form on each side of the street, and as such, this is a place that is more able accommodate development of the scale proposed than may be the case in other environments.

90. The reduction in the number of vehicle crossovers to Queens Parade is a positive feature of the scheme with respect to heritage considerations.

North, East and West Boundary Interfaces

91. 26-56 Queens Parade is adjacent to a combination of laneways and the rear to adjacent properties to the north, east and west. As previously noted, these are not sensitive heritage environments per se, but heritage streetscapes are found further to the north and west.

92. As discussed above, the proposed 3 and 4 storey podium will be set back from the property boundaries along the north, east and west boundaries of the site, with the tower elements at greater setbacks within the site. These perimeter setbacks will moderate any visual impact that might arise from the podium elements elevations and height, the podium itself being much smaller in scale than the peak heights of the new building volume, which are set much further back.



93. Along the long, northwest side of the site, new development will be neighbouring a 6 storey apartment development at 496-498 Brunswick Street. The proposed height of the development thus represents only a modest increase in height from that of neighbouring built form. Further south along this boundary, the development sits adjacent, across a laneway, to the smaller Rear Site (rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North). This site is to receive a 3 storey townhouse development, which relates both to the scale of neighbouring heritage buildings ad to the scale of the proposed podium on the subject site.

94. The nearest heritage streetscape to the west is Brunswick Street. The new development will be located at sufficient distance behind the Brunswick Street streetwall to be largely concealed in views from that environment. To the extent that the upper levels may be visible from the west side of the street and along York Street, they will read as light, visually recessive distant elements relative to the foreground streetscape. There is already substantial contemporary development in this streetscape, with 6 storeys at 496-498 Brunswick Street. The proposed development scheme at 26-56 Queens Parade will be less visible from Brunswick Street.

95. The development will be a maximum of 4 storeys along the northern interface to the laneway behind the properties fronting Coleman Street. (The upper 2 levels will be at considerable setbacks.) This height is comparable to the scale of the existing 3-5 storey contemporary development at a similar distance south of Coleman Street at 497 Napier Street and 58 Queens Parade. The upper levels of the new building volume will read as a relatively distant element at a very considerable setback behind the heritage frontages along the south side of Coleman Street. Some of the buildings within the associated streetscape have received partially visible 2 storey rear additions which will partially screen the proposed development, and it may be anticipated that more such additions will be constructed in the future. The double storey modern townhouse development at the western end of Coleman Street results in that part of the street not being an environment where the potential heritage impacts of the new development are a concern.

96. Considered together, the property boundary setbacks and graduations in vertical height will result in acceptably scaled interfaces with existing adjacent built form to the north and west of the subject site, environments which are not of a high degree of heritage sensitivity.

97. While concern has been expressed by objectors regarding more distant views from

other streets and from the Edinburgh Gardens, it is noted that reduction in height associated with the VCAT substituted plans will reduce the visibility that has been the subject of concern. Moreover, it is not the case that heritage controls specifically protect such distant views. It is often the case that development along major roads or commercial streets adopts a scale and character that is different to what is seen in nearby residential streets and public spaces, and that the taller development seen in such environments is visible above and behind the nearby residential streets.

98. Further to this, the juxtaposition of low scale heritage buildings against taller

modern structures has in recent years become increasingly prevalent along major thoroughfares in in metropolitan Melbourne where high density residential uses



are commonly encouraged by planning policies. This has created a situation whereby tall development can often be found at the edges of heritage precincts where it forms a backdrop to low rise residential streetscapes with a markedly different built character. Inter alia, this has been the case in Smith Street (Fitzroy/Collingwood), Bridge Road (Richmond) and Burwood Road (Hawthorn). At 410-420 Burwood Road an 8 and 9 storey apartment development backs onto a Heritage Overlay precinct characterised by single storey detached housing. In directing that a permit be issued for the Burwood Road development the VCAT recognised that a proposal of this size and scale would not be acceptable further along the neighbouring residential side street as the heritage outcomes would be different because it has a different Heritage Overlay, a residential zoning and is not included in the structure plan area for the Major Activity Centre (VCAT Ref P2117/2012).

99. Relatively distant views to taller built form from neighbouring streets of lower scale is an outcome that has been accepted as inevitable and reasonable in recent times, having regard for broader planning policy that encourages intensive development in certain areas.

100. In summary, the VCAT substituted scheme is appropriate in terms of its potential

impact upon the heritage values of the subject site itself, in terms of its relationship with the adjoining heritage streetscape to Queens Parade, and having regard for its visibility in terms of viewpoints further afield to the north, east and west. It is noted that Council’s heritage advisor, in advice dated 3 August 2017, was supportive of the VCAT substituted scheme subject to several points of clarification. Similarly, the relevant Delegate report recommended that Council inform VCAT that had it been in a position (to make a determination), it would have issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. Rear Site (rear, 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North)

101. With respect to the smaller separate island site to the west, the heritage impacts are minimal given the adjacent sites are primarily the rear laneway frontages to long narrow allotments facing Brunswick Street to the west or the main Queens Parade development site itself to the east.

102. The proposed scale of 3 storeys will place the height of the development within the range of building scales already seen in the neighbourhood and within HO327, including the 2 storey Victorian shops and terraces along Brunswick Street and other neighbouring contemporary developments. The townhouses would appear to have limited or no visibility from Brunswick Street due to their very considerable setback and the screening effect of the existing street front built form.

103. Accepting this, the proposal’s design characteristics are less critical in terms of materiality and design detail, and the proposal can be considered to be neutral with regard to heritage impacts within nearby valued streetscapes.

104. It is noted that Council’s heritage advisor was supportive of the proposed development in this location, as proposed to the March VCAT hearing, concluding that it would not detract from the heritage character of the area or unreasonably impact upon the heritage significance of the North Fitzroy Precinct.



105. The 9 August 2017 Delegate report in relation to the VCAT substituted plans concluded that had it been in a position to do so, it would have issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit with conditions. The substituted scheme was not referred to the heritage advisor on the basis that the proposal had not changed.

12.0 Conclusion

106. Having regard for all the above, the two VCAT substituted proposals under

consideration have been prepared with appropriate regard for the objectives and design guidelines of the Heritage Overlay of the planning scheme as set out in Clause 43.01, and the associated design guidelines provided within Clause 22.02, and are acceptable without further modification or amendment.

B R Y C E R A W O R T H P T Y L T D C O N S E R V A T I O N • U R B A N D E S I G N C O N S E R V A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S A R C H I T E C T U R A L H I S T O R I A N S __________________________________________________ B R Y C E R A W O R T H M . A R C H . , B . A . ( H O N S ) , I C C R O M ( A R C H ) Bryce Raworth has worked with issues relating to heritage and conservation since the mid-1980s, and has specialised in this area since establishing his own consultant practice in 1991. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, Conservation•Urban Design, provides a range of heritage services, including the assessment of the significance of particular sites, preparation of conservation analyses and management plans, design and/or restoration advice for interventions into significant buildings, and detailed advice regarding the resolution of technical problems relating to deteriorating or damaged building fabric. Since 2004 Raworth has been a member of the Official Establishments Trust, which advises on the conservation and improvement of Admiralty House and Kirribilli House in Sydney and Government House and The Lodge in Canberra. As a member of the former Historic Buildings Council in Victoria, sitting on the Council's permit, planning and community relations committees, Raworth has been involved with the registration and permit processes for many registered historic buildings. In 1996 he was appointed an alternate member of the new Heritage Council, the successor the Historic Buildings Council, and in 1998 was made a full member. At present he provides regular advice to architects and private owners on technical, architectural and planning issues relative to the conservation and adaptation of historic buildings, and is occasionally called upon to provide expert advice before the VCAT. He is currently the conservation consultant for the cities of Kingston and Stonnington.

With respect to historic precincts, the company has provided detailed advice towards the resolution of heritage issues along the Upfield railway line. The company is currently contributing to redevelopment plans for the former Coburg Prisons Complex (comprising Pentridge Prison and the Metropolitan Prison) and the former Albion Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong. In 1993 Bryce Raworth led a consultant team which reviewed the City of Melbourne's conservation data and controls for the CBD, and in 1997 Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd revised the former City of South Melbourne Conservation Study with respect to the area within the present City of Melbourne. The firm is currently completing documentation for significant heritage places and areas in the City of Stonnington. In recent years Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd has also provided documentation and advice during construction on the restoration of a number of key registered and Heritage Overlay buildings, including the Ebenezer Mission church and outbuildings, Antwerp; the former MMTB Building, Bourke Street West, Melbourne; the former Martin & Pleasance Building, 178 Collins Street, Melbourne; the former Uniting Church, Howe Crescent, South Melbourne; Heide I & II, Heide Museum of Modern Art, Bulleen; Melbourne Grammar School, South Yarra; various guard towers and other buildings, Pentridge Prison, Coburg; and Coriyule Homestead, Curlewis.

BRYCE RAWORTH Professional Status: Conservation Consultant and Architectural Historian Current Positions: Conservation consultant to the cities of Kingston, Frankston and

Stonnington Organisation Membership: Australian Institute of Architects Professional Experience: independent practice as conservation consultant and architectural

historian from January 1991 (ongoing). Services include: identification and assessment of the significance of sites and complexes; preparation of guidelines regarding the safeguarding of significant sites; provision of technical, design and planning advice to architects, owners and government on issues relating to the conservation of sites of cultural significance; expert witness advice on conservation issues before the VCAT

member, Historic Buildings Council (architectural historian's chair)

1993-1996; member, Heritage Council (architect’s chair) 1998-2002 conservation consultant to the cities of Brighton, Northcote and

Sandringham (1989 only), Essendon, Hawthorn and Kew (1989-1994), Melbourne (1992-2009) and Prahran (1992-1994)

established the Metropolitan Heritage Advisory Service on behalf of the

Ministry for Planning & Environment - this service was offered to the cities of Brighton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Kew, Northcote and Sandringham in 1989-90

Studies: Certificate of Architectural Conservation, ICCROM (International

Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property at Rome), 1994

Master of Architecture by thesis, University of Melbourne, 1993 (thesis:

A Question of Style: Domestic Architecture in Melbourne, 1919-1942) B. Architecture (First Class Honours), University of Melbourne, 1986 B. Arts (Second Class Honours, Division A), University of Melbourne,

1986 Committee Membership: Twentieth Century Buildings Committee, National Trust of Australia

(Victoria), 1990-1994 (Chairman 1992-1993) RAIA Jury, Conservation Category, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2001 Awards (Chairman 1996 & 1998) Awarded: Henry and Rachel Ackman Travelling Scholarship in Architecture, 1987-

88 JG Knight Award, conservation of Heide 1, Royal Australian Institute of

Architects, Victorian Chapter, 2003 Lachlan Macquarie Award for heritage (commendation), conservation of

Heide 1, Royal Australian Institute of Architects National Award program, 2003

Award for Heritage Architecture, conservation of Coriyule Homestead, Australian Institute of Architects, Victorian Chapter, 2015 National Award for Heritage, conservation of Coriyule Homestead, Australian Institute of Architects, 2015

proposed redevelopment at 26-56 queens parade fitzroy ... · proposed redevelopment at 26-56 queens...

Documents